Not an Empire, A Republic

This book is tremendous! Great reading for anyone who can be objective about re-examining the dangerous path America has been led down the last fifty years. Historically accurate and brilliantly articulated by a man who is the only original thinker on the U.S. political landscape. This is one is a winner!!

Read the better german verison frist. Pat sings a song of america and it's duchland, duchland uber allas. The shear refusal to see that the World War One not World War Two bankupted the britsh empire is the basis for this rant and it gets worse. Pat also see to see that was the opinion of the domnions fear full that the chamberlin might sell them out when the japanese moved south that forced a change of policy. Also I am no fan of Mao but Pat again fails to see that it was Mao success in maintaing a fighting force against the japanese from 1937 to 1945 gave him the basis for power not any thing america did. Indeed, Gen. George Marshall spend month in china in 1946 trying to arange for a cease fire and poltical settlement.

It is difficult to understand the shrieks of fear and dismay from critics of Buchanan. They obviously haven't read the book. Pat has given a fascinating history course with many interesting new sidelights about America's past to peak your interest. He has succeeded in exposing the New World Order cabal without having to use the "C" word. (The imminent dangers are the same no matter what you call it.) If enough voters are exposed to this information I think ANY third party could become the majority party and this appears to be the Buchanan strategy. A similar wakeup call about our loss of sovereignty comes from the book "Michael New - Mercenary or American Soldier"

Anyone who agrees with Buchanan regarding overreaching imperial policies should read Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers : Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000." While the prose may be drier, I think the history and conclusions are more convincing. Kennedy, writing in the mid 1980s, warned about U.S. imperial overstretch -- the sum total of our overseas commitments (economic, political and military) are greater than our ability to defend them simultaneously. Kennedy says overstretch rots nations from the inside out.
An important and necessary debate to have. Probably THE number one driving issue as we enter the 21st century...

A Republic, Not an Empire is Pat Buchanan's masterful tome on the dangerous course of American foreign policy.
As the United States remains the "sole superpower" in the world, it is setting a course for its own ruin, much like Rome and Britain, by becoming entangled in countless foreign wars and intrigues.
Much of this books reads like a history primer, illustrating how America wisely avoided, or was forced into international conflicts until the Cold War, when the threat of international Communism forced us to become a military and industrial power.
Buchanan's writing and philosophy demand reader's attention and intelligence, which is probably why the typical leftists and neocons hated it, instead falsefully accusing it of anti-Semitism.
Perhaps Buchanan will be heard, before it's too late.

The book is a brilliant and rigorous argument for turning America from its current global interventionist policies. Buchanan's love for the U.S. and its people is evident. Not since the first 30 years of U.S. history has such an amazing candidate ran for the presidency. I'm impressed.

I was assigned to read this book for my International Relations course and I expected a Nazi rant. Instead, I read an excellent history and debate about American foreign policy. The media and politicians attacked the Nazi views in this book, but no such nazism or anti-semitism is evident. The attacks on the Jewish lobby are part of an overall attack on ethnic group influence on U.S.foreign policy. Pat also attacks those who bow down to the Irish lobby and shape foreign policy to woo Irish-American voters. Read this book if you are interested in American foreign policy.

This book is a wonderful, historical account of the many different scenarios regarding the role of the United States in foreign wars. Washington's great rule as shown by Pat was to avoid European wars unless it directly affected the United States. The current media emphasis on the WWII controversy is unwarranted. Pat merely uses history to make his argument, that America should be making the decisions concerning war, not some foreign treaty or pre-ordained arrangement. I thought it was a very eye-opening read and would recommend any open-minded person to read it.

Pat has hit another home run--this book should be required reading at Yale and Harvard, whose grads have been mishandling American Foreign Policy for the last nearly a century.
I hope this is a runaway bestseller!

A Masterpiece! Everyone else is afraid to explore the truth. PJB shows how the buzz-word "isolationist" was brought into the American vocabularly, and how wrongly it is applied. This book brings recent history into the perspective of the founders of this great land. This is a must read!

I read this book first from the library then bought it. Buchanan has found another vote.How quickly we forget our history. This is a perspective we didn't study in school. Thanks Pat for a book that will go down in history as a classic. Keep writing and educating us.

Pat's critics are leftwing nitwits and cowards who strike at him without even giving their names.
So dumb they probably can't read, let alone honestly review, Pat's book.
Jews and Blacks must be extremely dumb for allowing themselves to be blindly manipulated by their so called leaders.
You don't have to like Pat or what he writes, but coming around just to attack him is at best, tacky.
At least learn to read, then read the book, before giving us your BS opinions.
Pat is, and has always been even-tempered, cheerful and extremely intelligent.
He is what the liberals only claim to be, outstanding and generous.
The Great Betrayal and A Republic... should be the foundation of a real course to truly educate our abominally ignornat exceptionally arrogant nation.
Thank God for true teachers like Pat.
c

This book should be baned, and its reader shot! The Government shouldn't allow people to read anyway. This book will cause the ignorant fools who think they are free to fall out of lockstep with their designated partys. We must have a New World Order!!

This was the most insightful book that I have read in the last 5 years. The book gave me a new interpretation of what the fouding fathers envisioned for our Republic. It is historically accurate and statements are backed up with historical fact. Anyone who would like to learn more about what our role in this world was originally intended to be should read this book. It also gives a new perspective on how free trade has affected the world and what it is doing to our great country. I highly recommend it!

How ANYONE could say that this book is about Hitler is beyond reason. WWII is but a part of this overview of US foreign policy going back to Washington's advice regarding avoiding entagling alliances.
This book is recommended to all who want to understand the history of US foreign policy and how our historically putting American first helped the USA become the country it is today.

It was wonderful. It showed that Pat is the only candidate that really understands foriegn policy and his views are right on!
America should not get into conflicts that are not in our vital interests, and Pat backs it all up in this book. It is a must-read for any American that will be voting in the coming election. It tells what our foriegn policy should be and why. It was a very interesting book and should be read by all.

Mr. Buchanan has once again proven that he does not know what he's talking or writing about...but at least he's finally showing his true colors. It's nice to know that old Pat is a Nazi sympathizer because that explains everything about this man. Only in Free Speech America could someone get away with this garbage. And this guy's running for President? Heaven help us all!

Despite its age, this book is still relevant. Given the current dire fiscal situation and the seemingly open-ended warfare against an elusive enemy, this book may interest those looking for an alternative course.

Buchanan's book is very rich in wonderful quotes, rendering it an excellent read and an utter delight.

Needless to say, I recommend it.

'A republic' is a well written book that shows Pat Buchanan's strong background is the studies of history, politics and economic theory. However, when I say well-written, I mean that it is strongly constructed to tell the version of history Buchanan wishes to be preserved. Buchanan is a bigot and a xenophobe. He choses to include only the facts that support his ethnocentricity and he supports Nazi Facism by saying that it wasn't so bad when you consider what Stalin and Mao did. Rather than condemn America for fighting beside facists he defends the facists we WERE trying to fight. I find it unspeakably assinine that anyone would condemn someone who kills 20 million people while supporting another who kills 6 million. Why, Mr. Buchanan, would you become an idolizer of the racist Lindenberg rather than Patton, who wanted to continue the European campaign into Eastern Europe and defeat Stalin?
Pat Buchanan is a strong writer but he lacks compassion. He seems to only wish to be a designer of history. Fortunately his version of history is repeatedly reduced to ethnocentric rhetoric and he will be easily forgotten.

An excellent, well written book. Buchanan presents a fresh look at the way history repeats itself. Some of the opinions can be construed as an endorsement for staying out of WWII if taken out of context. I had read all the hype and quotations taken out of context by the media and political figures who oppose Buchanan. Reading the book I better understood Buchanan's position.

Admirers of Pat Buchanan will be hard-pressed to defend their hero's latest book, a pro-Hitler tirade that makes the arguement that America was unjustified to go to war with Nazi Germany and should have left Hitler's legions to roam about Europe.
Buchanan's sickening admiration of Hitler, a man the author has called in the past "a genius" & "a statesman", comes through time and again. Perhaps the most disgusting part of the book is Buchanan's claim that Hitler wanted to be America's friend, a theory based on Buchanan's interpretation of "Mein Kampf". Buchanan, alas, ignores historical tidbits such as Hitler's "Z Plan", a construction program of aircraft carriers and battleships, coupled with the acqusition of air and naval bases in the Atlantic, was part of a concerted effort to prepare for the war against America that Hitler wanted to fight.
Buchanan's reading of history is all wrong and his admiration of Hitler makes any decent person sick. Shame, Pat. Shame.

Buchanan's book entitled, A Republic, Not An Empire is an excellent book for those who not only wish to brush up on American history, but also wish to understand those principles on which our government was founded. He's many insights into America's current foriegn policy offers the reader a well digested and carefully examined anaylsis covering the last thrity years.

Neo-isolationist Pat Buchanan, who had been so wrong for so long, finally got one right. First the wrongs: In late September 2001 he & his neo-Marxist soul brothers (Chomsky, Sontag, Michael Moore ... that rancid crowd) crowed about the wickedness of our impending invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan, said Buchanan with earnest importance, would be flipped into nuclear-tipped instability. It was an echo of Buchanan's choice in 1990 & 1991 to merge with the neo-Marxists in opposition to the Gulf War that kept Saudi Arabia out of Saddam Hussein's evil axis.

In 2003 & beyond, of course, Buchanan again went to bed with rancidity -- Chomsky, Moore, Ivins -- against Quincy Bush's new Iraq War. Buchanan finally got one right. The war is wrong. It's wrong because it's a war we can't win (I see no light at the end of this tunnel) & can't end (except maybe in the long run when we're all dead.) Failing the first test of a Good War, we can't even spin it as a win.

Buchanan's book is like Buchanan, a birdshot blast of hits & misses. He's wrong or manipulative about 19th Century foreign policy, holding it up as exemplary of the best isolationist impulse to avoid foreign entanglements & entangling alliances. He cherry-picks his way through the complicated presidencies of Polk & Lincoln that entangled us with foreigners, big time. He learns to forget the obvious lesson that, from Louisiana in 1803 through McKinley in 1898, almost every push & flex of American policy entangled us with France, Spain, Britain, Mexico, or dozens of quasi-sovereign Indian tribes. Yes, Buchanan talks about General Jackson's incursion into Florida, doing manifest destiny before it was cool or enunciated, but Buchanan firmly resists the temptation to draw an obvious conclusion: isolationist America in the 19th Century was very effing far from isolationist, (President) Buchanan perhaps excepted.

Pat is ok on the century from McKinley to Clinton, Gulf War excepted. He's reliable about America First & its discontents. (Lindbergh, I believe, was a nuanced isolationist who resisted wading into war on two fronts when we were utterly unprepared to fight on one), and is very, very good about FDR's interminable rush to wah. (Pat shows that Frank was oblivious to the Euro threat until about three minutes past the last minute. Then FDR conducted global war by stealth, trying to provoke Germany & Japan to react to our acts of secret war, an allusion to an excellent book by Joe Persico.)

FDR reprised a spooky scenario that Woodrow Wilson used in 1917: disclaim any belligerent intent to fight over there while doing things over here that made foreign war inevitable. (Michael Medved in his book about the shadow presidents tells how Edward House shadow-boxed Woodrow Wilson into a corner where Wilson pretended to be ceutral in thought & deed while walking or running into Britain's snare.)

About the Cold War, let's not refight it here, except to suggest that the Hanover/Dartmouth suggestion, above, that we'd have won better by getting out of the way and letting the USSR run the field, is nuts. Afghanistan proved that the USSR could overextend its empire, as Hanover avers, but only because we were assiduously pushing against the USSR's extension of power. In other words, we intervened.

Once again, the LIBERAL media called Pat Buchanan a racist and anti-semite for no reason. There is nothing anti-semetic in this book. The libs are just scared of a passionate conservative who has real convictions and a spine for doing the right thing, unlike the Washington insiders like George Bush and John McCain.

Pat was once a great Republican who wanted to become the nominee of his Party because the others who were seeking the nomination weren't conservative enough for him. Then, he got to New Hampshire and discovered that the only way to win was to abandon his long held Republican position in support of free trade. This, even though we all learned in Economics 101 that all the reshuffling from the horse and buggy to the Boeing 747 made progress possible. Yes, heart wrenching stories about exploited, downsized little people are told over and over again so power will be given to liberal socialists so that progress can be managed by them rather than the fools who prefer to travel by 747 rather than horse and buggy. If there is one thing economists increasingly agree on it is free trade. They teach us that if you can only buy things made within 100 miles of your home your standard of living would be cut by 99% and that if you can freely buy things made anywhere in the world your standard of living would go up by 99%. In a booming free trade world Pat's conversion is doing him very little good. Maybe even some could have forgiven this purely political conversion but now, in addition, he wants us to abandon our very Republican foreign policy commitments around the world too. The book shows much knowledge of recent world history which is very nice in a presidential candidate, but the notion of withdrawing from the world is plain dumb: 1) we are, as Ronald Reagan said, the last best hope for freedom.-without American ideals on freedom from gov't, and individual liberty the Old World and the East would descend into chaos. 2) We were not involved prior to WW11; then dragged in late, and 60 million died. Our bombers flew over Germany without fighter escort and were decimated because our isolationist policy led us to the conclusion that we did not need a superior military to save the world or defend ourselves. 3) Today we are heavily involved around the world in promoting American ideals and militarily defending them. This policy stops the Hitler's and Sadams in there tracks and gets our allies to do much of the fighting and dying long before a conflict might reache our shores. 4) The world is now technologically linked and far smaller than ever; the likelihood that future conflicts might stay localized is more minimal than ever. Pat is suggesting these things to be different; to get a nomination, but he is also dead wrong, and confusing us about the real issues in American politics which have always had to do with the issues between Democrats and Republicans. Please read : "Understanding The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans" it is the classic text on the basic issues of American politics that we have faced for 200 years each time we enter the voting booth. Pat is doing his nation great harm with his ego centric bid for a 3rd party nomination. He distracts us from the 200 year old, on going debate between Democrats and Republicans that has always defined our couontry. If you're going to read about politics read about the real issues, the issues you'll vote on for the rest of your life.

The foreign policy outlined in A Republic, Not An Empire is based on the wisdom of men like Washington and Jefferson. If followed the Buchanan Doctrine will save lives. An excellent companion to his previous book The Great Betrayal.

There, one of the reviewers said it himself: the RE-Mexicanization of the Southwest, which the United States took from Mexico at the end of the Mexican War in 1848. "And they guarded with guns the land that they had stolen" (John Steinbeck). The same person argues that the Germans should try to reclaim Polish territory that they lost during WWII. The Mexicans were similarly expelled after the Mexican War, so by similar logic, doesn't that mean that should be permitted to return to what was once Mexico?

I am a history major at the University of Connecticut. We read much of Mr. Buchanan's work in class and attempted to support it with historical context. It did not hold up. Not in the least. Buchanan repeatedly omits well sourced and well documented history, instead supporting his theories with unsubstantiated claims and unsupported evidence. He choses the facts that best suit his desired history. And his history is one which empathizes with the Nazis. Further, his current foreign policy theory is one which one minute supports isolationism and the next minute ocean crossing interventionism. All based on the situation, all based on Buchanan's feelings towards the particular ethnicity or the as an asset of the United States. The man has no compassion for anyone but his white brothers.
Patrick Buchanan has an ethnocentric and bigot-ridden view of the world. I am appalled that someone with so much hatred can rise to such great power in our country. In a more dire world, Buchanan would be a monster, a leader similar to Stalin. He has the same ethnocentric paranoia that taps easily into hatred. In this world, I am happy to say that he is generally discredited by all but the most ridiculously conservative.

Isolationism is an intellectually bankrupt basis for building a foreign policy. Not only is it foolish, it is impossible in the context of our global economy. His views on WWII are laughable. Anyone who votes for Buchanan is voting for stagnation and bigotry.