<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Writing in the letters section of Slate, Ronald Radosh argues that if he were alive today, the great radical historian William Appleman Williams would be a supporter of Pa Buchanan. Does anyone else find this to be daft, as I do. Williams was an admirer of a certain type of conservative realism (exemplified by John Adams, Henrry Cabot Lodge, and George Kennan), believing it to be more restrained and honest than liberalism. However, Buchanan's populist nationalism seems to be a very different animal from this type of sober realpolitik.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </DIV> <TABLE cellPadding=0 cellSpacing=0 style="FONT-SIZE: 1em"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD>Posted for Ron Radosh<BR><BR>Actually, Buchanan did do his part to try and cement the left-right alliance. Two years ago, the two keynote speakers at the anti-war rally held in San Francisco by antiwar.com were Pat Buchanan and Alex Cockburn. And in his book on the Republic and empire, he cites Williams approvingly more<BR>than once. I argue that if he was alive, Williams would be a major Buchanan supporter. The last op ed Rothbard wrote right before he died (a week earlier) was a defense of Buchanan. It will be interesting to see if his mag is embraced by some Left-wing Nation type figures.<BR> <P> </P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FONT></BODY></HTML>