Comments on: Pat Buchanan’s Culture War Speech

By: Republicans v secular America | Reaction Radio

Republicans v secular America | Reaction Radio — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:10:16 +0000

[...] Pawlenty’s address at CSPAN.org, starting at the 1:38:30 mark.) It sounded like a parody of Pat Buchanan’s famous 1992 “culture war” speech. Except that Pawlenty is one of the Republicans’ two most plausible candidates for president [...]

By: Republicans v secular America | Reaction Radio

Republicans v secular America | Reaction Radio — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:10:16 +0000

By: Skeptic Money » Blog Archive » Republicans vs. Secular America - You make sense but does your money?

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:17:32 +0000

By: Christian Mullahism v Secular America « Mohammed Abbasi

Christian Mullahism v Secular America « Mohammed Abbasi — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:21:06 +0000

By: Photomaniacal » Blog Archive » Republicans v secular America | Dan Kennedy

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:16:57 +0000

By: BlackSun

BlackSun — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:18:16 +0000

Of course I heard Sarah Palin. But there were things Buchanan said that even Palin knew she couldn’t say.

Politicians usually don’t say “homosexual” any more. They say “gay.” Even the right-wingers. Only preachers say “homosexual.”

Women now serve in the military and it’s no big deal.

Nobody openly mocks taking care of the environment any more. They may question climate change, but even Republicans have seen that it’s political suicide to trash the environment.

Nobody would accuse Hillary Clinton of thinking marriage was like slavery–now that she’s stood by her husband through a scandal.

Also, Buchanan ends the speech with a bible quote, something that seems a little less common today, even among conservatives.

Those are just a few things–changes in tone which I’d say date Buchanan’s speech to an earlier and worse era of conservative radicalism.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:07:30 +0000

Among the faithful, its always in fashion.

But Buchanan didn’t win, and neither did Bush Sr.
Clinton ended up with two terms, so the GOP lost that ‘culture war’.

Palin didn’t win either. And one could argue she may have been the thing that pushed many voters into the more moderate Obama camp.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 00:51:37 +0000

I definitely think there are ideologues, people who are rightwing to the core, and those who are leftwing to the core. But few people are that fanatically consistent. There are also quite a few who cherry pick from both sides and don’t ally themselves permanently with a party.

And I also think the personal charisma of a leader can sway public opinion, and that public opinion on issues changes over time, sometimes in the direction of the left, sometimes in the direction of the right. And sometimes public opinion on one issue veers right at the same time public opinion on another issue veers left. Who gets elected can depend simply on which issue is more important in the public eye.

Is bailing out a bank financial aid to citizens? It is if you work for a bank, or have a mortgage. Are tax exemptions for religious groups financial aid to citizens? They are if you belong to a church.

By: Rodrigo Neely

Rodrigo Neely — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:49:00 +0000

I dont disagree in general.

But around certain issues I think that to say otherwise is naive.

For example, there is definitely two camps on governments role on financial aid to its citizenry.
And these two camps encompass many issues.

By: Rodrigo Neely

Rodrigo Neely — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:45:11 +0000

Its a frustrating state of affairs.

Its why I have begun to subscribe to the elite theory of history. Perhaps this is a somewhat rightwards shift in my worldview.

But I think that, at present, the electorate is a dangerous animal which is manipulated by a skilled few who shape the whole world.

My only complaint is that not enough who are capable of influence attain it.