I don't want to marginalize Buchanan, I want to put him in context and argue that when Smith at the Progressive Review promotes Buchanan's anti-regime writings it is a big mistake. I don't like "comfortable orthodoxies" but I also don't like strategic (as opposed to short-term tactical) coalitions with fascist and right-wing populist critics of the regime. I see the same problem with Gore Vidal and Ralph Nader.
Do you see any problems here? Or do you support the idea that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"
-Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook
> Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 12:57 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Pat Buchanan, apologist for terror
>
>
> Ah, a joke. I see.
>
> So he can be safely relegated to the ranks of "quasi-fascist
> xenophobes,"
> and we all go back to the comfortable orthodoxies, eh?
>
>
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> >
> > >Am I missing something here, Doug? Far from being an apologist for
> > >terror, Buchanan is arguing against it.
> >
> > That was a joke. You know, to explain is to excuse.
> >
> > Doug
> >
>
>