The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics Filter?
2016 Election 2020 Election American Media American Military Bernie Sanders Black Lives Matter Blacks Catholic Church China Christianity Coronavirus Deep State Democratic Party Donald Trump Economics European Right Ferguson Shooting Foreign Policy Free Trade Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration Iran Iraq ISIS Islam Israel Joe Biden Middle East Nationalism Neocons North Korea Obamacare Political Correctness Race/Ethnicity Republican Party Republicans Russia Russiagate Saudi Arabia South China Sea Supreme Court Syria Terrorism Ukraine 2014 Election 2018 Election Abortion Academia Affirmative Action Afghanistan Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Alt Right American Left Andrew Jackson Antifa Antiracism Arab Christianity Asian Quotas Assassinations Barack Obama Belarus Bernies Sanders Birth Rate Black Crime Boris Johnson Bowe Bergdahl Brexit Britain Brown Decision Capitalism Catholicism Censorship Charlie Hebdo Charlottesville China/America Chuck Hagel CIA Civil Rights Cold War Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Congress Conservative Movement Constitution Constitutional Theory Crime Cuba Dallas Shooting Dalton Trumbo Davos Democracy Democrats Demography Dianne Feinstein Disease Diversity Drug Cartels Duterte Ebola Education Elizabeth Warren Emmanuel Macron Eric Cantor EU Eurasia Europe European Union Eurozone Fake News FBI Financial Bailout Flight From White Floyd Riots 2020 Football France Freddie Gray Free Speech Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians George Bush Georgia Germany Global Warming Globalism Government Debt Government Shutdown Government Spending Government Surveillance Greece Gun Control Guns Harriet Tubman Henry Kissinger Hollywood Homosexuality Hong Kong Human Rights Hurricane Harvey Illegal Immigration Impeachment India Inequality Iran Nuclear Agreement Iraq War Isolationism Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine James Mattis Japan John Bolton John Brennan John F. Kennedy John McCain John McLaughlin Judicial System Kamala Harris Kurds Las Vegas Massacre Liberalism Libya Marco Rubio Martin Luther King Mass Shootings Meritocracy Mexico Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Mike Pompeo Mitt Romney Mohammed Bin Salman Multiculturalism Muslim Ban Nancy Pelosi NATO New Cold War New Zealand Shooting ngos Obama Oil Orlando Shooting Paleocons Paris Attacks Paul Ryan Pedophilia Pete Buttgieg Philippines Police Pope Francis Population Replacement Putin Qassem Soleimani Race/Crime Race Riots Racism Ralph Nader Richard Nixon Riots Robert Mueller Ronald Reagan Roy Moore Russia-Georgia War Saakashvili Scotland Secession Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Slavery Slavery Reparations Socialism South Africa South Korea Soviet Union Standardized Tests Taiwan Tax Cuts Taxes Tea Party Ted Cruz The Confederacy The South Tulsi Gabbard Turkey Turks Uighurs UKIP Unemployment US Foreign Policy Uyghurs Venezuela Veterans Administration Vietnam War Vladimir Putin Vote Fraud Voting Rights Washington DC Watergate White Death Wikileaks Winston Churchill Woodrow Wilson World War I World War II Yemen
Nothing found
Sources Filter?
vdare wall-street-journal
Nothing found
 TeasersPat Buchanan Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter

“I don’t know if he’ll run in 2024 or not. But if he does, I’m pretty sure he will win the nomination.”

So says Mitt Romney, the sole Republican senator to have voted twice to convict President Donald J. Trump of impeachable acts.

But is it possible Trump could win the nomination in 2024?

What does history teach us about Republican presidents who, after losing the White House, come back to win it again?

Well, to be frank, there is no such history.

Consider. Four Republican presidents in the 20th century were defeated while seeking a second term. None was nominated again.

William Howard Taft lost the White House to Woodrow Wilson in 1912, and even ran behind the third-party “Bull Moose” candidate, ex-President Theodore Roosevelt. Taft never ran again but went on to serve as chief justice of the United States.

Ex-President Teddy Roosevelt was considering running again in 1920 but died at 60 in January of 1919 at Sagamore Hill.

After President Herbert Hoover lost to FDR in 1932, he never ran again.

Gerald Ford, serving out Nixon’s second term, lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976 and packed it in for good, as did President Carter after losing to Ronald Regan in 1980.

George H. W. Bush lost the White House in 1992 and retired from electoral politics, never to run again.

As for Trump running in 2024 and winning the GOP nomination, he does hold high cards no other ex-president held, except perhaps Roosevelt.

Trump has a vast and loyal following. Currently three-fourths of all Republicans see him as their leader. He won 74 million votes, the highest total ever for a sitting president or a losing presidential candidate.

Their loyalty is traceable to what Trump achieved, whom and how he fought, and the new issues he introduced and has become indelibly associated. Foremost among these is his struggle to secure the Southern border against endless illegal migrant crossings.

Unrestricted immigration from the South, the Third Worldization of America, is the true existential threat “climate change” purports to be.

Trump also succeeded in enacting the traditional GOP platform of low taxes and deregulation, producing record-low unemployment — before the pandemic hit in March 2020.

His record of elevating strict constructionists, constitutionalists and conservatives to the federal courts, and three Supreme Court seats, is unrivaled in the history of the modern Republican Party.

Trump also forged a bond with Middle America by taking on a media whose treatment of him was remorselessly hateful and hostile. “We love him for the enemies he has made,” it was said of Grover Cleveland.

He brought a new and unique agenda to the GOP.

He replaced a free trade globalist ideology with nationalism. He set out to rebuild America’s depleted manufacturing base and restore her economic independence. Under Trump, the slogan “America First” came to represent a new foreign policy where rich and prosperous allies carried more of the burden of their own and the common defense.

He wanted Americans to do their nation-building here in the USA.

While Beltway Russophobes prevented Trump from achieving the rapprochement he wanted, and he failed to extricate us from the forever wars of the Middle East, he did drawdown U.S. forces in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and keep us out of an all-out war with Iran.

There is thus a specific Trumpian agenda, with which he is alone associated, that is becoming the issues agenda of the conservative movement and the party base, if not the party elites.

Yet, the drawbacks to a Trump nomination remain major.

He did, after all, lose in 2020. And he has been damaged by the months-long battle since to prove that Biden was the beneficiary of a stolen election. The Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol by MAGA militants was blamed on Trump and became the article of his second impeachment where every Democratic senator and six Republicans voted to convict him. And even some of those who voted to acquit, like Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, declared him guilty of inciting the mob.

Moreover, Trump faces a blizzard of legal challenges and charges that will damage his reputation, his businesses and him, personally.

In 2024, Trump will turn 78, the age Joe Biden is today. And between now and 2024, there is sure to be considerable attrition in support among the 74 million who voted for Trump.

But if Romney is right and Trump has the kind of strength that could make him the nominee in 2024, that strength will surely be sufficient to veto or sink any potential nominee who does not have the former president’s blessing.

And, from seeing both candidates of 2020 up close in recent weeks and months, does not Trump appear more likely to be the Republican leader of his party than does slow-moving “Sleepy Joe” look like the Democratic nominee 44 months from now?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2020 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2020 Election, Donald Trump, Republican Party 

“What is America’s mission?” is a question that has been debated since George Washington’s Farewell Address in 1797.

At last week’s Munich Security Conference, President Joe Biden laid out his vision as to what is America’s mission. And the contrast with the mission enunciated by George W. Bush in his second inaugural could not have been more defining or dramatic.

Here is Bush, Jan. 20, 2005:

“From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth…

“Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation… Now it is… the calling of our time.”

“So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

America’s mission is “ending tyranny in our world,” said Bush.

Biden’s declared mission is far less ambitious.

“We are in the midst of a fundamental debate about the future and direction of our world. We’re at an inflection point between those who argue that… autocracy is the best way forward… and those who understand that democracy is essential.”

“Historians are going to… write about this moment as an inflection point… And I believe that — every ounce of my being — that democracy will and must prevail. We must demonstrate that democracies can still deliver for our people in this changed world.

“That, in my view, is our galvanizing mission.

“Democracy doesn’t happen by accident. We have to defend it, fight for it, strengthen it, renew it. We have to prove that our model isn’t a relic of our history.”

So, we have to “demonstrate that democracies can still deliver for our people,” and prove that our democracy is not “a relic”? Nothing here about the worldwide triumph of freedom or “ending tyranny in our world.”

Intending no disrespect, this is scarcely “galvanizing,” like, say, JFK’s inaugural:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

“This much we pledge — and more.”

In his Munich speech, Biden reassured Moscow and Beijing that the last thing we want is a new Cold War like the one that ended in America’s victory over communism, the Soviet Empire and the USSR.

Said Biden: Our mission is “not about pitting East against West. It’s not about we want a conflict. We want a future where all nations are able to freely determine their own path without a threat of violence or coercion. We cannot and must not return to the… rigid blocs of the Cold War. Competition must not lock out cooperation on issues that affect us all.”

Biden seems to be calling for “peaceful existence” between the democracies and the autocrats, and detente with both a Russia ruled by Vladimir Putin and a China ruled by Communist Party chair Xi Jinping.

Truth be told, Biden’s words are more in tune with the country today than are JFK’s (which led straight to Vietnam), or Bush 43’s neocon reveries, which vanished in the sands of Iraq.

Biden’s remarks also reveal the dichotomy that exists between what is on the minds of his countrymen, and what is on the minds of so many among our foreign policy elites.

Our Beltway elites want to “stand up” to Putin for Crimea and for prosecuting dissident Alexei Navalny. They want to stand up to autocrat Alexander Lukashenko for his fraudulent reelection. They want to stand up to China for its crackdown on Hong Kong and barbarous treatment of the Uighurs.

They want the U.S. to lead a global campaign to force the Burmese generals to surrender power, which they just seized from the civilian leadership.

What are the American people, most of whom could probably not find Belarus or Burma on a map, most concerned about?

The half a million Americans dead in the COVID-19 pandemic. That so many of the schools have failed to reopen and the kids are locked up at home. They know about the economic consequences of sheltering in place. They know about delays in the distribution of vaccines.

They remember the long hot summer of riot and race hatred that followed the death of George Floyd. Everyone has an opinion on Donald Trump’s challenge of the election results, and the mob invasion of the Capitol is burned into the national consciousness.

They are aware of the crisis on the Southern border now that Biden has put out the welcome mat. And everyone knows about the loss of heat, light, power and water in Texas from the worst winter storm in decades.

About new crusades for democracy, Americans don’t care much.

They do care, deeply, about what is happening to their own country.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2021 Creators.com.

 

Is President Joe Biden prepared to preside over the worst U.S. strategic defeat since the fall of Saigon in 1975?

For that may be what’s at stake if Biden follows through on the 2020 peace deal with the Taliban to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by May 1 — just two months from now.

Consider. If the 2,500 American troops remaining in Afghanistan are pulled out, the entire 10,000-troop NATO contingent departs.

This would write an end to the Western military commitment.

And the likelihood the Kabul government could then survive the constant and increasing attacks from the Taliban, as the latter now control half of the country and many roads leading to the capital, is slim.

After all, an Afghan army that could not defeat the Taliban a decade ago, when 100,000 U.S. troops were fighting alongside it, is not going to rout the Taliban after the Americans have gone home.

In short, if Biden does not breach the terms of the deal the Taliban and U.S. signed last year and keep our troops there, he would be inviting a repeat of Saigon ’75, with all that would mean for the Afghans who cast their lot with us.

Biden knows what Saigon ’75 was like. In his first Senate term, Hanoi overran South Vietnam and Saigon, and the boat people began to flee in the thousands for their lives into the South China Sea; the Khmer Rouge overran Phnom Penh.

And the Cambodian genocide began.

In Brussels, Wednesday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that any NATO departure from Afghanistan is “conditions based.”

What are Stoltenberg’s stated conditions?

The Taliban “has to reduce violence … negotiate in good faith and … stop supporting international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.”

Yet, the May deadline looms, and if the U.S. does not meet it, Taliban attacks on American troops in Afghanistan could start again, forcing Biden to send more troops back into the country to protect the U.S. logistics and training personnel still there.

What makes this problematic is that Biden has long been known as a supporter of a smaller U.S. footprint and a swifter U.S. pullout than were other advisers in the Obama administration.

But if we fail to meet the May deadline, what new deadline would Biden set? And what guarantee is there that we can ever, after withdrawing, avoid an outcome like South Vietnam — with the enemy overrunning the capital after the Americans have left?

If no president — Bush II, Obama, Trump, Biden — is willing to risk a strategic defeat on his watch, then when can we ever end our involvement in this longest of the long wars? If Biden cannot get our troops out of Afghanistan, when, ever, do we get our troops out of Syria and Iraq?

Given what is being said today in Washington, and in Brussels by NATO defense ministers meeting there, Biden will likely decide to follow in his predecessors’ footsteps. He will extend the May deadline for months, kick the can up the road, and leave in place enough troops to prevent a collapse of the Kabul government but not enough to reverse the inevitable outcome of this war.

Just as the Taliban are likely to achieve their goal in Afghanistan, as they persist and we withdraw, Bashar Assad appears to have prevailed in his civil war in Syria, and the Houthis have, after six years of fighting, held off the Saudi interventionists and their U.S. allies in Yemen.

A Biden decision to suspend a final pullout of U.S. forces will be well received by our foreign policy elites. But the anti-interventionist wings of the two parties are growing in strength. And “America First” retrenchment, which Donald Trump championed in 2016, but could not deliver as president, is going to be represented in both parties’ presidential primaries in 2023 and 2024.

America today is taking on more of a load than this nation can carry.

We are out to contain mighty China, a peer competitor with four times our population, across the Indo-Pacific theater, including the East China and South China seas and Taiwan Strait.

We are containing Vladimir Putin’s Russia, whose strategic arsenal is comparable to our own in Central and Eastern Europe. We are fighting a war on terror in the Middle East, supporting Sunnis against Shiites, and containing Iran in the Persian Gulf.

Our national debt is larger than our national economy. We are running deficits unseen since the late days of World War II. Our economy has sustained crippling blows from a year-long COVID-19 pandemic that has taken the lives of half a million Americans.

A migrant invasion appears to be shaping up on our 2,000-mile Southern border. Our country is as divided as it has been since the Civil War. And we seek to remain the nation that writes the rules for the world order in the 21st century.
Something’s gotta give.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2021 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Afghanistan, American Military, Joe Biden 

“Our historic, patriotic and beautiful movement to Make America Great Again has only just begun.” So said Citizen Trump Saturday on his acquittal by the Senate of the impeachment article of “incitement of insurrection” in the Jan 6 invasion of the Capitol.

“I look forward to continuing our incredible journey together to achieve American greatness for all our people,” said Trump. “We have so much work ahead of us, and soon we will emerge with a vision for a bright, radiant and limitless American future.”

Translation: Donald Trump is not going anywhere soon.

The new Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, has another view.

While he had voted to acquit Trump because he saw the Senate as acting outside the Constitution in prosecuting a former president, now a private citizen, he was unequivocal about the validity of the charge.

Trump is guilty, said McConnell: “There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of (Jan. 6).”

“The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth.”

Nor had then-President Trump done his duty to stop the rioting by his followers: “He did not do his job. He did not take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored.”

McConnell was saying that Trump not only was guilty of the charge of incitement but also has disqualified himself as leader of the Republican Party, and the party should wash its hands of the former president.

If it’s Trump’s Party now, McConnell was saying, he is seceding.

Nikki Haley, whom Trump honored by naming her U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in an interview published Friday, told Politico that Trump, “let us down. … We shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”

Haley, too, has belatedly washed her hands of her benefactor.

But Sen. Lindsey Graham called McConnell’s remark a burden for the party to bear in 2022 and Trump the still-indispensable leader:

“We need to unite the party. Trump-plus is the way back in 2022. … We can’t do that without Donald Trump.”

Who is the future party leader? Who comes after Trump?

The succession struggle in the GOP is now underway. But as for now, Donald Trump is The Man, and he is not going anywhere.

As former president and most recent nominee, he is the party’s titular leader. He won the largest total of popular votes in party history, 74 million. He intends to raise millions and campaign in 2022 in states where he is wanted — and in states where he may not be wanted.

And he will likely set the issues agenda, as a media obsessed with Trump will elevate everything he says, if only to denounce it.

Yet, Trump’s immediate future is likely to see a blizzard of subpoenas from litigants and prosecutors that will take a toll of his time and resources.

Still, even if Trump cannot unite the Republican Party, he brings, far and away, the largest pile of chips to the table.

That House Republicans voted 19-1 against impeachment and Senate Republicans voted 6-1 against conviction testifies to the breadth and depth of his support. As for the Never-Trumpers, John Weaver seems to have done for the Lincoln Project what John Wilkes Booth did for Ford’s Theater.

What can reunite a party as divided as it hasn’t been since the Barry Goldwater-Nelson Rockefeller battle of 1964?

The Democrats can; the left can; the establishment can; the media can; the cancel-cultural elite can — all of whom are disliked or detested by Republicans. Its enemies can reunite the Republican Party.

The Biden crowd has already killed the Keystone XL pipeline and put federal lands off-limits to future drilling, imperiling the energy independence the GOP had achieved under Trump.

The open-borders crowd, which seeks to swamp Middle America with millions of new migrants, is seeking to emasculate U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, end deportations and tear down the Trump wall.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California is in danger of being recalled and fired, and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York may be charged with misleading federal authorities about how many New Yorkers died in nursing homes because he assigned COVID-19 positive patients into rooms alongside them.

While the invasion of the Capitol was the most publicized act of mob violence in decades, it was not the most violent, nor is it the norm.

When antifa, Black Lives Matter and leftist allies smashed statues, looted and torched inner cities and attacked cops in 2020, that was the norm. And the street criminals who compiled those new records of shootings and killings last year in almost all of our cities, they were not Oath Keepers or Proud Boys.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2021 Creators.com.

 

It has been a dreadful three months for the Grand Old Party.

On Nov. 3, President Donald Trump seemed to have lost the White House by narrowly losing three crucial blue states he had won in 2016 — Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — and Georgia and Arizona as well.

Trump immediately mounted an acrimonious two-month campaign to prove the election had been “rigged” and “stolen,” enlisting virtually the entire party behind his claim.

On Jan. 5, after an intra-party battle between Trump and the Georgia Republican leadership, the GOP lost both of Georgia’s Senate seats and control of the U.S. Senate.

On Jan. 6, a mob, after storming the Capitol to block a formal vote to confirm the election of Joe Biden as president, rampaged through the building for hours.

On Jan. 13, Trump was impeached by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House for “incitation of insurrection.”

The trial began Tuesday, featuring endless reruns of footage from the Jan. 6 occupation, showing thugs invading and trashing the Capitol and searching out Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence.

Trump’s defense: He directed the crowd on the mall to march to the Capitol “peacefully” not violently, and the White House was unaware there might be a mob assault.

In the month since the attack on the Capitol, says The New York Times, 140,000 Republicans in 25 states have renounced their party by changing their registration. And Joe Biden’s approval rating has been in the 50s, a level Trump did not reach in four years.

There may have been a worse 90 days in Republican Party history, but it is difficult to recall exactly when.

There was the Goldwater defeat of 1964, which left the party with less than 40% of the presidential vote and less than a third of the seats in the House and Senate.

There was the Watergate year 1974, which saw Richard Nixon resign in August and the party lose 49 House seats that fall and then lose the presidency to Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Yet, the years following these political disasters were not all that bad.

Goldwater’s defeat was followed by the Nixon-led comeback in 1966, with the party picking up 47 seats and then recapturing the White House in 1968. And while Watergate was followed by the loss of Nixon’s successor Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter’s presidency opened the door to the winningest Republican of them all, Ronald Reagan.

In short, it is not always true as Sen. John McCain mordantly observed, that the darkest hour is often just before it turns totally black.

What are the prerequisites for a Republican restoration?

As Nixon’s victory in 1968 and Reagan’s in 1980 showed, a party comeback requires, first, the perceived failure of the opposition on issues of major concern to the great majority.

In 1968, LBJ’s Great Society program had ushered in five summers of race riots, soaring crime rates, a social and cultural revolution on the campuses, and a war in Southeast Asia that was consuming 200 to 300 American lives a week.

Under Carter in 1980, there were 21% interest rates, 13% inflation, 7% unemployment and 52 U.S. hostages being held in Iran.

A second and indispensable element of a party comeback is party unity, which Nixon and Reagan produced, as Eisenhower had before them.

Whether the GOP will be united in 2022 or 2024 depends, very much today, on one man.

Still, as of today, though Biden appears personally popular, he seems to be moving leftward in a way that will play into the GOP’s hands on several issues.

Shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline, for example, is a policy decision that will kill thousands of jobs to prevent an “existential crisis” millions of workers do not see.

Second, Biden has moved the racial goalposts from equality of opportunity to “equity” for all, which can only be attained by socialist action to even out incomes and wealth through quotas, affirmative action and set-asides. Yet, voters in ultra-liberal California last fall crushed Prop 16, which would have empowered public agencies, universities and colleges to consider race, gender and ethnicity when making decisions on contracting, hiring and student admissions.

Moreover, the liberal immigration policy Biden promised last fall has already caused a stampede to our Southern border. Some 78,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended by the Border Patrol crossing in January alone. They are now being caught at the rate of 3,000 a day.

Securing the border is a populist and national security issue.

Other Trump add-ons to the traditional GOP agenda remain popular with large majorities of Americans.

Consider the “America first” issues of economic nationalism, the return of manufacturing to the United States, and keeping U.S. troops out of foreign wars where no vital U.S. interests are imperiled.

The questions of the hour are these: Will the GOP be united against an incumbent party that is moving visibly leftward and dragging the country with it — and what will Donald Trump do?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2021 Creators.com.

 

To Parliament, in the London of George III, the Boston Massacre of 1770 and the Tea Party of 1773 were not seen in the same light as they were by the Sons of Liberty in the Massachusetts colony.

To Parliament, this was mob violence, and the shooting and killing at Lexington and Concord were acts of insurrection and treason.

But because we won the Revolution, those events are portrayed and remembered differently. For when it comes to riots and revolutions, all depends on who writes the narrative of history. It is the winners.

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,” said George Orwell in his novel “1984.”

To the media, the long hot summer of rioting, looting and arson that followed the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis was driven by “racial justice” protests against a “systemic racism” that permeates society.

The rioters were calling attention to injustices we Americans have failed to address, like police brutality. And almost all of these “peaceful protesters” were calling us to be a better people.

And did not the riots produce beneficial results?

Joe Biden and his party have responded by setting as a goal the replacement of “equality of rights” with “equity,” an equality of results, where gaps in test scores, incarcerations, incomes and wealth between white and black are to be closed by government action.

However, as for the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6 by Trumpists, to protest and perhaps change the outcome of the election, that was an act of insurrection, a treasonous attempt to overturn a democratic election and overthrow a democratic government.

Of all the riots in 2020 and 2021, that was the unforgivable one.

The proper response to that riot is not to heed its angry voices but to impeach the president on whose behalf they acted, to strip him of any right to serve again in public office, and to write new laws to deal with the horrific “domestic terrorism” we witnessed at the Capitol.

About the morality and justice of the rampage of rioting in the wake of Floyd’s death, and the sole riot at the Capitol, the media are the self-anointed judges. They decide which riots are benign and which are malignant, which should receive an empathetic response, and which should end with every participant in prison.

Western democracies almost always grant favorable publicity and moral support to popular uprisings against autocratic regimes.

The Hong Kong protests were cheered on by the West until there arose a fear in China they were getting out of hand. Beijing then stepped in, ordered the protests halted and imposed law and order.

In Russia, there have been protests in many cities over the recent jailing of dissident Alexei Navalny. But winter weather and thousands of police arrests have cooled the protests, and Vladimir Putin booted out of the country three EU diplomats from Poland, Germany and Sweden who attended the pro-Navalny demonstrations.

When it comes to illegal and disorderly protests, Xi Jinping and Putin take them seriously and play hardball. They see mass protests and riots as Western-inspired, if not Western-planned, and deal with them as subversive activities.

“The messages sent by Russian authorities during this visit confirmed that Europe and Russia are drifting apart,” EU minister Joseph Borrell blogged on his return from Moscow to Brussels. “It seems that Russia is progressively disconnecting itself from Europe and looking at democratic values as an existential threat.”

In Turkey, demonstrations by staff and students erupted in January over the installation of an ally of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as rector of Bogazici University, among the most acclaimed schools in the country. Hundreds have been arrested in clashes between protesters and police in one of the largest displays of civil unrest in Turkey in years.

In Myanmar, thousands took to the streets this weekend to protest a generals’ coup that took over the country a week ago and ousted the elected civilian regime of Nobel Peace prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.

The American media defended the Hong Kong protesters and tended to minimize, excuse or ignore its excesses and violence.

But in Moscow, Beijing, Istanbul and Myanmar, the protests are seen as insurgencies, as sappers of the state and regime, and the governments are predisposed to deal with them in every way — save capitulation. They see them as the work of “regime change” ideologues in the West.

In Western nations, protests and riots come largely from the left and rail against what is claimed to be indifference or resistance to the rights of minorities. And the natural tendency of the media is to sympathize with protesters, especially those bedeviling autocracies.

Again, all except the occupation of the Capitol on Jan. 6. That one was different. That one got the sympathy of no one because its premise was that an elite-backed establishment stole the election.

Such accusations against our elites are intolerable and immoral.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2021 Creators.com.

 

When it was learned in 2016 that Russia may have hacked the emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and passed the fruits on to WikiLeaks to aid candidate Donald Trump, mighty was the outrage of the American establishment.

If Russia’s security services filched those emails, and a troll farm in Saint Petersburg sent tweets and texts to stir up rancor in our politics, it was said, this was an attack on American democracy and its most sacred of rituals — the elections by which we chose our leaders.

Some called it an “act of war.” Others compared it to Pearl Harbor.

Almost all agreed it was intolerable interference in the internal affairs of the United States which called forth both condemnation and retribution.

Yet, when it comes to interfering in the affairs of other nations, how sinless, how blameless, are we Americans?

During the Cold War, the United States regularly dumped over regimes we believed imperiled our cause — Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, the Congo in the 1960s. After the Cold War, the United States was a major mover in the “color revolutions” that changed regimes in Ukraine and Georgia.

According to Victoria Nuland, then of the State Department, now back again, $5 billion was pumped in to effect the overthrow of the democratically elected pro-Russian regime in Kiev and its replacement by a pro-American one.

This was the triggering event that caused Vladimir Putin to annex Crimea to secure his country’s Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol.

Consider the reaction in this capital to the arrest and imprisonment of dissident Alexei Navalny, following his return from Germany, where he had been treated for chemical poisoning, allegedly by Putin’s security services.

In an editorial, “Nothing But a Poisoner,” The Washington Post thundered:

“Western governments should be doing what they can to help this unprecedented challenge to Mr. Putin’s autocracy survive and grow…

“Mr. Putin has dedicated himself to exploiting the weaknesses in democratic systems. Now is the time to return the favor.”

Consider what the Post is calling for here:

The U.S. and NATO nations should openly side with protesters in Russia’s cities whose goal is the overthrow of Putin and of the internationally recognized government of Russia.

How, one wonders, would Americans react if Putin openly urged worldwide support for the “Stop the Steal” mob that invaded the U.S. Capitol to overturn the results of the Nov. 3 election?

Though Americans are divided over racial, cultural, social and moral issues, liberal interventionists still talk of our “universal values” that represent the future toward which all nations should aspire. Among these are the values of democracy as practiced in the United States.

These are the standards by which other nations are to be judged. And nations that do not conform to these standards are candidates for U.S. interference in their affairs. Ours is an ideological imperialism of a rare order.

Where did we Americans acquire the right to intervene in the internal affairs of nations — be they autocracies, monarchies or republics — that do not threaten or attack us?

When we have intervened in these nations militarily, disaster has most often been the result. It was partly because the regimes of Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen did not comport to our ideas of good governance that we went in militarily to change them. Result: millions of dead, wounded and displaced Arabs and Muslims all across the Middle East. A historic calamity.

When the Arab Spring arose, we embraced it. The democratic revolution was here! And what happened in the largest Arab nation that responded as we insisted, Egypt?

An ally of 30 years, President Hosni Mubarak, was ousted. The Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power. It was replaced a year later by a new general, Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, a man more ruthless than Mubarak.

This week, the generals in Myanmar (Burma) ousted the civilian leadership of the country and assumed full power. President Joe Biden reacted reflexively, calling it a “direct assault on the country’s transition to democracy.”

“In a democracy,” said Biden, “force should never seek to override the will of the people or attempt to erase the outcome of a credible election.”

Derek Mitchell of the National Democratic Institute, a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy, explained: “Democracy is one of the pillars of the Biden Administration’s foreign policy agenda. They recognize they have to address this pretty seriously. The question is what to do.”

Actually, the larger question, the basic question is why the internal affairs of Burma, a nation 10,000 miles from the United States, are the business of the United States.

The post-Cold War world, where America stood in moral judgment of the democracy credentials of all other nations, and acted against those that did not sufficiently conform, is coming to an end.

And if we do not give up this ideological imperialism, that end, especially where Russia and China are concerned, could come sudden and soon.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2021 Creators.com.

 

“Never allow a good crisis (to) go to waste. It’s an opportunity to do the things you once thought were impossible.”

Thus did chief of staff Rahm Emanuel advise Barack Obama on the financial crisis he inherited in 2009.

Following the Capitol riot by a mob of pro-Donald Trump protesters, the left took Rahm’s counsel, seizing upon and exploiting the episode ever since to paint the right as America’s safe harbor for “domestic terrorism.”

According to leftist columnists and commentators, going back to the ’60s, the real threat of domestic terrorism has always come from the right.

That is not, however, how some of us remember those days.

The most destructive acts of violence in the ’60s were the urban race riots that began in Harlem in July 1964, when 15-year-old black youth James Powell was shot by a police lieutenant.

In 1965, Watts blew up, followed by Newark and Detroit in 1967.

In 1968, 100 U.S. cities exploded in racial violence after Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis on April 4.

Anti-war riots followed the urban riots, beginning with an attack on the Pentagon in October 1967 and the occupation of Columbia University in 1968. That August, leftists ignited a riot at the Democratic Convention that nominated Hubert Humphrey in Chicago.

After President Richard Nixon took office in 1969, a mass anti-war protest in Washington, D.C., spun off a mob that trashed the Department of Justice. A riot at Kent State in May 1970 precipitated the killing of four students by the Ohio National Guard, and follow-on riots on scores of campuses that shut down higher education for the rest of that spring semester.

That same year, terrorists in a Greenwich Village townhouse blew themselves up with a 2,000-pound bomb they were making to massacre noncommissioned officers and their wives and girlfriends at a dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. This was followed two months later by an explosion that blew up the mathematics building at the University of Wisconsin, killing a father of three.

As Nixon speechwriter Ray Price recorded in his memoir, between Jan. 1, 1969, and April 15, 1970, “More than 40,000 bombings, attempted bombings and bomb threats, were recorded in the United States.

“In the 1969-1970 school year there were 1782 demonstrations, 7561 arrests, 8 people killed, and 462 injured, (299 of those injured were police). There were 247 cases of campus arson and 282 attacks on ROTC facilities.”

The criminals responsible for this carnage were leftists.

What about 2020, the year of mass protests that followed the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May.

According to the London Daily Mail, with the riots, arson and looting that began in Minneapolis spreading to Portland, Seattle and 140 other cities, the National Guard was called out in 21 states, six people died, scores of police were injured and between $1 billion and $2 billion in property was damaged or destroyed.

According to insurance company figures, it was the costliest urban violence since the LA riot of 1992, when a Simi Valley jury acquitted the four cops involved in the beating of Rodney King.

Other forms of “domestic terrorism” are far more common but all too frequently ignored because we Americans have come to take them for granted.

As Heather Mac Donald wrote in The Wall Street Journal just days ago:

“The year 2020 likely saw the largest percentage increase in homicides in American history. Murder was up nearly 37% in a sample of 57 large and medium-sized cities. Based on preliminary estimates, at least 2,000 more Americans, most of them black, were killed in 2020 than in 2019.

“Dozens of children, overwhelmingly black, were killed in drive-by shootings. They were slain in their beds, living rooms and strollers. They were struck down at barbecues, in their yards, in malls, in their parents’ cars, and at birthday parties. Fifty-five children were killed in Chicago in 2020, 17 in St. Louis, and 11 in Philadelphia.”

While the riot was taking place at the Capitol, where a cop and four protesters lost their lives, less-noted lethal events were happening all over America in the first days of the new year. Writes Mac Donald:

“The anarchy of 2020 has continued into 2021. Shootings in South Los Angeles rose 742% in the first two weeks of the year. In Oakland, homicides were up 500% and shootings up 126% through Jan. 17. In New York, murders were up 42% and shooting victims up 15% through Jan. 17.”

The truth: The vast majority of criminals who rob, rape, shoot and kill Americans in the tens of thousands each year, and the people who did almost all of the rioting, looting, arson and assaults on cops in 2020, never wore MAGA hats.

Pas d’ennemis a gauche. No enemies on the left. The enemy is always to be found on the right. And because reality contradicts this central tenet of liberal ideology, it cannot ever be conceded.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2021 Creators.com.

 

As soon as the Senate received the lone article of impeachment accusing President Donald Trump of “incitement of insurrection” in the Jan. 6 mob assault on the Capitol, Rand Paul rose to object.

The Senate, he said, has no right to try a private citizen, which Trump now is. Thus, what we are about to do is flatly unconstitutional.

Forty-five of 50 Republican members agreed with Paul’s motion.

“This vote indicates it’s over. The trial is all over,” said Paul. “If you voted that (the Senate trial is) … unconstitutional, how in the world would you ever vote to convict somebody for this?”

Consistency says you would not.

Susan Collins of Maine, one of five Republicans who voted against Paul’s motion, agreed that the vote portends the final vote on conviction.

“Do the math,” Collins said. “It’s extraordinarily unlikely the president will be convicted.”

Rand Paul may have just derailed the second impeachment of Donald Trump.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the constitutional officer designated to preside over Senate impeachment trials, has said he will not preside over this latest trial of the ex-president. With Roberts seeing no constitutional duty, and declining the honor, his replacement as the presiding officer will be Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the longest-serving Democrat and the president pro tempore of the Senate.

But Leahy is viscerally hostile to Trump and one of a Democratic bloc that voted twice last January to convict Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors. How will it look to the world if this partisan is installed as both judge and juror at the trial of his political enemy?

Welcome to Zimbabwe.

Does the liberal establishment, now back in power and controlling the House, Senate and presidency, not see how this is all going to look in the history books, generations hence?

Blinded by hatred of Trump, enraged by the mob that stormed the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi’s House, in a rush to judgment, without hearing a single Trump witness and without letting his lawyer offer a defense, impeached, i.e., indicted, Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”

But how could Trump have incited the riot and the attack on the Capitol when the mob swept up the stairs before Trump finished speaking a mile away? And he would end his rally remarks by urging the crowd to march to the Hill “peacefully and patriotically.”

We have subsequently learned that plans and plots were being hatched days before the assault on the Capitol began.

Was the Trump White House, or Trump, privy to those plots?

In August 1974, it was a near certainty that the House would vote to impeach Richard Nixon. But after the president resigned, the House did not impeach, and Ford pardoned Nixon so the country could move on.

The rage of the establishment at being deprived of its revenge against Nixon who had turned the Silent Majority against it, not unlike today, knew no bounds. And, though history has vindicated Ford, his pardon of Nixon precipitated a plunge in his poll numbers.

Half a century on, however, history says Ford did the right thing.

Why then are the Democrats continuing with this exercise in vengeance?

They want Trump convicted so that he will be prohibited from ever again holding public office. The establishment fears that Trump could make a comeback, win the Republican primaries in 2024, become the nominee, and return in triumph as president.

They are determined to abort that possibility. Many openly admit it.

What does that say about the liberal establishment’s love of democracy when they would disqualify, in advance, the largest vote-getter their opposition party ever had, out of fear he might come back to win the presidency as he did in 2016?

“Trust the people!” was a campaign slogan made famous by George Wallace. Our national establishment prattles endlessly on about its devotion to democracy, but it does not trust the people.

But the establishment is going to pay a price for trying to squeeze the last ounces of juice out of this rotting fruit. President Joe Biden’s call to unity are being drowned out by Democratic howls for a trial, conviction and banishment.

This effort to convict and disqualify Trump from running again tells us more about the people behind it than it does about Trump.

For the odds are slim at best that Trump would or could, at 78, win the nomination and the presidency a second time, as Grover Cleveland did in 1892.

Yet, a fearful establishment does not want to take the chance.

For all the babbling about “democracy” we have heard in recent days, the establishment wants to eliminate the possibility that the people could rise up, and, horror of horrors, elect Trump once more.

You can smell the fear.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2021 Creators.com.

 

“The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States… does not challenge that position.”

Thus did President Nixon, in the Shanghai Communique of 1972, accept China’s territorial claim to the island of Taiwan.

In 1979, Jimmy Carter severed relations with Taiwan, recognized Beijing as the legitimate government and dissolved the U.S. mutual security treaty with the Republic of China on Taiwan.

We ceased to be obligated to go to war to defend Taiwan.

Fast-forward four decades to the first weekend of President Joe Biden’s administration. Saturday, China sent eight nuclear-capable bombers and four fighter planes into the air defense identification zone of Taiwan.

Sunday, Beijing sent 16 military aircraft into the same region.

Observing U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and visits by U.S. officials, China is issuing us a reminder: “You Americans are encouraging those on the island who seek independence. Not going to happen. Rather than let Taiwan go, we will fight. Taiwan is a part of China and is a red line for us.”

Beijing is said to be seeking a face-to-face meeting with Biden.

Why? Perhaps because incoming Secretary of State Antony Blinken in his confirmation hearings said that President Donald Trump “was right” to take a “tougher approach to China.”

Blinken also agreed with outgoing Secretary Mike Pompeo, who had called China’s treatment of its Uighur minority “genocide,” and added that our commitment to Taiwan is “something that we hold to very strongly.”

Under Xi Jinping, said Blinken, China seeks to “become the leading country in the world — the country that sets the norms, that sets the standards.” In short, China’s geostrategic goal is to replace the U.S.-created world order with a new world order of its own.

Before we proceed further down this road to collision, questions need to be answered.

To whom does Taiwan belong? If the answer is what it has been since 1972 — “Taiwan is a part of China” — then is not encouraging the 25 million Taiwanese to seek independence an “incitement to insurrection” from Beijing’s standpoint?

And if China uses force to compel Taiwan to repudiate any right to independence, are we prepared to fight a war with a nuclear-armed China over the island’s political status and orientation?

When Chinese Communists in 1950 conquered Tibet and began its ethnic and cultural cleansing of the region, what did we do?

Basically, nothing.

When China occupied and fortified rocks and reefs across the South China Sea what did we do?

Basically, nothing.

When China crushed the Hong Kong democracy protests we encouraged, and imposed a new national security law on the island’s 7 million people, what did we do?
Basically, nothing.

Now, Xi Jinping has bluntly told America that how China treats Tibetans, Uighurs, Christians and Falun Gong, all citizens of China, is no more the business of the United States than was our treatment of the indigenous peoples of North America the business of Imperial China.

China’s model of political and economic development has enjoyed success in this century as an alternative to the Western model of liberal democracy.

Beijing does not believe in untrammeled freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press. She does not believe in choosing leaders by the ballot box.

China is not an egalitarian society. She does not believe in the equality of all races, religions and ethnic groups. She does not celebrate diversity but fears it, seeing what ethnic diversity did to the Soviet Union, tearing it apart into 15 nations.

She does not believe in racial quotas for advancement, but in a meritocracy that rewards loyalty and performance. And Chinese student test scores are among the highest in the world.

While China steals intellectual property from U.S. factories in China, who moved the factories there to take advantage of cheap labor where a worker could be hired for $2 an hour?

Beijing says any attempt to impose our “universal values” on China would amount to interference in her internal affairs. And any attempt to sever from Beijing her jurisdiction over Taiwan or the Spratly or Paracel Islands in the South China Sea will be resisted by force.

Moreover, as none of the disputed rocks and reefs in the South and East China Seas involves any territory claimed by the U.S., and we have conceded for 50 years that Taiwan is “part of China,” why are we sending carrier battle groups into these seas and through the Taiwan Strait?

What are we threatening?

On Sunday, a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group, led by the USS Theodore Roosevelt sailed into the South China Sea on a “freedom of navigation” exercise, the first such operation under President Biden.

This was the same day that those Chinese bombers and fighters flew into Taiwan’s air identification zone. We need to talk.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2021 Creators.com.

 
Pat Buchanan
About Pat Buchanan

Patrick J. Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three Presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and was the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.

In his White House years, Mr. Buchanan wrote foreign policy speeches, and attended four summits, including Mr. Nixon’s historic opening to China in 1972, and Ronald Reagan’s Reykjavik summit in 1986 with Mikhail Gorbachev.

Mr. Buchanan has written ten books, including six straight New York Times best sellers A Republic, Not an Empire; The Death of the West; Where the Right Went Wrong; State of Emergency; Day of Reckoning and Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War.

Mr. Buchanan is currently a columnist, political analyst for MSNBC, chairman of The American Cause foundation and an editor of The American Conservative. He is married to the former Shelley Ann Scarney, who was a member of the White House Staff from 1969 to 1975.