Pat Buchanan

There is no doubt that Pat Buchanan is brilliant. Sometimes I agree with him (for example, we appear to see eye to eye about Rudy Giuliani), and sometimes I don't. I have often thought that despite disagreeing with him, I can't argue with his logic.

In recent posts to his blog, though, I feel like the wheels are starting to come off. As a Jeffersonian, Buchanan sees the concentration of power in the federal government (and state government, for that matter) as a threat to personal liberties. I share the fundamental concern, but I don't see taking the principle as far as he does, particularly with respect to equality among Americans of various sexual orientations (here). "Through Congress," he says, "the gay rights activists are seeking to use law to impose their values on society."

Buchanan inverts the goal of equal freedom in the gay rights movement: he characterizes success for the movement as the restriction of individual freedoms, and the criminalization of personal conduct. Never mind that the "personal conduct" in question is bigotry and discrimination.

Which right has precedence? The right to freely make bigoted and discriminatory choices, or the right to equal treatment? One person's freedom is another's repression, I suppose. A better way of deciding how to mete out freedoms would be to look to John Rawls, who believed that social goods (including forms of opportunity) should be distributed equally, and that the only unequal distributions that are just are those that place advantages in the hands of the most disadvantaged members of a society.

How would Pat Buchanan assign rights and liberties from behind a veil of ignorance? Do you suppose he would say that the preservation of the right to make decisions for oneself is the most important goal of a just and free system? Or would he be more merciful to those placed at a disadvantage by that kind of society?