Decision.
Pardon me, but I don’t know if you noticed. President Bush has just won a significant victory for pro-life in the Supreme Court…and the silence from some social conservatives is deafening. For some time now, conservatives of many stripes have been critical of the president. There are the “traditionalists,” those wedded to the old Robert A. Taft isolationist-nationalist tradition from which I sprang (and from which I changed)—but they are quite vehement as anti-Bush people. I refer to my old friend Pat Buchanan who ran for president twice and who stands for a resurgent nationalism, a turning back from what he believes to be too energetic a foreign policy of commitment to the global peace of the world. He also is a tireless critic of free trade, hearkening back to the days of protectionism as typified by Alexander Hamilton (which was okay for the 18th century but in my estimation not okay for here and now). Pat is also a vociferous critic of illegal immigration and…if truth be served…legal immigration—believing that for at least a decade we should take “time out” from assimilating even legal immigrants to our country.
These issues are very important to Pat—but I also remember that he was an early pro-lifer, a spirited critic of the abortion culture. I may have missed it but I haven’t heard any compliment whatsoever on the pro-life victory in the Supreme Court which was attributable to Bush’s naming of two strong justices—Sam Alito and John Roberts. Is it possible…just barely possible…that the issues that work Pat up so strongly…the Iraq War which he seems to be cheerleader for our hoped-for loss…immigration…a return to protectionism…transcend in importance the paramount issue of life? Gee, I hope not.
The same with Joe Sobran, once the best commentator social conservatism has had, who now is all atwitter on the Iraq War and who seems almost fanatically disposed to cataloging every step that may certify that we have lost the war. I haven’t heard anything from Joe—least of all praise for the man who named these conservative justices. Then there is the Rockford Institute on whose board I once served. Vehement anti-Bush people to a man…embodied with snarling rhetoric and doom…centering on the war…but also on immigration. I haven’t seen a line.
It may be tough to congratulate a president when your hatred rivals that of the Left—but it would be interesting to see what importance the upholding of the congressional partial birth abortion ban has on their agenda. I wonder if it doesn’t play second fiddle.
I am not a cheerleader for President Bush. I have very strong disagreements with his reckless policies regarding immigration, the swinish federal budget that he produced with liberals, his seeming confusion about acting as a strong leader who is fearless in articulating the dangers facing our civilization, and many of his appointments, etc. That said, you are right in the silence coming from many Catholic conservatives on the recent Supreme Court decision. Moreover, it is one thing to strongly disagree with the President. But the unrelenting personal attacks upon this man that are snide, vicious, nearly homicidal in intent, and often come from Catholics who should know better are utterly sinful.
ReplyDeleteTom,
ReplyDeletePat Buchanan has a column at WorldNetDaily today ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55356 ) that makes clear he is grateful for the Bush appointees. He recognizes, as any intelligent observer would, that the PBA ban has a very limited effect in reducing actual abortions, but he points out its political significance for the 2008 election and closes by suggesting that he would welcome another Bush justice appointment.
For all his flaws, Pat Buchanan calls 'em as he sees 'em. He has on occasion had good things to say even about George W. Bush's conduct of the war, even if he, Pat Buchanan, thinks the war is a dreadful mistake. I think, in fairness, one ought to recognize that Buchanan is not just a broken record or a shrill shouter. He may be wrong about various things, but he is a thoughtful analyst most of the time. And he's usually worth reading, whether one agrees with him or not.
As a conservative, neither a "fiscal" or "social" conservative, but as a conservative (as it was known before 1994), I believe this ruling further enshrines abortion as a national issue instead of that of the states (you know, like a "strict constitutionalist" would feel). So, there is my silence on the issue.
ReplyDelete