A Republic, Not an Empire [Hardcover]

Patrick J. Buchanan (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 1, 1999

The political commentator and presidential candidate argues that getting involved in regional skirmishes is creating enemies for America--and that our security is at risk.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Anyone who has caught Pat Buchanan's television appearances, or heard his campaign rhetoric, will be surprised at his relatively evenhanded and thoughtful tone as he writes--often quite persuasively--in favor of the restoration of the political, military, and economic independence that largely drove U.S. foreign policy in the 19th century. At the heart of A Republic, Not an Empire is a well-written history of U.S. foreign policy beginning with the end of the American Revolution, going through the First and Second World Wars, Vietnam, and the end of the cold war, up to the superpower's involvement in the Persian Gulf and the former Yugoslavia. This section is bookended by, essentially, two very long op-ed pieces that lay out Buchanan's view of U.S. foreign policy: American interests should determine all foreign-policy decisions.

The twin foreign-policy goals of interventionism and free trade that seem to drive the Clinton administration's foreign policy are, Buchanan argues, the same pursuits "that brought the British Empire to ruin." Empires fall, he reminds us, through war and too many foreign commitments. With the end of the cold war, he suggests, U.S. foreign policy has become chaotic, driven by special interests; the sum of U.S. global commitments has become greater than the country's ability to defend them. In the end, A Republic, Not an Empire proposes, the only country the United States can completely rely on and trust is itself. --Linda Killian

From Publishers Weekly

Claiming to rescue history from the clutches of revisionists who not only slander the idea of isolationism but also get their history wrong, Buchanan (The Great Betrayal, etc.) offers a ringing defense of isolationismAthough he doesn't call it that. Instead, Buchanan calls his foreign policy one of national interest. It is rooted in an outlook that is not just politically conservative but metaphysically conservative: "The fatal flaw in the globalist vision is that it is utopian. It envisions a world that has never existed and can never exist, because it is contrary to fallen human nature." Scoffing at dreamy internationalism (e.g., Woodrow Wilson's na?ve desire to make the world "safe for democracy" and George Bush's trumpeting of a "new world order"), he invokes George Washington's Farewell Address warning against foreign entanglements and John Quincy Adams's dictum that it is not America's destiny "to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." At issue, argues Buchanan, is America's sovereignty: the country should not make commitments to the U.N. or even NATO that will exact a price of blood and treasure where no vital national interest is at stake. As Buchanan ranges widely through American history, historians will find ample opportunity to sling analytical darts. But readers who can stomach the author's more outrageous fits of polemical bile (e.g., claiming that Joseph McCarthy "did nothing to... compare to what was done to the patriots of America First") will have to admit that Buchanan makes a stirring and entertaining argumentAeven if, as U.S. intervention in Kosovo and NATO expansion illustrate, it is, for the foreseeable future, a losing argument. (Sept.)
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 437 pages
• Publisher: Regnery Publishing; 1 edition (September 1, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 089526272X
• ISBN-13: 978-0895262721
• Product Dimensions: 6.3 x 1.4 x 9.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (193 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #995,339 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

43 of 44 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent,if flawed,overview of American foreign policy March 3, 2000

By J. Davis

Format:Hardcover

Overall, this is an outstanding book; well backed up by the author's research. Buchanan takes a second look at our nation's history and comes to some strong, controversial conclusions. While I do not agree with some of his arguments,the book is not an apology for Hitler, as many in the media and elsewhere have said. Apparently, none of them bothered to read the book before forming their conclusions. Buchanan's thesis, that America would be better off avoiding foreign entanglements ,as George Washington warned two centuries ago, seems fairly incontrovertible to me. I disagree with his assessment of the Mexican War and a few other points, but overall this book is pretty much on the mark. Soft on Hitler- absolutely not. Soft on James Polk and William McKinley-to a certain degree,yes. Readers who approach this book with an open mind will stand to learn a great deal. Those who hate Buchanan are not going to give it a fair review, so I encourage every reader to ignore the mindless reviews that falsely accuse Buchanan of "supporting the wrong side of the war,"etc..., and judge the book on its merits.

48 of 51 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars A Freedom Lover, Not a Hitler Lover May 10, 2000

By Lloyd A. Conway

Format:Hardcover

John McCain never read this book. That is clear to anyone who does read it. Mr. Buchannan recaps the history of US foreign relations; his analysis of the events leading up our entry into World War II is scholarly, fair, and plausible. He has not a good word fot Hitler; his thesis is that Hitler was no threat to us, and that we do not need to bail out the rest of the world whenever evil rears its' ugly head. (It is arguable that what replaced Hitler in eastern Europe was worse than Nazism, based on the body count on Communism's ledger in the years since Lenin.) Most Americans are probably non-interventionists at heart; the sharp decline in armed forces recruiting may be traceable to a sense that the missions in the post-Cold War era have no clear connection to defending America. (As a veteran, I was/am willing to risk battle for my country, but have no inclination to kill Serbs on behalf of Albanians, or vice versa.) One may disagree with him (as I do on trade), but this is a reasonable book, and nothing written in it makes him a friend of facism. Give Mr. Buchannan his due, and read it for yourself - you'll be a step ahead of his critics. -Lloyd A. Conway

27 of 29 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Buchanan's Research Crushes His Critics March 5, 2000

By Mark Santelman

Format:Hardcover

Pat Buchanan, as he did with The Great Betrayal, exposes the real enemies of America (the Establishment within Washington, DC and the mainstream media which are arm-in-arm promoting a New World Order)with concrete evidence and hard cold fact and he does it by going back with a thorough analysis of our nation's entire foreign policy history.

Regrettably, most reviews critical of A Republic, Not an Empire are blatant personal attacks on Mr. Buchanan by people who usually have not read his book. And if they said they read it we are merely taking there written word it. Words meant to assure us of their intellectual honesty, yet words tucked in a writing of hate. Which is exactly the opposite character of Mr. Buchanan. These attacks violate the spirit and the letter of the guidelines posted by Amazon for writing and posting reviews. Sadly Amazon lets these condescending and belittling reviews continue.

Thus, I would challenge everyone to ignore the reviews posted by me and others and read those above by Amazon, Kirkus Reviews, and Booklist. While they admittedly strive to be fair, balanced, measured and objective, you will find all three tip-their-hat to Mr. Buchanan for wrestling with the important issues of our time with unparalleled historical research.

24 of 27 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Read it before you buy the Liberal Propoganda November 13, 1999

By A Customer

Format:Hardcover

I don't think Buchanan is "soft on Hitler" - I think he makes a good argument that Stalin was the bigger threat -- to the US. I think it is a reasonable argument: "The British-French declarations of war impelled Hitler to attack the west to secure his rear before invading Russia"..which gave Stalin two years to prepare for Hitler and "thus saved the Soviet Union for communism". The British had stopped Hitler at the Channel and Russia had stopped Hitler and by the end of 1941, Germany was facing the same Russian winter that had defeated Napoleon.

So the argument that America could have stayed out of the war even longer is valid. Obviously, the Chinese and Russians (and others), were very keen of getting us in the war to help their causes. With Russia getting pummeled by Germany, and Japan brutalizing China -- no doubt he's correct that there were outside forces trying to get us into W.W.II. Provoking Japan also helped to get the ball rolling for the forces of interventioinism. (By the way, please re-read his chapter on the Myth of American Isolationism)

Some terms stop all arguments: "racist", "anti-semetic", and now "isolationist"..If you're labeled an "isolationist" - all discourse stops and the "sheeple" bah in disgust!

Liberal propaganda has successfully marginalized Buchanan by labeling him "anti-Semitic", "racist", and an "isolationist". I think he makes a solid argument that America and our Western Allies might been better off if Hitler spent the first years of the wars on the eastern front.

If we are intellectually honest, we look back at W.W....I and see that war to make the world safe for democracy made the world safe for fascism, Bolshevism, and Nazism. It certainly is true that it is not the fighting of W.W.II that left America strong -- it was the fact that we stayed out as long as we did. America is as strong as it is today because we fought the war entirely on foreign soil, we lost only a fraction of the men that the other great powers lost, and we had the resources to profit from the world's rebuilding.

The thesis that America should focus on her own 50 states and not on try to become the world's policeman is compelling. It is not so much a treatise on isolationism as it is a tribute to what has made this Republic strong. Read more ›