Monday, October 10, 2005

Speaking through Pat Buchanan

I am not that familiar with Pat Buchanan, but The Death of the West was a trenchant look at the danger the western (read civilized) world is in. Birth rates are below the replenishment rate in literally all of Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The US is procreating just enough to keep the population constant in the long-term, although the numbers are inflated by higher birth rates among a growing Hispanic population. Here's a few highlights from the CIA factbook (2.1 births per woman is required to keep the population constant--more than that means growth, less means retraction):

US--2.08
Ireland--1.87
France--1.85
Australia--1.76
UK--1.66
Netherlands--1.66
Canada--1.61
Japan--1.39
Germany--1.39
Italy--1.28
Spain--1.28
Russia--1.27

The only country in all of the developed world that is not facing an aging, shrinking population? Israel, at 2.44 births per woman. I suspect, however, that a disproportionate amount of those come from Sephardic (middle eastern) Jews and Arabs. It is Ashkenazi (European) Jews, however, that have turned Israel from a desert into a blossoming diamond in the rough. Nihilistic humanism simply cannot sustain itself. If Greg Paul were not so tendentious and facile, he might have looked at how religion and birth rates are correlated, rather than making invalid comparisons across countries by neglecting to look at the ethnic makeup of the countries in comparison.

An interesting aside--fecund whites in the US are much more likely to vote Republican than are whites with few or no children. And kids tend to be ideologically similar to their parents. Consequently, the Republican Party will become increasingly white while the Democratic Party will similarly become increasingly non-white, as less successful Hispanics and blacks continue to look for help from the government. Asians are the wild card, although numerically they are small fraction of the total population and relatively insignificant.

Speaking of asides, I got off track. On Meet the Press last Sunday, Pat Buchanan said this about Bush's pick for Sandra Day O'Conner's vacancy on the Supreme Court:

MR. RUSSERT: ...the CIA leak case, the president didn't want another political fight?
MR. BUCHANAN: That is certainly speculation and surmise, and it may be true. Tim, but that shows a lack of understanding of politics. What you do in a time like this is pick a battleground on philosophy and principle and rally your troops and create political capital. This was a golden teaching opportunity, a golden political opportunity, and a golden opportunity in terms of the Supreme Court, and the president blew it.
I couldn't agree with you more, Pat! Two days before Buchanan went on Russert's show, I said this in Randall Parker's comments section:

Bush apparently has no sense of political self-preservation. As mentioned, his approval rating is at an all-time low. It's at the drone level now--the ~38% left are going to support him irrespective of what occurs. A fiercely conservative, perspicacious Bork-like nominee would have been a real galvanizer. The Pat Buchanan contingent would have rallied alongside the neocons along with the broader majority of the country that leans traditional. With today's media, Bork would have been confirmed, especially with a Republican House/Senate... There was a huge opportunity for Bush and he blew it.

Will Miers be the next Souter? I suppose the President believes he knows. Personally, I thought the unusually shrewd Janice Rogers Brown would have been fabulous. For one, intelligent blacks are relatively uncommon, and she is both a minority and female. Seeing the dopey far-lefties like Schumer and Kennedy try to pound on her after supposedly fighting so hard for "equal rights" would have been a blast.

(Previous post)

No comments: