Patrick Buchanan President, 1996

[Kaptin Kurk]

What are the effects of a Buchanan Presidency?

[Hapsburg]

With hope, a Revolution.

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Originally Posted by Kaptin Kurk

What are the effects of a Buchanan Presidency?

Mexico, January 21, 1997:


Seriously, though, I get the feeling he'd try to drastically alter the US's position in the world. From what I read in A Republic, Not An Empire, he essentially wants the US to retreat back to its own borders as fast as possible. He doesn't want the US involved in any alliances (even NATO), and he deeply dislikes having to support Israel. Unfortunately, since this isn't 1921, I don't think he'd have much success in reinventing isolationism, especially during a period when most of America's foreign interventions went swimmingly, at least compared to today.

He'd probably also set off a nice little furor over his attempts to resolve the Mexican border "problem." Given how much he pontificates on the subject whenever he's in front of a camera, it's almost certain he'd make a stab at building that big ol' "Rio Grande Wall" he's been thinking about all these years. Of course, the hard part would be trying to get such an idea through Congress and not look like a stone-cold racist.

[NapoleonXIV]

Get a lot of Democrats elected in 2000. Hard to say what he'd do specifically but one thing or another would be so goddamed off the wall that we'd probably start treating Republicanism as a mental disorder rather than a political party.

[Acura NSX]

his position alone with Isreal should win him big points with the left. which interests me considering the left hates Isreal, you would think they would back him on his position on Isreal.

however most of policies would never go through, either congress will water down his legislation or the liberal supreme court will strike down his measures that did get passed. He would have a JQA type of administration.

[Max Sinister]

The left doesn't hate Israel (save for a few wackos), they just criticize Israel's sometimes overly harsh way to fight Palestinensian groups. Firing randomly on areas where civilians live too goes too far and doesn't solve the problem of terrorism either.

[Stalin]

The thought of him getting elected President without a much earlier POD is ASB IMO. His views on 'Moral Issues' such as Abortion and Gay Rights were too right wing even for many Republicans (let alone Independents or Swing Voters). His views on Foreign Policy were even less mainstream: anti-immigrant, anti-Israel, anti-Free trade. His foreign policy alone would unite everyone from liberals to moderates to neo-Cons against him. Basically, if he got any further than he did in OTL, he'd still just be a flash in the pan.

[1940LaSalle]

Buchanan in 1996 would have been tantamount to electing Taft in 1940--only cubed. It would have been the end of the Republican party, no question, and a complete disaster diplomatically. If Buchanan isn't smart enough to figure out that isolationism didn't work in the late 1930s when the world was about three orders of magnitude less complicated and interconnected than it is now, the only business he has in the White House is as a visiting private citizen.

[MerryPrankster]

Okay, our "five minute hate" (or was it "two minute hate") is over now. Let's get serious.

If Pat were elected President in 1996...

1. When was NAFTA approved? If it was after 1996 OTL, he'd try to stop it. If it's too late, then he'd at least go along with that "unsafe Mexican trucks" crap that the unions are trying to use to undercut it.

2. I would imagine Pat would push for a Palestinian state, since he believes that the reason the Arab-Israeli conflict keeps dragging on is b/c of the Israeli occupation and settlment of the Occupied Territories. Perhaps we get the "road map" a decade early? I can hear the screams from the ADL and AIPAC right now...

3. No Kosovo intervention in 1999.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by 1940LaSalle

Buchanan in 1996 would have been tantamount to electing Taft in 1940--only cubed. It would have been the end of the Republican party, no question, and a complete disaster diplomatically. If Buchanan isn't smart enough to figure out that isolationism didn't work in the late 1930s when the world was about three orders of magnitude less complicated and interconnected than it is now, the only business he has in the White House is as a visiting private citizen.

Cubed? If Taft had been elected in 1940, the worst-case outcome is that continental Europe would fall under the control of either the Nazis or Soviets (there'd probably still be a Pacific War).

Buchanan being president in 1996-2000 wouldn't produce a disaster of that magnitude, unless you think Slobodan Milosevic is capable of conquering Europe.

[Stalin]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Okay, our "five minute hate" (or was it "two minute hate") is over now. Let's get serious.

If Pat were elected President in 1996...

As I said already, the whole idea of him getting elected in '96 without a much earlier POD is borderline ASB territory. In OTL's 90's, the US political consensus trended towards centrist Social Views, fiscal Conservatism and an internationalist pro-free trade foreign policy. Pat would be too out of the mainstream for the power brokers in his own party, let alone most of America. The only way to get him elected is probably to have some sort of Depression or other catastrophic event. We might as well be discussing the policies of a hypothetical Kucinich or Badnarik Administration.

1. When was NAFTA approved? If it was after 1996 OTL, he'd try to stop it. If it's too late, then he'd at least go along with that "unsafe Mexican trucks" crap that the unions are trying to use to undercut it.

NAFTA was approved in '94. By '96 it would be nearly impossible to repeal it, unless the economy tanked and the labor/protectionist wing of the Democrats started to experience a resurgence.

2. I would imagine Pat would push for a Palestinian state, since he believes that the reason the Arab-Israeli conflict keeps dragging on is b/c of the Israeli occupation and settlment of the Occupied Territories.

I think that's just proof that he wouldn't be allowed to get the nomination. Both parties are staunchly, almost mindlessly pro-Israel. There's no way the international 'realists', neo-Cons, and Christian Right would allow it -- and again that's just in his own party.

[1940LaSalle]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Buchanan being president in 1996-2000 wouldn't produce a disaster of that magnitude, unless you think Slobodan Milosevic is capable of conquering Europe.

Hardly. But the complex world of diplomacy would be entirely knocked askew by a New Isolationism. Now, suddenly, there's a zero in any number of diplomatic/political differential equations, which term was formerly held by the United States. I don't see, for example, the situation in the Middle East improving--certainly no Palestinian state, because that would warrant the US getting involved instead of staying behind its borders--and in fact would likely get worse: without US backing, Israel would be scratching and clawing for its life. Care to try to spin that out and see where it might lead?

Or how about South Korea now completely on its own? You think that Pyongyang is being held back solely by the RoK forces, and that the twerp in charge there with the 480 volt hairstyle doesn't quietly fear US retribution if he steps too far out of line, nukes or not?

No, the result of Buchanan's New Isolationism would be every bit as disastrous since it would destabilize worldwide diplomacy and the balance of power. And there would be no nation capable of stepping up and filling the superpower void. That's frightening. So I stand behind my conclusion.

[MerryPrankster]

I've read A Republic, Not an Empire. Pat isn't so stupid as to go all-out no US foreign involvement whatsover. There wouldn't be a zero in the equations--instead of a 10, perhaps a 3, 4, or 5.

South Korea has a booming economy and a very large military (400,000 troops with US equipment). Unless their political leadership has a suicide complex and essentially surrenders to NK within the first hour, the North would lose. The North's only chance for victory is to win fast, and I question whether they can do this.

The only major differences I can think of between Clinton II and Buchanan re: foreign policy would be that Buchanan would not go to war in Kosovo, US troops would be pulled out of some less-important places, and would likely put pressure on the Israelis to allow a Palestinian state (perhaps by threatening to cut the $$ off).

[1940LaSalle]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

I've read A Republic, Not an Empire. Pat isn't so stupid as to go all-out no US foreign involvement whatsover. There wouldn't be a zero in the equations--instead of a 10, perhaps a 3, 4, or 5.

Sorry, MP, I don't agree: his statements for public consumption indicate to me that he favored a foreign policy (if you can call it that) that would have delighted Gerald Nye, Karl Mundt, Burton Wheeler, and the other überisolationists of the '30s. (Had they been alive in 1996, they'd have been backing Buchanan, no holds barred.) That in turn tells me he'd reduce American involvement abroad to nearly zero, and remove the US as a stabilizing/diplomatic force.

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

South Korea has a booming economy and a very large military (400,000 troops with US equipment). Unless their political leadership has a suicide complex and essentially surrenders to NK within the first hour, the North would lose. The North's only chance for victory is to win fast, and I question whether they can do this.

Never underestimate the power of surprise. Add to that the preparations that North Korea has made (case in point: I was in Seoul in 2002, and saw the tunnels and the like that had very recently been discovered. These were wide enough to run two tank columns abreast under the DMZ) and a blitz attack on the south would not be out of the question whatsoever. Plus, you underestimate the lengths to which a total head case as a head of state would resort.

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

The only major differences I can think of between Clinton II and Buchanan re: foreign policy would be that Buchanan would not go to war in Kosovo, US troops would be pulled out of some less-important places, and would likely put pressure on the Israelis to allow a Palestinian state (perhaps by threatening to cut the $$ off).

I don't think so. Buchanan would likely have turned his back on Israel, never mind the intense lobbying pressure to not do so. And even if he had done as you suggested, Israel would have called his bluff. Then, either he follows through on his threat, leaving Israel scratching for its life, destabilizing the region--or he backs down, losing all sorts of credibility, which also leads to destabilization.

Buchanan II would have been every bit as bad a president as Buchanan I. We'd probably still be recovering from the damage he did well into the 21st century.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by 1940LaSalle

Sorry, MP, I don't agree: his statements for public consumption indicate to me that he favored a foreign policy (if you can call it that) that would have delighted Gerald Nye, Karl Mundt, Burton Wheeler, and the other überisolationists of the '30s. (Had they been alive in 1996, they'd have been backing Buchanan, no holds barred.) That in turn tells me he'd reduce American involvement abroad to nearly zero, and remove the US as a stabilizing/diplomatic force.

Never underestimate the power of surprise. Add to that the preparations that North Korea has made (case in point: I was in Seoul in 2002, and saw the tunnels and the like that had very recently been discovered. These were wide enough to run two tank columns abreast under the DMZ) and a blitz attack on the south would not be out of the question whatsoever. Plus, you underestimate the lengths to which a total head case as a head of state would resort.

I don't think so. Buchanan would likely have turned his back on Israel, never mind the intense lobbying pressure to not do so. And even if he had done as you suggested, Israel would have called his bluff. Then, either he follows through on his threat, leaving Israel scratching for its life, destabilizing the region--or he backs down, losing all sorts of credibility, which also leads to destabilization.

Have you even read A Republic, Not an Empire? That elucidates Buchanan's foreign policy position better than any sound bites, and it makes far more sense. And invoking the isolationists of the 1930s (with the implication of Nazism or at least Nazi sympathies) won't win you this argument.

The US President is not a dictator--I don't think Congress would let him abandon the alliance totally. I would imagine Buchanan would do something like Bush did in 1991--keep expanding the settlements and the subsidy goes. That cowed the Israelis, at least temporarily. Furthermore, Buchanan and Sharon's supporters agree that some form of Palestinian state is necessary or else the Palestinians will overwhelm Israel demographically.

Possible concession on North Korea. Even if they're able to make big initial gains, their equipment is still woefully out of date and they still have little food or fuel. The entire NK army, once in possession of part of SK, might spread itself around looting and eating and then the SKs can destroy it in detail, even if Kim uses chemical and biological weapons. It'd still be a big mess.

And cutting off the $3 billion/year subsidy would not leave Israel "scratching for its life." The Israelis are multiple orders of magnitude for more powerful than any Arab state except perhaps Egypt (which is heavily US-equipped), and Iran is too far away and too outdated militarily to be a major threat (it could fight a good defensive fight, but offensively not much).

Cutting the cord might give them incentive to junk their socialist economy and make some capitalist reforms though.

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Have you even read A Republic, Not an Empire? That elucidates Buchanan's foreign policy position better than any sound bites, and it makes far more sense. And invoking the isolationists of the 1930s (with the implication of Nazism or at least Nazi sympathies) won't win you this argument.

I normally wouldn't mention this, but there might be something to the Nazi argument. I'll let that review I mentioned do the talking for me.

Originally Posted by Alasdair Czyrnyj

Another odd facet of Buchanan’s analysis comes through in his description of the German and Soviet leaders. While Buchanan never misses an opportunity to describe Stalin as "the Great Terrorist," or as having "hands drenched in blood," he makes no similar pronouncements on Hitler’s name. Later on in the book, when discussing the influence various national lobbies have over U.S. foreign policy, he discusses at length the influence of the Jewish population of the United States. While Buchanan is certainly no Nazi, as his critics allege, he does not seem to be making much of an effort to prevent people from making such comparisons.

It's not conclusive, of course, but it's not encouraging either. In any event, he seems to have a idiosyncratic interpretation of history that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

[1940LaSalle]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Have you even read A Republic, Not an Empire? That elucidates Buchanan's foreign policy position better than any sound bites, and it makes far more sense. And invoking the isolationists of the 1930s (with the implication of Nazism or at least Nazi sympathies) won't win you this argument.

I'd be curious to find out who ghost-wrote it. Sure, the guy was a speechwriter for Nixon, but that qualifies him to formulate public policy (foreign or domestic) about as much as logging a few thousand miles of rail travel qualifies me to run the Broadway Limited. And who said anything about Naziism/Nazi sympathies? You brought that up, not me. I was referring rigorously to his "Fortress America" approach, which would have delighted Nye, Mundt, Wheeler, Thorkelson, et. al.

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

The US President is not a dictator--I don't think Congress would let him abandon the alliance totally. I would imagine Buchanan would do something like Bush did in 1991--keep expanding the settlements and the subsidy goes. That cowed the Israelis, at least temporarily. Furthermore, Buchanan and Sharon's supporters agree that some form of Palestinian state is necessary or else the Palestinians will overwhelm Israel demographically.

That just compromised his stated/strongly-implied "Fortress America" approach. Which stance is correct?

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Possible concession on North Korea. Even if they're able to make big initial gains, their equipment is still woefully out of date and they still have little food or fuel. The entire NK army, once in possession of part of SK, might spread itself around looting and eating and then the SKs can destroy it in detail, even if Kim uses chemical and biological weapons. It'd still be a big mess.

And cutting off the $3 billion/year subsidy would not leave Israel "scratching for its life." The Israelis are multiple orders of magnitude for more powerful than any Arab state except perhaps Egypt (which is heavily US-equipped), and Iran is too far away and too outdated militarily to be a major threat (it could fight a good defensive fight, but offensively not much).

Cutting the cord might give them incentive to junk their socialist economy and make some capitalist reforms though.

No question the Korean peninsula would be a horror film come to life.

And again, who said anything about Israel scratching for its life financially? You said that, not me: I was referring to its political/military life. You know as well as I do that absent the tacit Realpolitik US support, Israel would find itself beset on all sides by Muslim nations, fighting a multiple-front war.

Buchanan would have made me ashamed to be a Republican. He measures up to a real Republican like Ike about like the flow from a garden hose doese to the Delaware River. And he's so small in comparison to Theodore Roosevelt that he's invisible.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by 1940LaSalle

And again, who said anything about Israel scratching for its life financially? You said that, not me: I was referring to its political/military life. You know as well as I do that absent the tacit Realpolitik US support, Israel would find itself beset on all sides by Muslim nations, fighting a multiple-front war.

No I don't know as well as you do.

The militaries of the Arab nations, with the exception of the US-style militaries of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are crap. Even without US support, the Israelis would rip them a new one in less than a month.

There is the question of resupply, although I believe the Israelis produce a lot of their gear domestically. Their version of the F-16 is better than our own.

The only Arab state that I could think of that could threaten Israel is possibly Egypt since it's so close and has a US-equipped militarily (instead of decades-out-of-date equipment like the Syrians do). And if the US-Israel alliance ended, the US-Egyptian alliance would likely end too, and that would call into question the Egyptian ability to sustain their US equipment. Do they have the ability to replace US-made bombs, aircraft, tanks, etc?

And Iran does not have the projection capability to attack Israel with anything other than missiles. And even if it was able to attack Israel directly, it would get mauled (their military strikes me as good defensively but not very good offensively).

[MerryPrankster]

Ivan,

Everyone and their dog knows Adolph Hitler was one of if not the most evil human beings who ever existed.

Stalin gets a free pass from a lot of people (or is at least not hated as much as Hitler) because he helped defeat Hitler. "Uncle Joe" and all that BS.

Buchanan is just trying to make it clear that Stalin was a mega-murderer in his own right and that he was complicit in many of Hitler's foul deeds (the two of them DID butcher Poland together, after all, and Stalin provided oil and grain to the Nazis during their campaigns in the West).

In his book, Pat said that Poland was indefensible and the Western European states should have formed their own NATO-type alliance to deter Hitler from going west. His theory is that then the European war would have been limited to an evil-vs-evil fight between Hitler and Stalin and the Jews of Western Europe at least would have been saved.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by 1940LaSalle

I'd be curious to find out who ghost-wrote it. Sure, the guy was a speechwriter for Nixon, but that qualifies him to formulate public policy (foreign or domestic) about as much as logging a few thousand miles of rail travel qualifies me to run the Broadway Limited. And who said anything about Naziism/Nazi sympathies? You brought that up, not me. I was referring rigorously to his "Fortress America" approach, which would have delighted Nye, Mundt, Wheeler, Thorkelson, et. al.

Firstly, I don't think Pat really wants a "fortress America." That's a straw man. I believe he wants to reduce US foreign commitments. He opposed the Iraq War, NATO expansion, Kosovo, and Clinton's sending carrier groups to Taiwan in 1998 too.

Furthermore, how do you know someone else wrote it for him? Pat was a speech-writer, so I assume he's got the ability to write.

Many times when someone invokes "isolationism," they're trying to get the people to think of the US sitting idly by while Adolph Hitler massacres millions.

Furthermore, many who dislike the isolationists of the 1930s try to tie them to the Nazis. Lindbergh's "British, Jewish, and the Roosevelt administation" quote is always taken out of context, for example. If you read Lindbergh's full speech, you'll see that he thought that US and British national interests were not the same, and he was cautioning the Jews against the possibility that if the US got into another European war and it was perceived that the Jews had pushed for it, then American Jews could be subjected to anti-Semitism. The people he was really criticizing in that speech was Roosevelt.