Posted by
Andrews on Friday, August 15, 2008 11:29:38 AM
I know
I swore never to mention Pat Buchanan again, but I think
his most recent article deserves notice. Not because of his position, which is predictable, nor because of any errors, but because of the logical consequences of what Pat and the commenters on his article are proposing.
Pat, and many of those writing comments, argue that Ossetia "isn't part of Georgia". They claim that it was attached by Stalin and should be "allowed independence", by which they mean the Russian invasion and annexation should be allowed to proceed. Let us ignore that the exact same tactics and specious calls for "independence" were used by Hitler to annext the Sudetenland and later Bohemia, allow me to ask if those calling for us to allow the dismemberment of Georgia would be consistent in their application of this principle.
For example, Texas is not "really" part of the US, we took it form Mexico in a war. In addition, there are areas that are majority Hispanic. If they were to agitate for independence in some counties, declare themselves "independent" and then ask Mexico to invade, should we allow them to be annexed? Should we let Mexico invade San Diego? Corpus Christi?
The logic is the same. If we buy into Pat's nationalist theories (sounding like a throwback to the 1930's), any ethnic group can split off their own territory and hand it over to a neighbor. So, until your nation is composed of anything other than a single homogeneous ethnic group, you constantly runt he risk of invasion by neighbors at the request of a discontented minority.
I know some still buy into Pat's racial/cultural nationalist theories, even if they say it is simply "pragmatic", but I would argue that nationalism is actually the cause of the problems, not the solution. America is proof of that. We have existed peacefully for two centuries and more, with a heterogeneous ethnic and cultural makeup, while Europe, obsessed with nationalism, has been torn by war after war. It appears obsessing on nationality is not "practical", but is the source of discontent.
Of course, the truth of the matter is, there is no real nationalist uprising, it is largely a faux uprising being used in Putin's efforts to return to the old imperial borders. He admitted as much when he called publicly for regime change in Georgia. So, why is Pat pretending otherwise? Is it perhaps that Putin, a nationalist mad man bent on expansion, is actually taking Hitler's place in Pat's heart? Will the swastika be removed from the secret shrine in Pat's basement to be replaced by the tsarist eagle? It isn't as far fetched as it sounds. Nazis and imperial Russia both hated Jews and Poles, both wanted the same land, and both fought to expand their empire.
Of course, it will mean Pat will have to do some new fabrication, I mean research, for his next book "Why the Tsars Were Right", but that is a small price to pay to replace a lost cause with a living tyrant to admire.
POSTSCRIPT
One problem with ethnic nationalism is that there is no end to it. Each group contains subgroups distinguishable only to their members, and those subgroups contain even smaller groups and so on. So, at no point will there really be an ethnic group which is no longer divisible. If we follow Pat and the "pragmatists" in arguing that ethnic unity is the basis for strong government, then we will need to establish a state for each household, otherwise the risk of ethnic strife will still exist within those states.
UPDATE
The clear evidence that Putin is in the wrong, besides the fact that pat Buchanan is siding with him, is to be found in the number of posters coming up with conspiracy theories explaining how the "neocons" forced reluctant Russia to invade. Once something is blamed on the "neocons", you can sleep easy knowing that it was the right thing to do.
Correction: Some may have noticed the original title was incorrect, reading "Pat Buchanan's Becomes Putin's Lord Haw Haw?". The reason was that originally it was entitled "Pat Buchanan's Neville Chamberlain Moment", but I decided that Buchanan is a small fry, not big enough to be Chaberlain, more in the realm of Lord Haw Haw, Tokyo Rose and Ezra Pound, not one who gives things away to dictators, just one who beats the drum for them and makes excuses. Unfortunately, the apostrophe and "S" remained after the title change. It has now been corrected.