Get Them on the Line this Instant
Published in Komsomolskaya Pravda
(Russia) on 14 August 2013
by Olga Tukhanina (link to original)
(Russia) on 14 August 2013
by Olga Tukhanina (link to original)
Translated from
by Nile Miller.
Edited by Eva Langman.
Patrick Buchanan recently published an article titled “Culture War Goes Global” in the journal The American Conservative. It’s a brief piece, and the main idea is put forward right at the beginning. According to the author, a clash of civilizations is occurring not only between separate countries but also within countries themselves — especially in those countries where Christians have lived at one point or another.
Referring to Patriarch Kirill’s call for the U.S. and Russia to come to the aid of Syrian Christians, Buchanan bitterly poses a series of rhetorical questions: “Has Obama ever spoken out so forcefully for international action to save Christians? Has The New York Times ever exhibited a fraction of the concern for persecuted Christians it daily exhibits for harassed homosexuals?”
In reality, Buchanan, one of the oldest figures on the American political scene, wasn’t saying anything that hasn’t already been said. Mr. Buchanan’s position has remained the same over the course of several years. It’s sufficient to flip through the pages of this man’s most well-known work, “The Death of the West,” to understand his worldview.
What’s surprising is something else: the response from our readers to the translation of Buchanan’s article. One gets the impression that most people either don’t know or don’t care to know who he is. “How could an American write something like this?” “Patrick, they’re going to put you away!” “Obviously, the Kremlin is giving handsome amounts of money to the traitors across the ocean.” “I didn’t realize that there were still communist sympathizers in the U.S.” “This is simply nonsense written by an anti-Putin American.” These aren’t direct quotes, but they get the point across.
That’s unfortunate. First of all, as usual, we are plagued by laziness and a lack of curiosity. If you’re sitting online, is it really so hard to find information about the author? Second of all, while the U.S. Department of State is eagerly establishing connections with everyone it considers to be a reliable purveyor of U.S. foreign policy around the world, we’re sitting on our laurels. There were even former Russian intelligence agents recommending that we give Edward Snowden back to his home country — as a gesture of good will and to discourage future Snowdens in Russia. Even though we have made similar requests to the U.S. over the years and received squat, there was no dearth of people wanting us to willingly hand him over. If such people once worked in our intelligence agencies, what is there to be surprised about? We have as much national security as we deserve to have.
Thirdly, to call an American far-right Republican patriot — who belongs, in fact, to the ranks of the so-called “paleo-conservatives” today, who is also a Catholic and a former Nixon, Ford and Reagan associate — a communist is to insult him in the extreme. Although, strange as it may sound, today’s old-fashioned American conservatives and hard-line Soviet Communists have more in common with each other than they do with the 21st century new-wave politicians of the West and with those who march at the head of gay parades and spread democracy all over the world on the wings of rockets. It would seem that such people as Buchanan would be the most ardent “war hawks,” but no — it’s they who were the harshest critics of the Republican George W. Bush’s Iraqi campaign. Yes, many of them are elderly people. Ron Paul is certainly not young. John McCain is no spring chicken either, but we still hear about him far more often than we do about those who are neutral or even sympathetic toward Russia.
This begs the question: Why does our foreign policy devote so much time to our enemies and those who wish us harm, those who constantly tell us what to do, who impose their values on us, who step on us and threaten us? Why do we pay so little attention to our friends, potential partners and allies? Yes, it’s possible that many of them aren't extremely influential right now. They aren’t behind the reigns of power in their countries. But who knows what will happen in the future?
If there is any rationale whatsoever behind our government’s rhetoric and it’s not simply endless empty words for mass consumption, we should expect to see more energetic undertakings in the international arena. We do have friends, even on the other side of the ocean. Get them on the line this instant.
Referring to Patriarch Kirill’s call for the U.S. and Russia to come to the aid of Syrian Christians, Buchanan bitterly poses a series of rhetorical questions: “Has Obama ever spoken out so forcefully for international action to save Christians? Has The New York Times ever exhibited a fraction of the concern for persecuted Christians it daily exhibits for harassed homosexuals?”
In reality, Buchanan, one of the oldest figures on the American political scene, wasn’t saying anything that hasn’t already been said. Mr. Buchanan’s position has remained the same over the course of several years. It’s sufficient to flip through the pages of this man’s most well-known work, “The Death of the West,” to understand his worldview.
What’s surprising is something else: the response from our readers to the translation of Buchanan’s article. One gets the impression that most people either don’t know or don’t care to know who he is. “How could an American write something like this?” “Patrick, they’re going to put you away!” “Obviously, the Kremlin is giving handsome amounts of money to the traitors across the ocean.” “I didn’t realize that there were still communist sympathizers in the U.S.” “This is simply nonsense written by an anti-Putin American.” These aren’t direct quotes, but they get the point across.
That’s unfortunate. First of all, as usual, we are plagued by laziness and a lack of curiosity. If you’re sitting online, is it really so hard to find information about the author? Second of all, while the U.S. Department of State is eagerly establishing connections with everyone it considers to be a reliable purveyor of U.S. foreign policy around the world, we’re sitting on our laurels. There were even former Russian intelligence agents recommending that we give Edward Snowden back to his home country — as a gesture of good will and to discourage future Snowdens in Russia. Even though we have made similar requests to the U.S. over the years and received squat, there was no dearth of people wanting us to willingly hand him over. If such people once worked in our intelligence agencies, what is there to be surprised about? We have as much national security as we deserve to have.
Thirdly, to call an American far-right Republican patriot — who belongs, in fact, to the ranks of the so-called “paleo-conservatives” today, who is also a Catholic and a former Nixon, Ford and Reagan associate — a communist is to insult him in the extreme. Although, strange as it may sound, today’s old-fashioned American conservatives and hard-line Soviet Communists have more in common with each other than they do with the 21st century new-wave politicians of the West and with those who march at the head of gay parades and spread democracy all over the world on the wings of rockets. It would seem that such people as Buchanan would be the most ardent “war hawks,” but no — it’s they who were the harshest critics of the Republican George W. Bush’s Iraqi campaign. Yes, many of them are elderly people. Ron Paul is certainly not young. John McCain is no spring chicken either, but we still hear about him far more often than we do about those who are neutral or even sympathetic toward Russia.
This begs the question: Why does our foreign policy devote so much time to our enemies and those who wish us harm, those who constantly tell us what to do, who impose their values on us, who step on us and threaten us? Why do we pay so little attention to our friends, potential partners and allies? Yes, it’s possible that many of them aren't extremely influential right now. They aren’t behind the reigns of power in their countries. But who knows what will happen in the future?
If there is any rationale whatsoever behind our government’s rhetoric and it’s not simply endless empty words for mass consumption, we should expect to see more energetic undertakings in the international arena. We do have friends, even on the other side of the ocean. Get them on the line this instant.