On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 I was reading an article by Patrick Buchanan on page 7 in the Tampa Tribune entitled “Netanyahu vs. Obama: A Fight to the Finish.” I was intrigued by the article for a couple of reasons, not the least of which was that it seemed as if Mr. Buchanan was taking himself out of the box into which I had placed him based on my perception of his political views. To wit, he seemed in this article to be supporting the deal, which John Kerry and several allies have brokered with the government of Iran. When I checked further on Buchanan.org I found the following written by Mr. Buchanan.
“Our principal enemies are now al-Qaida and ISIS. And while both have been aided by our old allies, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, both are being resisted by Iran.
But, we are reminded; Iran’s regime is founded upon ideological hatred of America. But, so, too, were Mao’s China and Stalin’s USSR. Yet Nixon forged a detente with Mao and FDR partnered with Stalin. And Ronald Reagan negotiated a strategic arms deal with the “evil empire” of his time.”
Although I disagree with Mr. Buchanan’s attitude toward Israel and in particular Mr. Netanyahu, I do find myself agreeing that it is important to support President Obama and our allies in approving the agreement reach with Iran. Once again, I have to admit that my own self-righteousness has led to my misjudging someone.
I can do nothing but look up more information on Mr. Buchanan. I found that politically he is identified as one of the chief paleoconservatives or Paleocons. Paleconservatives? Where did this term come from? I have obviously not paid close attention since apparently this is not a new term. What do paleoconservatives believe? On the website,usconservatives.about.com I found the following:
Paleocons do not subscribe to any one particular party line, though they do align with the majority of conservatives in that they adopt traditional values, and most often oppose abortion, gay marriage, and gun control.
Paleocons support capital punishment and a close reading of the U.S. Constitution.
Kirk is one of the heroes of the conservative movement. He is credited with establishing the 10 core principles of the paleoconservative movement in 1993:
1. The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
2. The conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
3. Conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
4. Conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
5. Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
6. Conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
7. Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
8. Conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite (sic) as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
9. The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
10. The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.
Oh dear. I could spend days thinking about, analyzing, and attempting to clarify each of these principles. On the surface, some of them seem consistent with what I believe. Others are more confusing to me. I also, as any of my regular readers, will know, am in favor of a woman’s right to choose, same sex marriages, and gun control.
On the other hand, I agree that we must continue to pursue a diplomatic agreement with Iran – a way to live in the world with them without pursuing a policy, which could eventually result in a nuclear war. I also agree that the United States should not allow Mr. Netanyahu or the Israeli Ambassador, Ron Dermer, to dictate our response to the agreement with Iran.
Mr. Buchanan says “The president should declare Dermer persona non grata and send him packing, then tell the Israeli government we will discuss a new arms package when you have a prime minister who understands that no nation interferes in the internal affairs of the United States. None….. Deal or no deal it is time America started acting like America again.”
The problem I am having with this response is that while telling another nation that they cannot dictate our policies, he seems to be basically advocating telling them that we have a right to dictate their policy.
It seems to me that arrogance and self-righteousness are perceived characteristics of the United States, which makes us so disliked and disrespected by many in other parts of the world. We are often perceived as a bully. The proposed Iran deal is an attempt to change that policy or could be a step in changing that policy.
I have no idea how I would feel or what I might believe if I were Jewish and had been in the death camps or had relatives in the death camps. The Jewish people have survived a long history of being treated less than human and attempts to make them extinct. When another country such as Iran has a leader who threatens them, I can understand their reluctance to offer an olive branch. Yet, at the same time, many in the Jewish state, including five of the past chiefs of the Intelligence branch of the government of Israel have admitted that violence leads to more violence leads to – that once the first shot has been fired in a conflict the goal becomes punishment and not justice. Regardless of how we feel about statements by leaders of such countries as Iran, bullying has not worked. Whether it is economic bullying, weapons bullying, or other forms of bullying, we humans do not respond well to such behavior.
We cannot bully Israel or buy them off with aid. We have, as a country, used “our” money and resources such as weapons in an attempt to impose our will on other nations for a very long time. The world is not safer, more just, or more excited about doing a slow, romantic waltz with the United States. We might get a polite bow but that is far from an embrace.
Just as I need to quit pigeon holing individuals such as Mr. Buchanan and just as I need to approach him with true respect, we, as a nation need to begin to approach the leaders of other nations with respect.
It is easy for me from my very safe and comfortable home to throw stones at Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Netanyahu, or others with whom I may disagree at times. It is much more difficult for me to take a deep breath and listen. For me, listening means putting myself, as well as I can, in the shoes of others – to walk their historic walk. Then, and only then, might I begin to earn the right to even have an opinion on the issues about which they are concerned.
RSS Feed