Posted by
gepaza on Saturday, September 12, 2009 10:47:59 AM
I do not remember ever being particularly moved by anything Pat Buchanan said or wrote. What little I do seem to remember leads me to the conclusion that the man is out to promote himself more than to further any particular philosophy. It's not that I ignore him or turn the noise down or change the channel, as if he were a Clinton, Obama or Killer Kennedy. With Buchanan, I try to listen, but just tune out after two or three minutes, since that is how long it takes for the self-promotion to kick in. He is very similar in that way to the likes of Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly. Each of these reminds me of the self-centered party goer who brings his own bottle of wine to the party, because whatever the host has is not good enough for him.
Actually (you may find this hard to believe, I suppose), the intent of this post is not to bash Mr. Buchanan
per se, but to address a column by him, posted on Townhall.com, entitled
Is America Coming Apart? I did read this one through to the end because he occasionally writes something that is worth reading. In this case, I have yet to decide what his purpose is for a piece like this. The obvious choices would be: he needs the money, to keep his name out there, or he was suffering from jet lag. Otherwise, I can't see why he would expend any mental effort on such drivel because it has no meat on its bones. In today's vernacular, it comes across as a fluff piece.
I mean, is there any question in your mind about whether America is coming apart? Actually, after watching the antics of our congress and White House denizens this summer, I think the question would more accurately be "Is America Being Driven Apart.""
It's not that any of his statements are necessarily wrong, but that that the totality is just so shallow, based as it is on comparing actions by the Right and Left to arrive at - nothing! No hint is given as to what Mr. Buchanan's personal conclusion is. That is, undoubtedly, a nice approach when the author intends to make one think, but there is nothing of substance to chew on in this article - the facts are what the facts are.
There is one aspect to this that I feel Mr. Buchanan could have addressed to actually salvage this piece and have a chance to influence some thought. Instead, his approach leaves one to the inference that he believes that there is moral equivalence between the opposing positions in the examples used - it's just that people have differences of opinion.
Well, there is a major difference between the positions described. All one has to do is to ask the question "What are the opposing positions based on?" The answer, of course, is that the positions of one side are generally based on the Constitution.