February
3rd 2011
Posted under Free Trade & Globalism & Immigration & Interventionism
Bush:
What’s interesting about our country, if you study history, is there are some isms that occasionally pop up: One is isolationism, and its evil twin protectionism, and its evil triplet nativism. So if you study the 20s for example, there was an America First policy that said, “Who cares what happens in Europe?” Well, what happened in Europe mattered, eventually, because of WWII. There was Smoot-Hawley which was part of an economic policy which basically said we don’t want trade, in other words let’s throw up barriers. And there was an immigration policy that I think during this period argued we have too many Jews and too many Italians, therefore we should have no immigrants. And my point is we’ve been through this kind of period of isolationism, protectionism, and nativism. I’m a little concerned we may be going through the same period. I hope that these isms pass.
I have just one word in reply, “Boo!”
Source.
RedPhillips on 03 Feb 2011 at 5:36 am #
George W. Bush is too stupid to even know he is a tool.
Ooooh…. the dreaded boogie man of “isolationism.” Anyone who thought Bush’s nod to a “humble foreign policy” was anything other than a sop to Establishment realists didn’t know the man.
Kirt Higdon on 03 Feb 2011 at 12:26 pm #
The “humble foreign policy” was a sop to potential Buchanan supporters. While Bush, Dole and McCain had endorsed Clinton’s war against Yugoslavia, the majority of Republicans had not and Buchanan as Reform party nominee could have been an alternative for them. Bush could not have forgotten that the one-two punch of Buchanan as a primary challenger and Ross Perot in the general election cost his father the presidency in 1992.
What Bush could not have foreseen is that a combination of Perot-backed legal action against Buchanan as the Reform party nominee and some Buchanan medical problems would effectively make Buchanan’s candidacy a footnote. Any humility in foreign policy was quickly forgotten – even rhetorically.
Bede on 03 Feb 2011 at 3:06 pm #
I think Derbyshire said it best when he said that Bush should just “shut up and go away.”
Matt Weber on 03 Feb 2011 at 3:40 pm #
Indeed, why does this guy still get airtime? Worst president since Johnson.
RedPhillips on 03 Feb 2011 at 5:55 pm #
You might be right Kirk. I saw it as more of a sop to the James Bakers and Lawrence Eaglebergers of his father’s administration.
Thaddeus on 03 Feb 2011 at 6:02 pm #
That’s utterly hilarious. Those are the three key traditional conservative principles: “Isolationism, Protectionism, and Nativism.” The U.S. would benefit immeasurably from all three. I could hardly think of three isms that would benefit America more. It is the absence of each of these that has hurt the U.S. terribly.
Bush might as well simply say, “I am an anti-conservative” (as if that weren’t long evident).
RedPhillips on 03 Feb 2011 at 6:13 pm #
Thaddeus, conservatives should generally be weary of isms, but all three sentiments are clearly conservative in nature in the most fundamental sense of the term, the intent to conserve.
Thaddeus on 03 Feb 2011 at 10:13 pm #
I would have actually respected him if he had said “Feminism, Marxism, Post-Colonialism.” Now, there are some isms for conservatives to oppose.
Nate on 04 Feb 2011 at 8:25 am #
George Bush was a great conservative hero and a patriot. It is a testament to his greatness that he still draws the ire of the left-wing liberal anti-war hippie crowd years after he has left office.
Weaver on 04 Feb 2011 at 3:51 pm #
“Bush Fatigue: Neocon Globalist George W. Bush Frets About Nativism and Isolationism”
By William L. Houston @ Youth for Western Civilization
Weaver on 04 Feb 2011 at 3:52 pm #
Rebellion blog.
Thaddeus on 04 Feb 2011 at 5:09 pm #
This is his new “Axis of Evil,” I imagine: heritage, tradition, and…conservatism.
Nate on 05 Feb 2011 at 4:56 am #
Thaddeus, George Bush was a traditional conservative who believed in America’s Judeochristian heritage so I don’t see how you are saying he is against those things.
Catholic Trotskyist on 05 Feb 2011 at 9:19 am #
Nate, George W. Bush was not a traditional conservative. That is well explained here.
I am a proud and committed globalist and an enemy of both Nate’s pro-war neoconservatism, and most of the American traditionalism practiced on this site. I will now have to reconsider my opinion of George W. Bush; I used to believe in the liberal/socialist assumption that he is completely dumb and incompetent. But actually he may not have been so bad after all. Where I separate from the left is on social issues, and so I agree with Bush’s and this site’s stances on homosexuality and abortion. The mistakes that Bush made, were to get us into an unwinnable war in Iraq, and to cut taxes for the rich, giving the proletariate’s hard-earned money to the corporate capitalists.
Other than that, he did a good job bringing the world toward’s it’s beautiful march towards international democratic socialism. Not much better than his predecessors and successor, but not worse either.
Bruce on 05 Feb 2011 at 7:03 pm #
George Bush was a Republican not a conservative. His mother called him the first Jewish American president. Who knows you better than your own mother ?
And Nate, you tongue in cheek agitator since I am gladly taking your bait, America does not have a JudeoChristian heritage. America has a Christian heritage. As an agnostic who is a cultural Christian I can plainly see that America was founded primarily by Christians. After about 1945 some misguided, sympathetic Christians began using the oxomoronic term JudeoChristian to create and link two vastly diferent religions. Neither Jews nor true Christians like or use that vulgar term.
It would be more correct to state that Israel has a ChristianJudaic culture since American taxpayer dollars bought Israel’s illegal nuclear arsenal. It would be wrong and foolish but more correct than equalizing the relative contributions of Christians to Jews in the history of the American republic.
The major proponents of that disgusting term are two profiteers who are corrupt and immoral in my opinion. Jay Sekulow, a Jew born in Brooklyn makes millions of dollars every year by making false ,onesided propaganda broadcasts tying American survival to the peace of Jerusalem. He owns several multimillion dollar homes across the US but don’t worry, his nonprofit gave him a private jet.
Jay Sekulow’s five board members are all family members and his brother gets paid $300,000. a year to keep the books. Jay paid himself over $600,000 according to his 990 form in 2003 but that is just the tip of the iceberg. His office workers reportedly were shocked to find out that Jay’s wife was paid $180,000 a year since they never saw her and didn’t know she worked there at all. Since 2003 the Sekulows have not revealed their incomes according to reports I have read. No legitimate non profit corporation would ever have five family members on their board. That sounds like a family owned for profit business posing as a nonprofit to me. If I am wrong Jay, you and Jordan are top attorneys so sue me. But when we go to court bring all of your records. I want the world to know the whole truth. I can’t wait until discovery !
The other JudeoChristian is a real hypocrite, an adulterous preacher who tells us how to live. John Hagee left his wife for his current wife. He has paid her millions to stay with him.( Have you ever seen him ? His width is almost equal to his height.)
He organizes Christian Nights for Israel. He gets Jewish support by promising host rabbis not to mention Jesus. He even preaches a dual covenant stating that Jews do not have to accept Jesus to be saved.
There you have it. The two biggest proponents of the term JudeoChristian. In my not so humble opinion Jay Sekulow has made millions of dollars. Look up his financial shenigans on the web. He is a smart lawyer who keeps intertwining his nonprofit with for profit corporations to keep his true salary hidden. It must be nice to fly on your own private jet to a luxury resort and play a round of golf with a judge and then charge your own nonprofit $750. an hour for your time ! Remember to use one of your for profit companies so your total salary can be hidden on your nonprofit records when they pay you a consulting fee.
Rev. John Hagee is even worse. I believe the man is a disgrace and should be banned from the pulpit. He is a fat fraud.
Matt Weber on 05 Feb 2011 at 8:32 pm #
Bush is no more a Christian than Obama.
Weaver on 05 Feb 2011 at 11:25 pm #
Bruce,
I think Nate is just trying make us laugh.
Weaver on 06 Feb 2011 at 12:06 am #
Catholic Trotskyist,
You dream of that?
roho on 06 Feb 2011 at 2:51 am #
“Dubya”…..The first American President to allow a VP to manage, and shape him in such a way, that even his own conservatives see him as the fool that he is, was, and always will be!
He will go down in history as the “Forest Gump” of Presidents, lacking Gumps’ integrety!
Kirt Higdon on 06 Feb 2011 at 5:00 am #
Weaver,
Interesting quote from 1984, but I doubt if the Catholic Trotskyist dreams of it. Trotsky (ne Bronstein and with literary disguise of “Goldstein”) was the fantasy villain and hate object of 1984, the figure whom the Big Brother-indoctrinated Engsoc masses believed was behind all treason and all enemies. Our “Goldstein” is Osama Bin Laden. I have my doubts if he’s still alive, but our “big brothers” will never allow him to die. As the personification of Islamo-fascism, the Caliphate and other bogeymen, he works as a symbol of fear, evil, and “hatred of our freedoms” no matter whom the US decides to attack next.
Weaver on 06 Feb 2011 at 5:37 am #
Kirt,
International democratic socialism = boot stamping on a human face— forever. It’s rule by strangers within a managerial state. If you don’t like Burnham/Francis‘s managerial elite theory, then attempt to break the Iron Law of Oligarchy within international democratic socialism. You can’t. It’s impossible.
And really it’d be crisis (loss of unity and purpose) if ever actually achieved, so to further other ends the goal seems to be perpetual pursuit of “international democratic socialism”, never the actual achievement of it – always the manipulation of the proletariat against some “enemy”.
The Green alternative is small government with open-borders, which reveals mental blocking (or “cognitive dissonance” – whichever term is preferred). The reason this reveals mental blocking is you can’t develop a society if so open.
-
I’m aware of how the War on Terror works – give me more credit, lol.
I know Catholic Trotskyist doesn’t want that. I was hoping to break his mental block. Either he’ll wake up and join the fleecing of the US proletariat, or he’ll wake up and become something else, hopefully a Chestertonian
Catholic Trotskyist on 06 Feb 2011 at 11:43 pm #
Kirt and Weaver, thanks for your thoughtful responses. Indeed, reading Chesterton, listening to Ron Paul and reading this site have opened my mind up to a lot of new ideas. And I am a fan of Orwell and definitely do not dream of the world of Animal Farm or “1984.” Yet I am put off by the racialist attitude of this site; since, having known people from all around the world, I am convinced that, despite cultural differences, we all have more in common as humans, than what any so-called race has in common with each other. I also believe that the poor people of each country have more in common with each other than the rich people of their own country. I have rejected both the current liberalism of America and the neoconservatism of Bush, and in fact have some of the same goals as many on this site; a safe place for people to raise families, freedom of thought, as little government intrusion as possible, and economic prosperity as much as possible. I also share your opposition to the zionist agenda. But I believe that these things can be achieved more by the end of nationalism. Sure, it may be an unlikely dream, but is it really much more unlikely than your dream of establishing a paleo-conservative government in the United States in your lifetime?
Weaver on 07 Feb 2011 at 11:42 am #
CT,
I’m hoping for secession. I’m aware it’d be difficult, but I don’t see another way out. I consider myself a Middle American Radical – not really a paleo unless Francis is considered one (and I recall him questioning whether he’s truly one).
As Chesterton wrote: nationalism and not beptarchy (ruling others) is the ideal. And of course since there’s a limit of space and resources, nationalisms and faiths competing means war. The ideal is to attempt a balance among them though.
I don’t hate foreigners; to be clear I wish to preserve the ancient customs and nations in general – not only my own.
I do however believe in racial differences, as well as differences of virtue due to culture and such. Dr. Fleming wrote:
I see culture, tradition, and nationalism as forces that tame depraved man – as well as of course faith and the Holy Spirit.
I’m doubtful you’ll go full circle from seeing the solution as the ending of nationalism to seeing it as the preservation of nationalism, ancient tradition, and history. However, I hate to admit there are alternative views to my own. Some Catholics like to propose a restoration of traditional monarchy as an alternative – I doubt you like that either.
I strongly oppose capitalism though, to be sure. I see it as tearing down national boundaries and ancient customs and encouraging vice. While I favour distributism, I also favour aristocracy or at least “meritocracy”, which technically is within aristocracy even though some like to declare it not because of parts of history.
A beautiful piece is Ovid’s Metamorphosis. I tend to view the world as similarly degenerating, though as a Christian I have hope (Ovid was pagan). Metamorphosis:
Real nationalism and localism can get ugly as you well know… It’s not an ideal so much as a best-possible within a world inhabited by fallen man.
-
Weaver on 07 Feb 2011 at 2:45 pm #
CT,
if I didn’t drive you off with my previous lengthy rambling speech (which I’ve reduced), I suggest:
Green Party
Also, Machiavelli is a source of real political knowledge. I suggest reading Discources. He could be used for good or evil, but you seem like a generally good guy already. Even if I’m striving for the opposite of what you strive for, it isn’t necessarily a battle of good v. evil.
You might be surprised to hear that I tend to vehemently fight with certain groups of alleged “white” nationalists, to the point I’d side with Trotskyites over them. The battle has to do with genetic engineering – they want to “evolve into Gods” and seem to worship Darwinism and elitism, lol. The trans have all sorts of little mystical sites up on the Internet too, some racial, some pagan, and some pure progressive. It’s just bizarre – they’re target marketing many different groups. I stand with mere humans, lol. Yes, it’s absurd and crazy, but it has a very strong presence if you venture into the little racial sites. Some think I’m overreacting to it, but then I ask, “Why aren’t the articles removed?”
As you know, virtue is most important; and I can’t imagine any sort of group that cares only for “evolving” to be virtuous – such is certainly not pious (striving to replace God). True nationalism cares for its own people. It’s a matter of love… I put this forth as an example of progressive degeneracy into the abyss gone to its extreme – hoping that shocks you to a more trad view. Also, it reveals how the true sides aren’t the apparent sides; you have little “enemies within” and similarly factions struggling within groups. I might say [some!] similar things as such people, but I view them as depraved.
Catholic Trotskyist on 09 Feb 2011 at 3:33 am #
Thanks Weaver. I was actually driven off by a computer virus! But am back now, and will try to read everything you linked to. Yes, even though we disagree about nationalism, there is still much that we have in common, particularly the fact that we both don’t fit into any particular large ideology. As I’ve said, since it is likely that we will go back either to the cultural preservation you desire, or the world government that I have advocated, we may not truly know what the best system will be; only God really knows.
No I’m not interested in traditional monarchy either; though meritocracy is definitely something to strive for.
Yes I’ve seen the most radical white nationalist websites; those are definitely scary!
Weaver on 09 Feb 2011 at 1:52 pm #
I put up a piece just now that might make you growl, haha.
Anyway, I’m no expert. I’m a student (of politics, out of school) just like you. I find Machiavelli brilliant, but I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says.
Maybe I should have linked to something else by Chesterton. Anyway, feel free to suggest something for me to read. The left and right overlap somewhat, and I do keep an open mind to what the Greens have to say.
J. Bruce Gabriel on 12 Feb 2011 at 7:50 pm #
Calvin Coolidge Comments: On Protective Tariffs and the Wage Earner- From His Second Annual Message of December 3, 1924
“Two very important policies have been adopted by this country which, while extending their benefits also in other directions, have been of the utmost importance to the wage earners. One of these is the protective tariff, which enables our people to live according to a better standard and receive a better rate of compensation than any people, any time, anywhere on earth, ever enjoyed. This saves the American market for the products of the American workmen. The other is a policy of more recent origin and seeks to shield our wage earners from the disastrous competition of a great influx of foreign peoples. This has been done by the restrictive immigration law. This saves the American job for the American workmen. I should like to see the administrative features of this law rendered a little more humane for the purpose of permitting those already here a greater latitude in securing admission of members of their own families. But I believe this law in principle is necessary and sound, and destined to increase greatly the public welfare. We must maintain our own economic position, we must defend our own national integrity.
It is gratifying to report that the progress of industry, the enormous increase in individual productivity through labor-saving devices, and the high rate of wages have all combined to furnish our people in general with such an abundance not only of the necessaries but of the conveniences of life that we are by a natural evolution solving our problems of economic and social justice.”
Is George Bush the student of history that he says he is? I’m sure he isn’t.
I stand proudly and firmly with President Coolidge on this and many other issues. Coolidge is a conservative’s conservative and has never shot from the hip like George W. Bush. We need FAIR TRADE, not “free trade.” Trade with China is not free trade because China promotes “state sponsored capitalism” and is not free.
J. Bruce Gabriel on 12 Feb 2011 at 7:54 pm #
Calvin Coolidge Comments: On Protective Tariffs and the Wage Earner- From His Second Annual Message of December 3, 1924
“Two very important policies have been adopted by this country which, while extending their benefits also in other directions, have been of the utmost importance to the wage earners. One of these is the protective tariff, which enables our people to live according to a better standard and receive a better rate of compensation than any people, any time, anywhere on earth, ever enjoyed. This saves the American market for the products of the American workmen. The other is a policy of more recent origin and seeks to shield our wage earners from the disastrous competition of a great influx of foreign peoples. This has been done by the restrictive immigration law. This saves the American job for the American workmen. I should like to see the administrative features of this law rendered a little more humane for the purpose of permitting those already here a greater latitude in securing admission of members of their own families. But I believe this law in principle is necessary and sound, and destined to increase greatly the public welfare. We must maintain our own economic position, we must defend our own national integrity.
It is gratifying to report that the progress of industry, the enormous increase in individual productivity through labor-saving devices, and the high rate of wages have all combined to furnish our people in general with such an abundance not only of the necessaries but of the conveniences of life that we are by a natural evolution solving our problems of economic and social justice.”
Is George Bush the student of history that he says he is? I’m sure he isn’t.
I stand proudly and firmly with President Coolidge on this and many other issues. Coolidge is a conservative’s conservative and has never shot from the hip like George W. Bush. We need FAIR TRADE, not “free trade.” Trade with China is not free trade because China promotes state sponsored capitalism and is not free.