Poll: Dems More Out of Touch Than GOP, Trump

From the Washington Free Beacon:

More Americans say the Democratic Party is “out of touch with the concerns of most Americans” than either the Republican Party or President Trump, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.

According to the survey, 67 percent of those polled said the Democratic Party was “out of touch” with common American concerns, and only 28 percent said the party is “in touch.” Six percent said they had no opinion.

These numbers are similar to but worse than those for the Republican Party: 62 percent of those polled said they thought Republicans were out of touch, while 32 percent said they were in touch and seven percent had no opinion.

President Trump beat out both his own party and the opposition: 58 percent of those polled consider him out of touch, 38 percent described him as in-touch, and four percent had no opinion.

The out-of-touch number represents a steep drop for Democrats. In 2014, when the same poll was last taken, 48 percent said Democrats were out of touch, a loss of 19 percentage points over three years.

According to the poll, the biggest change for perception of Democrats comes from their own base. Since 2014, Democrats’ “out of touch” rating increased 33 points among self-identified liberals, 30 points among Democrats or Democrat-leaning independents, and 26 points among moderates and nonwhite people.

What do you think the odds are that this significant chunk of the Democratic base (now saying the Party is out of touch) is white?

Posted in Democrat Party, Republican Party | Comments Off on Poll: Dems More Out of Touch Than GOP, Trump

France: Election Map

The NYT has a good map on “How the Election Split France”. The parallels with the U.S. election are uncanny.

The primary candidates in yesterday’s election were:

How these candidates faired (geographically) is displayed below:

Will the protectionist Melenchon voters go to Le Pen?

Will Fillon’s voters go to Macron?

We’ll find out on May 7th.

In any event, it will be an uphill battle for Le Pen, given how France has no equivalent of an ‘electoral college’ system. Their national elections are pure majoritarianism.

Bloomberg has some similar useful maps.

Posted in Europe | Comments Off on France: Election Map

The Battle of ‘The Battle of Liberty Place’

Every year, the legacy of the South is being further marginalized on the public stage, particularly in the form of statue removals and memorial removals. Today in New Orleans:

Workers in New Orleans began removing the first of four prominent Confederate monuments early Monday, the latest Southern institution to sever itself from symbols viewed by many as a representation racism and white supremacy.

Trucks arrived to begin removing the first memorial, one that commemorates whites who tried to topple a biracial post-Civil War government in New Orleans, around 1:25 a.m. in an attempt to avoid disruption from supporters who want the monuments to stay, some of whom city officials said have made death threats.

Workers who were inspecting the statue ahead of its removal could be seen wearing flak jackets and helmets. Police officers watched the area from atop the parking garage of a nearby hotel.

Three other statues to Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard and Confederate States of America President Jefferson Davis will be removed in later days now that legal challenges have been overcome…

The majority black City Council in 2015 voted 6-1 to approve plans to take the statues down, but legal battles over their fate have prevented the removal until now, said [Mayor] Landrieu, who proposed the monuments’ removal and rode to victory twice with overwhelming support from the city’s black residents…

The first memorial to come down will be the Liberty Monument, an 1891 obelisk honoring the Crescent City White League.

Landrieu has called the Liberty Monument “the most offensive of the four” and said it was erected to “revere white supremacy.”

“If there was ever a statue that needed to be taken down, it’s that one,” he said.

From the Wikipedia page on The Battle of Liberty Place:

The Battle of Liberty Place, or Battle of Canal Street, was an attempted insurrection by the Crescent City White League against the Reconstruction Louisiana state government on September 14, 1874, in New Orleans, where the capital of Louisiana was at that time. Five thousand members of the White League, a paramilitary organization of the Democratic Party, made up largely of Confederate veterans, fought against the outnumbered Metropolitan Police and state militia. The insurgents held the statehouse, armory, and downtown for three days, retreating before arrival of Federal troops that restored the elected government. No insurgents were charged in the action. This was the last major event of violence stemming from the disputed 1872 gubernatorial election, after which Democrat John McEnery and Republican William Pitt Kellogg both claimed victory.

Among those injured in the fighting at Liberty Place was Algernon Sidney Badger, superintendent of the New Orleans Metropolitan Police. Born in Boston and a veteran of the Union Army, he had been living and working in New Orleans since the end of the war.

In 1891, the city erected a monument to commemorate and praise the insurrection from the Democratic Party point of view, which at the time was in firm political control of the city and state and was in the process of disenfranchising most blacks. The white marble obelisk was placed at a prominent location on Canal Street. In 1932, the city added an inscription that expressed a white supremacist view.

In 1974, the rethinking of race relations after the Civil Rights Movement caused the city to add a marker near the monument explaining that the inscription did not express current philosophy. After major construction work on Canal Street in 1989 required that the monument be temporarily removed, it was relocated to a less prominent location and the inscription was altered. In July 2015, New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu proposed removing the monument altogether and in December 2015 the New Orleans City Council voted to remove the monument, along with three others deemed a “nuisance”. The monument was dismantled on April 24, 2017.

Of the monument’s inscriptions:

The following inscription was added in 1932:

“[Democrats] McEnery and Penny having been elected governor and lieutenant-governor by the white people, were duly installed by this overthrow of carpetbag government, ousting the usurpers, Governor Kellogg (white) and Lieutenant-Governor Antoine (colored).

United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state.”

In 1974, the city government added an adjacent marker, which stated:

“Although the “battle of Liberty Place” and this monument are important parts of the New Orleans history, the sentiments in favor of white supremacy expressed thereon are contrary to the philosophy and beliefs of present-day New Orleans.”

When the monument was moved in 1993, some of the original inscriptions were removed, and replaced with new inscriptions that state in part:

“In honor of those Americans on both sides who died in the Battle of Liberty Place … A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future.”

Posted in National, White Identity | Comments Off on The Battle of ‘The Battle of Liberty Place’

America Is Not a “Nation of Immigrants”

The Audacious Epigone has an excellent post titled “Euronation”:

America is a white nation.

America is a Christian nation.

America is an Anglophone nation.

America is a nation built and led by white men.

America is a heterosexual nation.

America is a nation of male breadwinners and female homemakers.

America is a nation of natives born on its soil.

All of these assertions have been accurate for most of the country’s history and remain accurate today. In contrast, the idea that America is a “nation of immigrants” is not accurate now nor was it accurate at any point in the past.

Despite that, none of those true statements are perceived as legitimate arguments for why America should continue to embrace these aspects of its character, while the mendacious falsity is treated as an argument for finally making it true by deluging the country with foreigners.

The phrase “nation of immigrants” first appeared in The New York Times in 1923 and for the first time in book form in 1935…

Posted in Immigration, National | Comments Off on America Is Not a “Nation of Immigrants”

France: It’s Le Pen vs. Macron

So, it will be Le Pen vs. Macron in the May run-offs:

Mr Macron won 23.7%, while Ms Le Pen won 21.7%, French TV says.

The two saw off a strong challenge from centre-right François Fillon and the hard-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon, according to the projections.

The pair now face a run-off vote on 7 May.

Whoever wins the next round, the voting marks a shift away from the leftist and centre-right parties that have long dominated French politics.

Ms Le Pen leads the eurosceptic, anti-immigrant National Front party. She has attempted to soften the party’s tone and brought big gains in the 2015 regional elections.

Mr Macron served as economy minister under current President Francois Hollande. Despite his relative inexperience – he has never served as an MP – polls see him defeating Ms Le Pen in the second round.

He is also likely to attract support from the political establishment – soon after polls closed Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve urged all democrats to vote for him, Reuters news agency reports.

In other projections:

  • Jean-Luc Mélenchon, whose popularity surged on the back of strong debate performances, is tipped to win around 19.5% of the vote
  • François Fillon, whose campaign was rocked by corruption allegations, is on the same mark
  • Benoit Hamon of President Hollande’s Socialist party lags far behind on 6%
Posted in Europe | Comments Off on France: It’s Le Pen vs. Macron

JYT: Reclaiming the Term ‘Jew’

Sure to trend high in the NYT “Most Read” pieces is “Reclaimining ‘Jew’” by Mark Oppenheimer, which discusses the pressing social question of whether the term ‘Jew’ is a slur or merely an accurate descriptor.

Jew’ is a funny word,” the comedian Louis C. K. once said, “because ‘Jew’ is the only word that is the polite thing to call a group of people and the slur for the same group.”

It then takes all the way until paragraph #2 for Der Trumpenfuhrer to be mentioned, with the obligatory snarky asides:

I was reminded of these wise words on April 14, halfway through Passover and two days before Easter, when President Trump gave a short speech recognizing the two holidays. As far as Trump speeches go, it was pretty decent, a short bit of hortatory boilerplate with Trumpian flourishes, like calling the Exodus the story of “an incredible people.” He did not attack immigrants, or journalists, or Pope Francis, and he gave equal time to the two holidays, which was reassuring.

But Mr. Trump’s speech bothered me nonetheless, because he fell into a common linguistic habit that most Americans, even most Jews, surely didn’t notice. While the word “Jewish” appeared in the speech, Mr. Trump neglected to mention “Jews.” In his remarks, it was “Christians” who celebrated Holy Week and the resurrection of Christ — but it was “Jewish families” who celebrated Passover and “the Jewish people” who survived a long history of persecution. There were “Christians” — people with their own noun — and there were “Jewish” people — collectives described by an adjective.

The shift from the noun to the adjective was most jarring near the end of the speech, when Mr. Trump prayed for an age in which “good people of all faiths, Christians and Muslims and Jewish and Hindu, can follow their hearts and worship according to their conscience.”

This verbal tic is not unique to Mr. Trump. In his first Passover statement, in 1981, President Ronald Reagan extended “warmest wishes” to “Jewish people everywhere.” In President Obama’s last Passover message, he mentioned “Jewish families” twice but “Jews” never.

Both Trump (who is a paragon of evil) and Reagan (who was a paragon of evil), imagine that.

I suspect that had Trump or Reagan flat-out said “Jews”, there would liberal Jews whining about that too. Gentiles have been conditioned not to say “Jew” in polite society for the same reason many refrain from saying “Merry Christmas” in polite society. Oppenheimer acknowledges this:

There is, in fact, a widespread hesitation to describe Jews as Jews. In 2000, in the aftermath of Al Gore’s popular-vote victory in the presidential election, a well-meaning editor forced me to rewrite a sentence in an essay about Joseph Lieberman, the vice-presidential nominee. I had written that Americans had, in effect, “elected a Jew as vice president,” but the editor — a non-Jew — made me change the wording to “a Jewish vice president.” He knew that to write “a Jew,” even in a positive article by a Jewish reporter, would strike some as offensive.

The problem for Oppheimer, however, is when Jews themselves refrain from using the word ‘Jew’ as a noun. And what Jews think about the matter is, naturally, The Most Important Voice on the Matter.

We Jews, too, recoil from calling ourselves Jews. In my experience as an editor at a publication focusing on Jewish news and culture, and hosting its podcast about Jewish life, I have noticed how many Jewish writers — me included — avoid calling anyone a “Jew.”…

Like our non-Jewish friends, we Jews have been conditioned to think of a “Jew” as something bad. We will say, “Some really nice Jewish people moved in next door,” rather than, “Some really nice Jews moved in next door.” Trying to discern if someone is suitable dating material for a single, religious friend, we’ll ask, “Oh, is he Jewish?” but not, “Oh, is he a Jew?” To be “a real Christian” is a compliment, but to be “a real Jew” is considered an insult. “A real Jew” may be stingy, crass or pushy — whatever she is, it’s not good.

Nice dating material? What would the NYT’s collective mind say if a white Christian described being white or Christian as a necessary condition to being “nice dating material”? The ‘white’ part is the racial component and the ‘Christian’ is the religious component; both categories are conjoined in the singular term ‘Jew’.

There are understandable reasons one might prefer the phrase “Jewish person” to “Jew.” For one thing, anti-Semites love to talk about “Jews” and “the Jews.” The noun has been a slur in English since the 17th century, and to the Jew-haters of the world, Jew-ness, with all the genetically heritable perfidy it entails, is an essential and ineradicable trait. Whether it’s the stain of having murdered Jesus or an inborn capacity for greed or deception, the vices perceived by the anti-Semite belong to “the Jew,” not someone who happens to be Jewish. Anti-Semites have made “Jew” a term of opprobrium, and the rest of us have acquiesced.

But there’s another reason Jews prefer “Jewish.” Many of us don’t think of Jew-ness as central to our identity. If what we’re talking about is an ethnic inheritance, but not one that defines us in an important way, we may rightly feel that “Jewish” makes a more modest, weaker claim than “Jew” — just as “I’m German” sounds a bit milder than “I’m a German.” The former is purely descriptive, the latter a bit proud.

I chuckled at the ‘Many of us don’t think of Jew-ness as central to our identity’ bit. In any event, Oppenheimer then gets to the crux of the matter: reclaiming the noun ‘Jew’ as matter of ethnic pride, the latter of course a concept that only non-whites are allowed to possess:

It’s precisely because “Jew” is a bit proud that I want Jews to use it more. Jews, like other minority or marginalized groups, are entitled to a noun to call our own. Such a word will have as many meanings as there are people who claim it, but no matter. When asked by somebody scrutinizing our last name or facial features, “What’s your heritage?” we should be able to answer, with whatever meaning we impart to it, “I’m a Jew.”

For most of us, speaking such a sentence would feel odd, even scary. But it doesn’t have to. It shouldn’t.

If only there was an entire book exploring this all important subject:

As Cynthia M. Baker points out in “Jew,” her book about the word, Jews have “not, in fact, owned the word ‘Jew’ or controlled the discourse about it — or even much used the term — for most of the past 2,000 years.” It was Christians who talked about “Jews,” while our preferred term for ourselves was “Israelite” or “Hebrew.”

Thankfully, there will soon be more important books like Baker’s, as in Oppenheimer’s byline description we learn that he is “the host of the podcast Unorthodox, is working on a book about how to be a Jew.”

Oppenheimer ends his piece with a ‘You go, girl!’ chant:

So it’s time for us to own “Jew.” We can do so by using the word more ourselves, and by giving everyone else permission to call Jews Jews. We can rescue, as Louis C. K. would say, the “polite thing” from the slur. Jews are what we are, after all, and the anti-Semites shouldn’t be the only ones saying so.

So, Jews will give Gentiles permission… to use the term ‘Jew’?

Alrighty, then.

The best place, however, to gauge both the cognitive dissonance (from Jews) and the many degrees of P.C. genuflecting (from goyim), is in the ‘Comments’ section of the piece.

Debbie writes:

I was instructed, many years ago by Jewish friends, that Jews can use the word Jew but non-Jews should use the word Jewish. I have passed on this advice to several non-Jewish friends. I was told this was being respectful, which is what I wanted to be.

Within the context of educating me in the correct phrasiology, I never questioned the advice. I grew up hearing or reading the nasty things people said about Jews, Blacks, etc., and didn’t buy into that garbage but I never wanted to ever be perceived, even momentarily, as being “one of those kind of people” – racists. So, I followed the instructions lovingly imparted by good friends.

Just wanted to share why this Catholic woman doesn’t use the word Jew although I never, personally, associated the word with any negativity. After all, Jews, for me, are the source…the place where my religion started. I love a Jew called Jesus. And Mary and everyone else!

Elizabeth Connor writes:

To the present day…I understand and accept the author’s thesis. I think there’s a little more to be made of the possibility that the noun “Jew” sounds a little more dissonant to the ear than, for example, noun-or-adjective “Christian.” But if that’s so, it’s probably because we simply don’t hear it that often, to the author’s point.

CanDo wites:

Very good article. I always thought the term “Jew” to be a strong, somewhat harsh word and a bit of a slur because of the anti-semites that would use the term. It is true they appropriated the word. I would always shudder when I heard it and referred to myself as Jewish. Thanks to Mr Oppenheimer I will think differently about the word but not sure if I can get over my shudder, though, given how long it has affected me.

More assertively, Jonathan writes:

We Jews are in the unusual position of being as much a nation as a religion. There is no such thing as an atheist, entirely secular Christian, but a substantial proportion of Jews will tell you they are both atheist and Jewish. Jewishness for these people is a cultural identity, not a religious one.

And, most importantly, Joia writes:

“I’ve always described myself as an “Upper West Side liberal Jew”. I’m proud of it.”

I’m sure she is.

Posted in Jewish, NYT | Comments Off on JYT: Reclaiming the Term ‘Jew’

Howard Dean on the First Amendment

As Alt-Right truths about HBD proliferate and gain steam (the way ‘truth’ often does), and as Alt-Right grows, expect leading Democrats to, increasingly, say things like this:

Posted in Democrat Party, Left | Comments Off on Howard Dean on the First Amendment

Winston Churchill on Islam (Writing 119 Years Ago)

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

“A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

“Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

— Winston Churchill, The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan (1898)

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on Winston Churchill on Islam (Writing 119 Years Ago)

The Cuckservatory on O’Baxter

At NR, Ian Tuttle has a cuck interpretation of O’Reilly’s legacy. Rod Dreher has a slightly less cuck interpretation here.

“You want anarchy!”

Posted in MSM, Republican Party | Comments Off on The Cuckservatory on O’Baxter

Politico: Profile of Pat Buchanan

In Politico, Tim Alberta has a very good, lengthy profile of Pat Buchanan. If you want a pretty decent mini-biography of the guy, this is the piece:

Of Trump’s victory:

Buchanan, for his part, feels both validated and vindicated. Long ago resigned to the reality that his policy views made him a pariah in the Republican Party—and stained him irrevocably with the ensuing accusations of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia—he has lived to see the GOP come around to Buchananism and the country send its direct descendant to the White House.

“I was elated, delighted that Trump picked up on the exact issues on which I challenged Bush,” he tells me. “And then he goes and uses my slogan? It just doesn’t get any better than this.” Buchanan, who has published such books as The Death of the WestState of EmergencyDay of Reckoning and Suicide of a Superpower, admits that November’s election result “gave me hope” for the first time in recent memory.

But none of this means he’s suddenly bullish about America’s future. Buchanan says he has “always been a pessimist,” and despite Trump’s conquest, two things continue to color his dark forecast for the nation. First, Buchanan harbors deep concerns over whether Trump, with his off-topic tweeting and pointless fight-picking, has the requisite focus and discipline to execute his nationalist agenda—especially over the opposition of a media-establishment complex bent on his destruction. Second, even if Trump delivers on the loftiest of his promises, Buchanan fears it will be too little, too late. Sweeping change was needed 25 years ago, he says, before thousands of factories vanished due to the North American Free Trade Agreement, before millions of illegal immigrants entered the country, before trillions of dollars were squandered on regime change and nation-building.

He’s not unlike the countless Trump voters I met across the country in 2016, many of them older folks yearning for a return to the country of their youth, a place they remember as safer, whiter, more wholesome, more Christian, more confident and less polarized. The difference is that Buchanan refuses to indulge in the illusion that a return to this utopia of yesteryear is even possible. Economically and demographically and culturally, he believes, the damage is done.

“We rolled the dice with the future of this country,” he tells me. “And I think it’s going to come up snake eyes.”

Of today’s political parallels with the Nixon era and his worries about Trump:

For all the comparisons of Trump to his own campaigns, Buchanan argues the more relevant parallels are between the 45th and 37th presidents. “They both confronted bureaucracy and a hostile media that hated Nixon and hates Trump,” he says. “The ‘deep state’ wants to break Trump’s presidency, just like it tried to break Nixon’s.” One difference between the two men is restraint: Whereas Trump appears consumed by “irrelevant things and peripheral attacks,” Buchanan says, “Nixon told me, ‘Don’t ever shoot down. Always shoot up.’” He lets out a sigh. “I feel for the guys that are in there,” Buchanan says of Trump’s team. “The problem is the president is distracted—and his adversaries know it. If I were them, I’d keep egging him on.”…

Buchanan says Trump has “tremendous potential,” but adds, “This is my great apprehension, that the larger issues—the taxes, the Obamacare thing, the border security agenda, the trade agenda—could be imperiled by unnecessary fights.” He thinks for a moment. “It’s not a bad instinct to be a fighter. But sometimes you have to hold back.”

When it comes to Trump’s fight with the news media, however, Buchanan wants the president to keep swinging. Not only is it justified, he says, based on recent coverage, but Buchanan—a journalist by training—believes undermining the media’s legitimacy is essential to winning popular support for the president’s agenda. Here again, he speaks from firsthand experience in yet another American political war, the Nixon administration’s assault on the Fourth Estate. After the president’s November 1969 speech responding to nationwide protests against the Vietnam War was panned by all three major television networks, Nixon asked Buchanan to craft a memo detailing the president’s successes in his first year; instead, the young speechwriter advised the White House to wage “an all-out attack on the media.” Nixon liked the idea, but he didn’t want to be the messenger. Buchanan drafted the speech, and 10 days after Nixon’s nationally televised address, Vice President Spiro Agnew, an imposing figure who was then one of the most popular Republicans in America, delivered his now famous speech in Des Moines slamming “a small and unelected elite” who possess a “profound influence over public opinion” without any checks on their “vast power.”

Conservatives loved it, especially on the heels of Nixon calling them “the great silent majority,” a phrase Buchanan had coined. The entire sequence remains one of Buchanan’s career highlights—“it was a sensation,” he says of Agnew’s speech—and he says it holds important lessons for Trump. For starters, the president needs a strong and reliable surrogate. “Nixon would give Agnew all the lines he wanted to say, but couldn’t say because he was the president. Trump needs somebody like that—he’s doing it all by himself,” Buchanan says. He smirks. “Is Mike Pence going to do that?”

Moreover, Buchanan argues, calling out media bias has consistently worked in the 48 years since Agnew’s speech—and still does. “What we did was call into question their motives and their veracity. We said they are vessels flying flags of neutrality while carrying contraband,” Buchanan tells me. “And that’s a message that is still well received today, because people know it’s true.”…

Buchanan sees fewer parallels between Reagan and Trump, though he offers two cautionary notes from his experience in that administration. First, he says, Trump must be “conscious of the coalition that brought him here” the way Reagan was responsive to the concerns of working-class cultural conservatives; Buchanan is particularly concerned that Trump, in addition to not following through on border security and protectionism, could hurt his own older and blue-collar voters with any type of dramatic health care overhaul. Second, Buchanan, in a nod to Trump’s testy public demeanor, remembers that Reagan’s famously sunny disposition wasn’t always on display—he just made it seem that way. “I saw Reagan explode a number of times in private. He was an Irishman, and you could see that temper go off,” Buchanan tells me. “But he never let the anger show in public.”

Of Trump’s attacks on Buchanan in the early aughts, and Trump’s subsequent regret at those attacks:

Less memorably, the 2000 campaign also brought Buchanan into contact for the first time with Trump. The New York real estate tycoon and tabloid favorite was also mulling a run for the Reform Party’s nomination at the urging of Jesse Ventura, the former professional wrestler who had won Minnesota’s governorship on the third-party ticket in 1998. Trump never followed through, but true to the form he would display 16 years later, the future president took pleasure in brutalizing his potential competition. Trump devoted portions of a book to highlighting Buchanan’s alleged “intolerance” toward black and gay people, accused him of being “in love with Adolf Hitler” and denounced Buchanan while visiting a Holocaust museum, telling reporters, “We must recognize bigotry and prejudice and defeat it wherever it appears.”

Trump’s attacks stemmed from Buchanan’s suggestion in a book that year that World War II had been avoidable and that Hitler did not want conflict with the United States or its Western allies. Buchanan, who loathes international aggression—he vigorously opposed George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, further distancing himself from the GOP—has written and repeated similar sentiments about World War II over several decades, which, on top of his criticisms of Israeli influence over U.S. foreign policy, have led to charges of anti-Semitism. (Most damaging was William F. Buckley writing in National Review, shortly before Buchanan joined the 1992 race, that he could not defend his fellow conservative against such accusations. That said, some Jews in the media who are critical of Buchanan’s politics, including Kinsley, have defended him on this front.)

Buchanan has faced his share of critiques, but no one has hit him harder than Trump. In retrospect, it’s astounding that the man who used Buchanan’s playbook to win the White House had previously bashed him in the most ruthlessly ad hominem terms imaginable—yet Buchanan used his columns to cheerlead Trump’s 2016 candidacy from Day One. The explanation for this became clear once I accepted that Trump had done something entirely out of character: According to multiple sources, Trump called Buchanan out of the blue some five years ago, when the former candidate was a regular guest on “Morning Joe,” and apologized for all of the hurtful things he had said. “He made amends,” Bay Buchanan, Pat’s sister and former campaign manager, says of Trump. “Long before he got into the presidential [race], he reached out to Pat and apologized for what he’d done, realizing it had been wrong. … My brother is a very forgiving guy, and if someone asks for forgiveness, he’s going to deliver it.”

Buchanan himself refuses to comment on private conversations with Trump but does tell me the president would call occasionally during the 2016 primary to thank him for kind words during a TV appearance or make small talk about the campaign. Buchanan also says Trump mailed three “Make America Great Again” hats to his home—two of which he gifted to childhood friends, while keeping the other one for his extensive collection of presidential memorabilia.

“Did you ever offer him any advice?” I ask.

Buchanan begins to shake his head no, then stops himself. “I gave him some advice once,” he says, a smile spreading across his face. “I think he took it.”

Of Buchanan’s depiction of 1950s America as an idyllic high-water mark:

Buchanan will go to his grave believing exactly that. He swears he has no personal animus toward people who don’t look like him; in fact, he says, the immigrant groups he interacts with in northern Virginia are “always smiling” and seem like wonderful members of the community. “Obviously they love America,” Buchanan tells me. “The question is, what is it that holds us together? The neocons say we’re an ideological people bound together by what Lincoln said at Gettysburg and what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, and that’s what makes us one nation. But my tradition of conservatism says it’s not; it’s the idea of culture and faith and belief and history and heroes and holidays.”

He takes a long pause. “Can you have a nation that consists of all the people in the world—and be one people?”…

Of all-but-inevitable demographic trends making whites a minority:

“This is why we argued in 1990 for a moratorium on immigration—those folks coming in poor could have been like the ethnic Irish and Italians and German,” Buchanan says. Instead, “they keep coming, and now you’ve got 60 million Hispanics living here, many of them in enclaves that can sustain themselves culturally and economically and socially. And it’s like they’re at home. A little piece of Mexico has been moved over here. … You look at the 24 counties from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas: Are they part of the United States or part of Mexico?”…

Buchanan has only become more alarmed about America’s political trajectory. The Republican Party is “running out of white folks,” he says, and historically immigrant groups have voted overwhelmingly Democratic. “If you bring in 100 million people and they vote 60 percent Democratic and 40 percent Republican, you’re buried,” Buchanan tells me. “What I’m saying is the America we knew and grew up with, it’s gone. And it’s not coming back. Demographically, culturally, socially, in every way, it’s a different country. And I think it’s come to resemble more of an empire than a nation and a people.”

Posted in Alt-Right, Death of the West, Republican Party | Comments Off on Politico: Profile of Pat Buchanan