Buchanan and Patrick's Law

I've never been a fan of ol' Pat. He's a one-issue pundit who hasn't said anything new about his position in ten years, and everything he's said about the "culture war," indicates that he hasn't got the first clue how a culture changes.

That said, gleaning his teeming brain still produces the occasional intelligent thought. In this Washington times piece, he comes up with a not unfair castigation of so-called neoconservatives:

"I'm often asked what exactly is it that they want to conserve. They are Wilsonian interventionists abroad; they are big government at home."

And within the context of his experience in politics, that's perfectly valid. Bush does sound like Wilson when he waxes rhapsodic about spreading freedom worldwide, and his compromises on education spending and prescription drugs and such are starting to look like LBJ-lite. But once again, I'm forced to stand up and shout "WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?"

How are we to defeat terror, long-term, without changing the region that gives it birth? How are we to gain traction on some issues without compromising on others? Is Buchanan so enamoured of his electoral embarassments that he actively wishes to see the party he has served so long do likewise? It was easy for Barry Goldwater to be uncompromising; he had a whelk's chance in a supernova of winning. Just like nobody really wants to listen to Buchanan's crochety-grampa routine.

The same goes for anybody who accuses the GOP of "fair-weather federalism" or "big government conservatism" (which would include my good self). Politics is the art of the possible, and leadership in politics is the art of getting a few big ideas through, and leaving the rest for the people to either wise up on or accept the consequences of. NCLB can't possibly screw up education worse that it is already, and prescription drugs just might be worth it if we can get Social Security passed. And not getting hit by wave after wave of terrorist attacks like Tel Aviv during rush hour, that doesn't suck either (Maybe that's what the neos are trying to conserve?).

Even on the dangers posed by the immigration problem, where Buchanan and I are largely in agreement (a mob of foreigners, and people who think of themselves as foreigners, in our midst, is not a good thing. DUH, people), I don't think I would agree with his solution. Waves of immigration have been part of American history since time immemorial; what's at issue isn't whether they join our nation or not. When they are; they're a net gain for the U.S.A., When they're not, that's a source of trouble.

Pat wants to bring down an Iron Curtain on the U.S.-Mexico border. How that's isn't a Big Government solution to a problem, I don't know, but noting it makes me think of a thought I had regarding Andrew Sullivan, which I will hereby refer to as Patrick's Law: On the issues that he or she cares about, everyone is Big Government.


UPDATE: Boxing Alcibiades has a great example of what I'm talking about here. The Bush Administration's record on free trade is not the best. It would be a marvelous opportunity for the Democrats to use in '06. Who wants to bet that they'll even attempt to take advantage of it?