>Obviously both should be opposed, but the clear preference shown here for
>Ledeen & Co. over against the Buchananite conservatives probably has to do
>with the former's support for Israel as a militarized client of the US, as
>opposed to the latter's critique of that.
If you want to take the ideology seriously, there's also this contrast: Buchanan is really a reactionary - he wants to go back to the America of the 1950s, or 1840s. He's not fond of the social turbulence that capitalism creates - in that sense, he's a bit of a Euro-style anti-market rightist. Ledeen loves all that creative destruction, and admires the revolutionary energy of Italian fascism (which was in love with Futurism, right?). Buchanan doesn't care much about the world outside our borders - Ledeen drips with lust to throw a crappy little country against the wall now and then.
Doug