Comments on: Pat Buchanan, or John C. Calhoun? http://www.historiann.com/2012/04/13/pat-buchanan-or-john-c-calhoun/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Sat, 20 Sep 2014 07:56:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: arbitrista http://www.historiann.com/2012/04/13/pat-buchanan-or-john-c-calhoun/comment-page-1/#comment-999873 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:40:15 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=18560#comment-999873 I’ve been saying for years that the modern Republican Party is just a revival of Calhounism.

]]>
By: undine http://www.historiann.com/2012/04/13/pat-buchanan-or-john-c-calhoun/comment-page-1/#comment-998679 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:47:26 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=18560#comment-998679 I would say either Calhoun or John Brown would win a crazy-eyes face-off, but Buchanan can do more contemporary damage.

]]>
By: Mary Catherine http://www.historiann.com/2012/04/13/pat-buchanan-or-john-c-calhoun/comment-page-1/#comment-997775 Sun, 15 Apr 2012 04:36:59 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=18560#comment-997775 “but I was struck by the consistency in the ideas and the rhetoric from Calhoun to Buchanan over the past 154+ years. Maybe most of the Calhouns of 2012 are marginalized to writing nasty comments on blogs and news stories, but at least one of them is a respected Washington power player.”

H’ann, I agree, the consistency is quite striking. If your ‘Calhoun or Buchanan?’ exercise doesn’t quite work, is “too softball,” as Susan puts it, it’s only because of the 19th-century grammar and syntax, and characteristic Victorian flourishes, of Calhoun’s prose, not because of any fundamental dissimilarity of purpose or intent on the part of Buchanan. The ideas and the rhetorical manoeuvres of the two men are pretty much the same.

I think it matters, though (I want to believe, need to believe…), that Buchanan is considered a bit of curiosity nowadays: a lovable (ugh. really? not feeling the love here, but anyway…) curmudgeonly grandfather of US politics who must be given a seat at the table of contemporary political commentary, by virtue of his sheer longevity (but also because, yes, and sadly, US racism and xenophobia have a “pedigree”). That Buchanan even has a soapbox is obviously deplorable, but I can’t help thinking (hoping) he is no longer thoroughly respectable, is no longer quite the thing (unlike Calhoun in his day, is what I mean). Wasn’t Buchanan recently fired from his position as commentator for MSNBC, e.g.? More grist for the mill of “anti-white” “racism” in some circles, no doubt, but Buchanan is probably only a few audience measurement points away from debasing himself on Reality TV.

]]>
By: Janice http://www.historiann.com/2012/04/13/pat-buchanan-or-john-c-calhoun/comment-page-1/#comment-997637 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:23:30 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=18560#comment-997637 Heh, we’ve been juxtaposing that picture of Calhoun with Count Dooku from the Star Wars prequels for our secret project. . . .

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2012/04/13/pat-buchanan-or-john-c-calhoun/comment-page-1/#comment-997610 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:17:04 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=18560#comment-997610 Indyanna, believe it or not, that was one of the LEAST crazy-eyed images of Calhoun I could find. Just go to images.google.com, and dial up “John C. Calhoun.” The daguerrotypes are particularly disturbing.

(Let’s just say he’s NOT a candidate for My Daguerrotype Boyfriend.)

Wait, GayProf: what? A new book on the 19th C U.S.-Mexican borderlands? Surely you don’t think anyone who reads this blog could possibly be interested in that.

]]>
By: GayProf http://www.historiann.com/2012/04/13/pat-buchanan-or-john-c-calhoun/comment-page-1/#comment-997513 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:23:09 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=18560#comment-997513 Wait — Calhoun and Buchanan are two different people? Are you sure? That doesn’t sound right to me.

If only there was a recent book on the U.S.-Mexican border in the nineteenth century… *cough*

]]>
By: Indyanna http://www.historiann.com/2012/04/13/pat-buchanan-or-john-c-calhoun/comment-page-1/#comment-997509 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:13:41 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=18560#comment-997509 Calhoun’s aversion to “incorporation” didn’t dissuade most of his generation from visions of territorial *conquest* any more than did the different ideas of New England abolitionists. Anyone have any ideas about what may have put that expression on Calhoun’s face below the signature Crazy Eyes–the backward lean and dumbfounded mouth? A boa constrictor slithering into a committee room with a cloture motion grasped in its maw? A senate janitor with a ladder and hammer getting ready to hang a portrait of John Quincy Adams? A long beloved nephew with a backpack, a boat ticket to California, and a request for a $500 letter of credit?

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2012/04/13/pat-buchanan-or-john-c-calhoun/comment-page-1/#comment-997410 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:34:28 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=18560#comment-997410 Mary Catherine: I think you’re probably right about most of the Calhouns of 2012, but I was struck by the consistency in the ideas and the rhetoric from Calhoun to Buchanan over the past 154+ years. Maybe most of the Calhouns of 2012 are marginalized to writing nasty comments on blogs and news stories, but at least one of them is a respected Washington power player.

Why is that?

(It is difficult to find a Buchanan quotation from his book that doesn’t reference something that happened since 1848, so that’s why in the end I chose a Calhoun excerpt for this post. But still, the historical vision and interpretive imagination is remarkably consistent.)

]]>
By: J. Otto Pohl http://www.historiann.com/2012/04/13/pat-buchanan-or-john-c-calhoun/comment-page-1/#comment-997401 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:18:01 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=18560#comment-997401 Going by Mexican soap operas, however, it appears that all Mexican women are white with blond hair.

]]>
By: polarbearfan http://www.historiann.com/2012/04/13/pat-buchanan-or-john-c-calhoun/comment-page-1/#comment-997190 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:38:34 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=18560#comment-997190 Well, unless you thought that there were some people reading your blog who found Calhoun’s or Buchanan’s ideas palatable,why did you bother to write the post in the first place?

]]>