The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

No More Mr. Nice Guy: Patrick Buchanan and the Virtue of Prejudice

By Robert Steinback on July 6, 2011 - 8:35 am, Posted in Anti-LGBT, White Nationalism

Conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan – for reasons that aren’t always evident to the reasonable observer – has long enjoyed credibility among mainstream conservatives despite some startlingly white nationalist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay viewpoints. He once again burnished his loathing of all that isn’t straight, white and Christian on Friday with a harangue against New York’s passage of a law to legalize same-sex marriage. The ultra-conservative website World Net Daily appropriately entitled Buchanan’s essay, “Let’s Hear it for Prejudice.”

Buchanan’s piece, which he called “The Death of Moral Community,” was carried on his website and eagerly snapped up by racist-sympathizing websites like VDARE.  In it, Buchanan waxed wistful on the virtue of prejudice, citing quotations by Albert Einstein and Edmund Burke to argue, essentially, that if  a prejudice has withstood the centuries, there must be a good and valuable reason for it.

Buchanan wrote, “Great minds once found merit in the ‘prejudices,’ or inherited wisdom, of a people, as a spur to virtuous behavior.” He invoked Burke, who wrote in the late 18th century: “Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice, and to leave nothing but the naked reason.”

Burke was speaking more to prejudice in the sense of “preconceived ideas” as opposed to “biased stereotypes,” but no matter. Buchanan invoked the same quotation in an August 2010 essay in which he sought to justify anti-Muslim prejudice. In that article, Buchanan wrote: “Prejudice is prejudgment. And if prejudgment is rooted in the history and traditions of a people, and what life has taught us, it is a shield that protects. Only a fool would reject the inherited wisdom of his kind because it fails to comport with the ideology of the moment.”

Prejudice, therefore, in Buchanan’s view, is justified because it exists. Yet while invoking Burke, Buchanan also utterly disregards him – by employing not one whit of sagacity to examine if any “latent wisdom” indeed prevails in his preferred prejudices, or whether – as is so often the case – they are products of ignorance and bias. In neither essay does Buchanan explain how long-standing prejudices that lead to such things as slavery, genocide, caste systems, apartheid, colonialism, discrimination and repression are ever overcome.

And so, Buchanan concludes, “In our new society from which traditionalists are seceding, many ruling ideas are rooted in an ideology that is at war with Burke’s ‘general prejudices.’ High among them is that homosexuality is natural and normal. That abortion is a woman’s right. That all voluntary sexual relations are morally equal. That women and men are equal, and if the former are not equally represented at the apex of academic, military and political life, this can only be the result of invidious discrimination that the law must correct. That all races, religions and ethnic groups are equal and all must have equal rewards.”

It’s too bad Buchanan never took another Edmund Burke quotation to heart: “No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.”

  • Sergio L

    wow for a presidential speech writer he dosent Know jack about historical liturature
    The author here correctly points out that “prejudiced” in the way Burke and Einstein used it is about being skeptical about ideas and opinions. Proof is something scholars and scientist require before believing something. If you are initially skeptical about somthing understand why and the see if your skeptisism is justified.”Patty” here seems to lack the intillectual honesty or simple intillect to under stand this concept of fact based truth.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “The Republican Party has fully bought into Globalism, foreign intervention, and corporate-capitalism and thoroughly rejects what traditionalists advocate”

    They were always like this.

  • Deep Ecology

    I hate to beat a dead horse, but Pat’s the leader of the paleo-conservative/traditionalist wing of a small minority of the Republican party. His influence within the party is miniscule and marginalized, but as a media source and talking head fires up debate and makes for ratings based on extreme positions defended by extreme advocates.

    The Republican Party has fully bought into Globalism, foreign intervention, and corporate-capitalism and thoroughly rejects what traditionalists advocate. Ron Paul, more of a player, is a libertarian but doesn’t command anything more than a small part of the Republican base.

    You guys worried that all these Republicans will have some kind of philosophical epiphany and run en masse to join up? His influence is minimal, this is much ado about nothing.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    I believe Buchanan’s choice of a black female running mate was basically a ploy to deliver the reform party racist vote over to the Republicans in 2000. This is a guy who thinks that it’s a tragedy any time a minority gets picked for any job, the assumption being that some white man was better qualified.

    If you’ll excuse me I’m busy writing Pat Buchanan’s Time Adventures. In our first episode, Pat goes back to the 19th century, and walks into an English pub.

    Pat: Oh this is wonderful! No Muslims, blacks, feminists! Just traditional European values and appreciation for Western society!

    Pub patrons: GET OUT OF HERE YOU BOG-EYED FENIAN BASTARD!!! (They throw glasses)

    Pat: But I’m WHITE!! I’M WHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITE!!!!

  • kate

    Marion:

    No, you don’t have to date fat women, although I’d proffer that natural selection would leave you to choose only among fat stupid woman because no one else wants to date a moronic little toadie-man like you.

    Incidentally, as a woman who was once fat, I can tell you with certainty that I could have been a 500 lb. whale and I wouldn’t want anyone forcing me to spend one minute with a racist idiot.

    As for Pattie, he’s been a racist jackass since long back, my old dad can tell stories about his start writing for the St. Louis Globe Democrat in the early sixties, which thank god has been out of business for over ten years.

    That the news channels give that turd one minute of time is just another reason why intelligent people (like one mentioned above) should refuse to pay one penny for cable television.

    People wonder why we have a country run by idiots and a petty despots and one only spend one evening looking at the news media to see how deluded and misinformed people have come.

    Racism and other forms of oppression support the ideal of a minority ruling the majority, it has been going on for hundreds of years in this country. Pattie could care less about a little catholic discrimination — because liberals have worked hard to get rid of that barrier for him.

    But like every Republican/wingnut toad, what’s good for him is not good for anyone else. He got his, to hell with you.

  • ruben

    why would anyone expect anything else from this bigot….i have been hearing buchanan preach his hate on msnbc for quite some time now and i am still scratching my head as to why they have this hater on the air….did’nt this hypocrite also have a blackwoman as his running mate when he ran for president?….i wonder how she feels right now….probably used by this hater.

  • Jack

    I think Pat Buchanan is just keeping his reputation and name in the public eye so he can continue to rack in speaker fees. He claims to be a “Traditionalist Catholic” and white but as a person from the English Catholic and German Catholic tradition, my ancestors were the “other” which Buchanan disparages, and I still identify with “other.” I agree with Ruslan Amirkhanov. I am amazed at how the haters try to rewrite history to rationalize their prejudices.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    If only we could send Buchanan back to a time when he wasn’t considered “white”. Then he might change his tune.

  • Sam Molloy

    There could be some differences, welcome ones. If America was all White, the only music would be classical, and polka. Jimmie Rodgers, who first recorded “country” and defined it’s sound, learned music from Black people, “sittin’ by the water tank, waitin’ for a train…”

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “You disagree with Mr. Buchanan.

    You’re racist.”

    Care to expand on that?

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Kathie, if you’re upset about something that was posted here, maybe you could be a little more specific?

  • todd

    You disagree with Mr. Buchanan.

    You’re racist.

  • Sam Molloy

    Pickwick, I’ve seen bits of reports that with today’s DNA research people can be grouped, but skin color has nothing to do with it. Supposedly Africa has the most different types sorted by DNA and somebody as black as a telephone over there could be in the same DNA group as a pale redhead in Ireland. If any of this is true it could be that researchers are keeping it off the dumbasses radar because it’s only a matter of time before it leads to a new type of discrimination. If anybody knows more on this, I’d like to hear it.

  • RLavigueur

    Deep Ecology,

    I know several physical anthropologists as well, and I agree that there are definable differences in the human genome across various populations. (I should mention that those I know refrain from using the word race to describe these differences) What both social and physical anthropologists have long noticed and can likely agree upon though is that skin colour is a poor reflection of a person’s genetics, and that genetic deviations between populations are generally much less pronounced than the overall diversity of genetic material within populations. In addition, the forms of genetic difference between groups rarely allows for anything approaching a clear division into distinct races, which along with the cultural baggage associated with the term is a good reason to avoid using it even in a strictly scientific and non-judgemental sense.

    Walkaway,

    I agree with you that overweight people are often seen as an acceptable target for discrimination. Ironically since she likely meant the example to be pure hyperbole, Francis came close to providing an actual example of a form of discrimination that plagues our society. While it’s not terrible to find certain people attractive or unattractive, or to choose sexual partners based on these facts, it becomes unacceptable if one’s opinions on beauty are used as an excuse to mock, attack, or treat others as inferior, as is far too frequently the case.

    Also, I may be one of those who in the past on this site has made statements which could be interpreted as anti-Christian or anti-religion more generally, if so, my concerns about religion are entirely focused on those who use their faith as a shield to hide from criticism of their actions, or from those who use it to attack others.

    I have to agree with Jonas Rand that Christianity’s historical record, even in its early days, is far from a clean one. Being gay, I’m especially aware of the religion’s role in persecution and the spread of intolerance. On the other hand, peaceful interpretations of Christianity have always existed, and the Unitarian Universalists you mentioned are about as far from Buchanan’s dominionist camp as it’s possible to imagine. Though I’m not religious, it is good to see members of the progressive churches countering the attempts of the far right to fully define Christianity.

  • Kathie

    I cannot believe the hateful people who come here and post hate about other people with whom they do not agree. I come to this site out of curiosity to see who the haters of the day are. I’m never disappointed either. They’re all here, frantically typing the letters that form the words of their hate. The Southern Poverty Law Center just draws these people in. What does that say about the SPLC?

  • Deep Ecology

    For Pickwick,

    I don’t have strong opinions one way or another about the Buchanon school of paleoconservative thought. It has been largely shunted aside in the Republican Party in favor of a more neo-conservative, global-capitalist philosophy and few in the party identify with or consider themselves paleo’s.

    However, as a human geographer and academic who draws heavily on anthropology, my professional colleagues who are physical anthropologists would disagree with the statement ( Anthropologist have long understood that there really is no such thing as “race”). Social/cultural anthropologists would agree with the above statement, but physical anthropologists would raise an eyebrow. This rift in the discipline has led to many universities having two departments, one cultural and one physical. The rapidly expanding discoveries in genetic research has actually widened the divide between the two schools. The scientific debate between these schools can be pretty acrimonious at times, and I don’t see it being resolved any time soon.

  • Leslie

    Walkaway,

    I am also a Unitarian Universalist and because I have donated to my church, go to services, weddings, funerals there, I have (to my horror) been confused by those who are non-church goers as a right wing bigot. It is frustrating that Christianity has been hijacked by a particular political party. This is the reason I believe we must preserve separation of church and state.

  • Mrs. Gaskell

    I guess this means Rachel Maddow won’t be calling PB “Uncle Pat” anymore. Yes, he can put on an avuncular persona at times, but the old “Lock and Load” Pat is always ready to jump out and expose himself.

    This should not be a surprise to anyone.

  • Pickwick

    At Francis Marion Braidfutre:

    First of all, you mistake the meaning of “equal”. Equality under law doesn’t mean that we are all endowed with the same abilities or innate skills in all areas of life. Equality means that the hunter-gathers of Southern African — many of whom have the same reaction to being called “Bushmen” as I suspect you would have to being called “a Mick” — that these peoples have the same basic human rights as the next person. No one is arguing that men should have a fat-chick quota imposed upon them.

    Secondly, the very concept of “race” is debatable. Anthropologist have long understood that there really is no such thing as “race”. Human diversity exists along a continuum of physical variation and that variation, in and of itself, has little to do with intelligence or ability.

    Thirdly, did you parents *really* name you Francis Marion? Because, I mean, as much as I admired the Swamp Fox as a tactician, he really was a bit of a racist, you know.

  • PSzymeczek

    One of the scariest things I ever saw in my life was during the 1996 Presidential primary season. There was a picture on the front page of my local newspaper of Pat Buchanan in Tombstone, Arizona, holding a six-shooter.

  • Robert C Gumbs

    Pat – has disgusted me since he was with Reagan. I often wonder why he doesn’t just go to Fox Network and stay there with all the other Bigots. Pat – is noe to those that really have no use for any of the bible’s moral teaching-but see’s Christianity as a type of badge that says “this guy is credible enough to walk the streets without restraints”. He boasts about the freedoms of speech and association here in America – but is outraged if one uses those freedoms in a way he doesn’t approve of. Another hypocritical contradictory historically blind American who believes that his white skin entitles him to start at the head of the line; and that god in heaven has pre-ordained that women, and people of color around the world spend their life in service to the master race.

  • A walkaway

    BTW – as an aside, fat women are severely discriminated against as well. My wife is overweight, but she has only half a thyroid and medical conditions that cause obesity (yet she’s experienced discrimination because of her weight on top of her being American Indian). Obesity is NOT a sign of gluttony, but is usually caused by many other non-blame-assignable things, like a diet heavy in carbohydrates (a cheap diet – sometimes all a person can afford) and/or low thyroid/glandular problems. It’s just as wrong to punish someone because of their medical problems as it is to discriminate because of their skin color.

  • Jonas Rand

    Had Christianity developed all of these denominations, ranging from fundamentalist to peace-love-and-Jesus, when the Crusades occurred? When the Roman Empire brutalized thousands of people? What denomination was responsible for the thousands of war crimes committed by Christian nations and entities?

    Thankfully, the church’s influence is dying out.

  • A walkaway

    MST, it depends on the form of Christianity. I follow a form that is denied by most “Good Christians” (as apposed to real Christians) but which is pre-Columbian in nature and traditional for my tribe. I also attend a UU church (since I live many miles from the nearest group of my people), where many are professed UU Christians – again a group denied by most of Christendom although it is a very old form of Christianity.

    The problem is fundamentalist forms of Christianity and especially those who follow Christian Dominionism (in one of the many forms). We also live in an area dominated by the same and the sad thing is that they drive people from Christ (and sometimes religion in general) and think they’re doing good. When you read what you consider “anti-Christian” comments, consider that fact – that maybe the person is talking about those who proclaim Christ with one breath and spew hatred with the next. That is so common that it’s easy to assume that the two go together (wrong as that may be).

    Another point that is germane to this discussion is the foundation of Christian Dominionism (and the precursor the Moral Majority), which has roots in racism. Read Frank Shaeffer’s writings about this.

    Buchanan, by all accounts, follows Dominionist thinking. Thus, he’s only spewing what I should expect him to.

  • Dave

    Pat’s the kind of guy that thought he was qualified to be president just because he was nixon’s speech writer,Obama is way more experienced. Then Pat ran away with all the money he raised from those fools. Pat also faulted “Political Correctness” because the commies invented the term,meaning anyone who was PC was a commie. People stopped using the “N……r” word because they want a better world for them. It had nothing to do with communism.Pat’s a cold warrior at the end of his rope.

  • Raymond

    A walkaway, I am sorry for your struggles, it is just not right.
    Oafs like Buchanan get a forum on TV to spew his garbage. WHY???
    Francis, you are a puerile evolutionary throwback whose atavistic characteristics mimic a bats**t spewing, regurgatative vomitous belching mooncalf with delusions of grandeur whose false distorted vision of reality tracks very well with that of the 18th and 19th centuries’ faux patriotic psychopathic fantasy hellbent on the destruction of everyone but yourself.

  • MST

    @A walkaway – I’m sorry you have been treated so badly. I don’t think of Native Americans as being lazy or alcoholics, I see them as people with a proud and amazing culture who have been treated very, very badly.

    Also, I detect some anti-Christian sentiment on these boards. Yes, so-called Christians have done some pretty terrible things. But there are Christians, such as myself, who do try to follow Christ’s teachings of being kind and respectful of others. I don’t hate gays, bomb abortion clinics, or tell people that don’t follow my beliefs that they are going to hell. Remember that the civil rights movement grew out of the church.

    As for Mr. Buchanan — does anyone take him seriously? He has a screw loose.

  • Rosalie Piazza

    It is gratifying to see that Mr Buchanan has reached new
    heights of intellectual thinking. What else would we
    expect from Buchanan but a rationale for prejudice & bigotry
    Ugh>…..!

  • Don Lively

    Death of the Moral Community????

    It is astounding that someone who is rationalizing prejudice can claim the moral high ground. All of the evils listed (genocide, slavery, colonialism…) are the result of some “moral community” imposing it’s prejudices on some other community by force: military force, force of law, manifest destiny, religious condemnation, or whatever version of might makes right is the “ideology of the moment”. Unless you want to ground morals on the writings of bronze age nomads who justify slaughter by promoting their minor deity to be the one and only true god, the imposition of one’s own rationalized prejudice on another is the ultimate immoral act.

  • A walkaway

    Pat Buchanan makes me want to puke. He’s never experienced prejudice and has no idea of how wrong he is.

    As a Native American, I’ve faced it many times. When it became public knowledge I was American Indian, I lost over half (just over 60%) of my customers in about a month’s time. Same person as they’d been dealing with for years, but since I turned out to be one of “those horrible heathen savages”, they wouldn’t do business with me. I even got reamed out at least once for misleading them about my identity (that was a miserable month). Their decision shipwrecked a growing business and impoverished a hard-working and honest person. I’ve been threatened, lost jobs, and had other difficulties because of who I am every since I found out about my heritage (in my mid 30s). It’s not right, just, or Christian to discriminate or be prejudiced (unless you follow the ersatz “Christianity” they claim).

    The fact is, stereotypes and prejudices are rarely based in reality. When the conservatives/”Good Christians”/etc. hear that I am American Indian by birth, they usually automatically assume (1) that I have problems with alcoholism, (2) I’m lazy, and (3) I get “government money” – that is, if they don’t tell me I’m a fake because I don’t fit their visual stereotype. It’s hard to break these stereotypes and get the people to see that what they believe about us as a group is wrong. The irritating thing is that the slightest hint of anything that supports their mindset, and their prejudice just gets reinforced – in the face of overwhelming evidence that their beliefs are just plain wrong. In other words, one Indian who drinks too much, and they assume we all are alcoholics… even in the face of thousands right in front of them who do not.

    I also take issue with Race, as it’s a spectrum rather than cut-and-dried divisions. They talk about Africans as being “Black”, well, Egypt is part of Africa, isn’t it? What about the other north Africa peoples? The stereotype about my people is also very frustrating. No, we all don’t have black hair, brown eyes, brown skin, and so on. Many of us in the east look far more European than some of the “whites”. And when you have intermarrying, the slightest bit of non-”Indian” ancestry and you don’t know what is going to pop out. I know people with only a tiny fraction of European “blood” who are blond and blue eyed, and have a moderately fair complexion. Thus their stereotypical thinking is wrong about race. (Important point to remember: In America, in many instances you have to PROVE you’re American Indian before you can claim it. I’m lucky in that I can document at least one bloodline, and that several others are known. Being Indian is about who your kin are, not what you look like.)

    Another important point is that in today’s world, there are cultures where homosexuality is the norm, and sexual relations and family structure are far more diverse than he thinks. Polygamy is actually the norm for cultures around the world. This too reflects in history – and gender is a cultural construct. The society you live in defines your gender and you’re acculturated into the standards of your culture at an early age. Some cultures have multiple “sexes”, and only a few try to limit them to two. So his prejudice isn’t universal and actually is limited to people who think like him.

    Finally, people also didn’t have many of the prejudices that that jackass talks about. Intermarrying between “races” used to be common if not the norm previous to modern times. He needs to read some research articles about the makeup of, for instance, Roman society. The difficulties with travel is the main (and I would argue only) reason why such diversity in color exists then and today.

  • marta kaye

    Pat Buchanan has always had the deep rooted ideas of the Hitlerian policies that Palin, Bachmann, Koch, the KKK, and the American Liberty League of 1934-1945 had—, who were funded by many American elites They had the idea to oust FDR,overthrow our government to implement Hitlers ideas. The same policies are being acted upon by the likes of the Tea Party.

  • Clay Williams

    Ol’ Pat; racist to the core, always was, always will be. One only has to look at those who give him a forum to know this. Go away, Pat – your are relevant only to those of your ilk!

  • http://mycatsaredemocrats.blogspot.com/ Democratic Cats

    We’re sure that all these haters consider themselves good Christians.

    Will Rachel Maddow continue to be on cordial terms with Pat? We await the answer with interest.

  • RLavigueur

    Francis Marion Braidfutre,

    Ok, so let me try to unpack this. Some people have different skills than other people, and this means that races are not equal to each other? Even ignoring that “equal” doesn’t mean assuming everyone has the same skills but instead refers to the legal and social treatment of different individuals, your assertion makes no sense.

    What does the fact that hunter gatherers are better at living off the land than office workers have to do with race? Yes, there’s a difference, but it’s a bit of a stretch to assume that correlation with skin colour must explain it when the same level of differences can be found within each so called race. To put it in terms you might understand, someone raised in a hunter gatherer society will probably become skilled at those techniques which benefit a hunter gatherer society, the same person, raised in a middle class western home, will have entirely different skills which benefit someone living in that environment. You might also explain how your theory accounts for differences in skill between members of the same race.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Oh we got a live one here!! Haven’t had one like this in a long time. And from the UK no less.

    “All races are not equal. What a load of bollocks. of course you can believe they are equal, if they only requirement you have for your beliefs are to be political correct, and believe in illusions; but if you want your beliefs to be founded on evidence; then you have got to admit that all races are not equal.”

    First of all, invidivuals are not equal. Second, you can’t say “races” are equal or unequal if you can’t define what races actually exist.

    “I would not dream to say that Bushmen are equal to whites when it comes to living off the land; they are way way superior.”

    Right, because the only difference between Bushmen and “whites”(who exactly?) is that they are of “different races”. I put the last part in quotes because Africa actually has a huge genetic diversity.

    ” Chinese are superior at particular skills, and inferior in others.”

    Like what? Having one of the world’s oldest and at times technologically advanced civilization?

    ” Depending on the issues or skills required, all races are either inferior or superior to any other race.”

    First of all, you haven’t even defined races. Second, this is an idiotic argument because a member of one race under certain conditions can excel under others(or vice versa). The Soviet Union was a highly technologically advanced society, but it’s former states have problems on par with African states. Japan was one of the most backward countries in the world up to the early 20th century. Now it is one of the most advanced.

    If these things are due to “race”, which is problematic for a number of other reasons, then you need to explain what changed. History is full of nations or empires rising and falling, even as their ethnic make-up remains the same.

    “You seem to want to think that everyone on the planet should pretend to be grey little men, and we should all pretend that there are no differences. Anyone who observes clear differences is to be screeched at as a ‘racist’. What utter stupidity.”

    Nope. Nobody is saying everybody is the same, individuals are very different.

    “Why don’t you take it from the great man Muhammad Ali himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_MGimveG00

    I’m not familiar with Muhammad Ali’s research into genetics and behavior. Do you have a link?

    “Whats next; you going to force all men to refuse to discriminate against fat women?”

    Now you’re playing the semantics game as though people are acting like ALL discrimination is inherently bad.

    ” You gonna demand they date a certain percentage of fat women; to prove they don’t discriminate against fat women? Put some CCTV cameras in their bedrooms, to make sure they get the same size hard-on for obese women???”

    Is anyone forcing you to date women of other races that you don’t find attractive? Nope. Anti-discrimination does not mean eliminating choice.

    “No. So men can discriminate against fat women; and there is no problem. But other people cannot discriminate for valid behavioural reasons; and you people throw your toys out the cot! Good grief!”

    Let’s see. Man doesn’t date fat woman at work. Social effects: None. Man refuses to hire non-white applicant, taking a white applicant with lower qualifications(something that happens all the time and there are scientific studies to back this up). Social costs: pretty heavy.

    Your analogy failed, but thanks for trying.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Not only did Irish people face discrimination, but they also initially faced slavery and genocide as well. The racial “science” of the 18th and 19th century taught that Irish were part of an inferior race.

    Buchanan has also written that the US was on “the wrong side” of WWII, and that they “gave” Eastern Europe to the Soviets.

  • Reynardine

    Mr. Buchanan, your dropseat is unbuttoned.

  • skinnyminny

    Ah,
    the old Pattie. I remember a few years ago, I was watching MSNBC, Pattie was a guest on one of the talk shows during the Pres. election campaign, I gasped as I witnessed Pattie on television yell at a black female political analyst, telling her to ‘shut up.’ His sister is no better. Yet, they are both (I believe) paid political analysts for MSNBC and CNN. I don’t watch either anymore – I canceled cable after Keith left MSNBC.

    BTW, if I’m not mistaken, the article refers to the ‘caste system’ in India. Here, if you are a certain skin color (meaning dark) the lighter skin people of India believe you will contaminate certain things-they don’t want you to touch certain things or people, you are born to be poor-and they believe there is nothing you can do to get away from being poor-you can’t marry a millionaire…, this system also has the indentured servants included…

  • Francis Marion Braidfutre

    All races are not equal. What a load of bollocks. of course you can believe they are equal, if they only requirement you have for your beliefs are to be political correct, and believe in illusions; but if you want your beliefs to be founded on evidence; then you have got to admit that all races are not equal.

    I would not dream to say that Bushmen are equal to whites when it comes to living off the land; they are way way superior. Chinese are superior at particular skills, and inferior in others. Depending on the issues or skills required, all races are either inferior or superior to any other race.

    You seem to want to think that everyone on the planet should pretend to be grey little men, and we should all pretend that there are no differences. Anyone who observes clear differences is to be screeched at as a ‘racist’. What utter stupidity.

    Why don’t you take it from the great man Muhammad Ali himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_MGimveG00

    Whats next; you going to force all men to refuse to discriminate against fat women? You gonna demand they date a certain percentage of fat women; to prove they don’t discriminate against fat women? Put some CCTV cameras in their bedrooms, to make sure they get the same size hard-on for obese women???

    No. So men can discriminate against fat women; and there is no problem. But other people cannot discriminate for valid behavioural reasons; and you people throw your toys out the cot! Good grief!

  • Gregory

    I find it ironic that an Irish Catholic would wax poetic on the good old days of prejudice. It really wasn’t that long ago that when employers could say, with impunity, that “Irish need not apply” or that JFK’s religion was considered an impediment to election.

    Is it possible that Mel Brooks had a better understanding of this issue than Pat? /snark
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boO4RowROiw

  • Paen

    Poor little Pat wants to sip mint juleps in the shade while the rest of us pick cotton.

  • Difluoroethene

    “In neither essay does Buchanan explain how long-standing prejudices that lead to such things as slavery, genocide, caste systems, apartheid, colonialism, discrimination and repression are ever overcome.”

    Slavery: Buchanan, apparently thinks slavery was a good thing (!) for black Americans.

    Genocide: I don’t know if Buchanan himself feels this way, but a LOT of his supporters and commenters on his website deny the Holocaust. I know that Buchanan frequently complains that the Holocaust led to modern “white guilt”; apparently Buchanan is more bothered by so-called “white guilt” than by the murder of 6 million Jews.

    Caste Systems: Buchanan has defended Jim Crow segregation in Washington D.C.

    Apartheid: Buchanan thought apartheid in South Africa was a good thing.

    Colonialism: Not sure how Buchanan himself feels about it, although there are other supposedly “mainstream” conservatives (like Jonah Goldberg) who have dabbled with defending it.

    Discrimination: We all know how Pat Buchanan feels about discrimination.

    Repression: Ditto.

    So, in short, Pat Buchanan doesn’t think it’s necessary to overcome the prejudices that lead to those evils, because he and his supporters either deny those things in the first place, or claim that they were beneficial rather than evil.

  • RLavigueur

    “homosexuality is natural and normal. That abortion is a woman’s right. That all voluntary sexual relations are morally equal. That women and men are equal, and if the former are not equally represented at the apex of academic, military and political life, this can only be the result of invidious discrimination that the law must correct. That all races, religions and ethnic groups are equal and all must have equal rewards.”

    It’s sad that anyone would seriously state any of these things as examples of negative trends in modern society, to the point that it wouldn’t look out of place as a parody of how extreme the far right has become. Of course, Buchanan’s readers are unlikely to notice the implications of his arguement, and will no doubt have many reasons why “good” prejudice means excatly the prejudices that they share and not one that they don’t, regardless of how old and venerable any of their prejudices are.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    ““Prejudice is prejudgment. And if prejudgment is rooted in the history and traditions of a people, and what life has taught us, it is a shield that protects. Only a fool would reject the inherited wisdom of his kind because it fails to comport with the ideology of the moment.”

    Human sacrifice, infanticide, cannibalism, trial by ordeal, polygamous/polyandrous marriage, incest, and torture were just a few of many traditional practices which often had practical motives behind them. Some of them were even essential for human survival at times. I guess we should bring back a few of those practices too.

    This glaring logical fallacy may seem obvious to some, but to Buchanan’s audience it is seen as wisdom.