A Republic, Not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
Qty:1
  • List Price: $29.95
  • Save: $2.99 (10%)
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
In stock but may require an extra 1-2 days to process.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Gift-wrap available.
Add to Cart
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: This book has already been loved by someone else. It MIGHT have some wear and tear on the edges, have some markings in it, or be an ex-library book. Over-all itâ?TMs still a good book at a great price! (if it is supposed to contain a CD or access code, that may be missing)
Add to Cart
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

A Republic, Not an Empire Hardcover – September 1, 1999


See all 7 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle
"Please retry"
Hardcover
"Please retry"
$26.96
$3.48 $0.01
Unknown Binding
"Please retry"
$20.00


Frequently Bought Together

A Republic, Not an Empire + Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?
Price for both: $44.08

One of these items ships sooner than the other.

Buy the selected items together

NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE
NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Product Details

  • Hardcover: 437 pages
  • Publisher: Regnery Publishing; 1 edition (September 1, 1999)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 089526272X
  • ISBN-13: 978-0895262721
  • Product Dimensions: 1.4 x 6.2 x 9.1 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (194 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #766,586 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

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.

More About the Author

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

Customer Reviews

Read the book and keep an open mind.
Kenneth J. Schneider
Pat Buchanan writes an excellent analysis of U.S. foreign policy throughout U.S. history.
GregD
It was a very interesting book and should be read by all.
John Verser

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

47 of 48 people found the following review helpful By J. Davis on March 3, 2000
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.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
52 of 55 people found the following review helpful By Lloyd A. Conway on May 10, 2000
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
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
30 of 32 people found the following review helpful By Mark Santelman on March 5, 2000
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.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
24 of 27 people found the following review helpful By A Customer on November 13, 1999
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.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Most Recent Customer Reviews

Search