Why are the same people who say that giving any consideration to the 'common good' when it comes to economic policies is evil communism, also getting teary eyed when the same basic sentiment is said in Latin about 'pluribus' and 'unum'? The same people who champion individual rights not only where they're good, but to an extreme ignoring any harm, also cheering the sentiment of the many being one, an even more extreme form of the idea socialism embraces?
I actually have an opinion on the answer, that involves the psyvhology of the people, and that's not a cheap shot that they're crazy.
It means that when they see 'the community' as a threat to them as an individual - i.e., a liberal is talking - they go to the extreme on 'individual rights'. But when they are getting to identify with the group - they are 'an American' and America is powerful - they eat it up and can't get enough of everyone coming together 'for America'.
It's partly why they are so vocal in support of the rights in general - free speech makes 'their nation' great, so good for it - but against the actual practice - that's dissent against 'their country', so it's bad, those lousy ungrateful commie hippies. IMO, it's a confused political idea leading to irrational and harmful behavior, but there you go.
To go on a little with one more example, it's why candidates who appeal to them as being 'in' with them - the scriptural references snuck into Bush speeches to appeal to fundamentalists, the Palin painting of herself as David against a literal Goliath media - appeal to the people so well. They eat up the message that 'one of them' can gain power against the evil government - and the Bushes and Palins who understand that, manipulate them shamelessly with it.
They're terribly duped and exploited - but tell them that, and they'll attack you as insulting them. Just give them a diet of 'why liberals are bad', and they're happy.
You might think that they could be told the facts and the scam exposed, but it's very hard to get through years of ideolgy.
For a trivial example, when Bush says 'Nucyoolur' not because Harvard didn't teach him the English language but as a political manipulation to be folksy, they don't recognize what he's doing as manipulation, they instead protect him from the liberal elitists who attack him for being folksy, and screw those elitets asses. Many liberals are unwilling to play that game and manipulate the voters of that type, they prefer to 'stick to the issues' and a rational approach - and they don't get many of their votes.
So, they'll mock liberals for holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya', but they'll hold hands and since 'e. pluribus unum'. They'll resent any 'collective' effort for social security, for Medicare, for Universal Healthcare, insisting on the role of individual people over any collective effort - even while saying how important 'unity' is, apparently as long as it doesn't actually do something united, other than war, which should never be challenged as misguided, because that's an attack on the unity for the war.
Pat Buchanan is a master polemicist at appealing to this 'patriotic sentiement' in people; the problem is, after he gets you hugging him, where he takes you next.
That's a common technique of a demagogue - grab with you with one line, to get you nodding your head to another far worse line he's really selling.
In fact, there's a loose connection to one of the most basic sales techniques - sales reps who know ask you a question immediately that you can only answer yes to, to get you saying yes to *anything*, because there's a sort of inertia that carries from it to the next question. This is why you often find yourself with a good sales rep saying 'yes' to his questions and waiting to say 'no' to the deal, but finding it hard when the time comes.
Questions like'which one do you like' or 'what do you like about it' are designed to sound like honest questions, btu to force you to say positive things about the purchase.
When you might be thinking pretty negatively about it, if you are saying positive after positive, that can start to change your opinion.
Buchanan knows that everyone has some basic things they'll say 'hell ya!' to, and he knows how to get people going on them. Now that he's not actively working for corrupt power like Nixon and Reagan, he's free to use all the anti-government sentiment he can incite to get people nodding - even against Republicans he has no special obligation to, which he knows adds to his credibility. 'Oh wow, Buchanan criticized Republicans too, that says he's not some partisan - let's listen, maybe we've been wrong.'
Buchanan's problem with Republicans is that he's sort of 'off the ranch', to fight the big ideological war, contemptuous of the Repuclibans playing politicis to win elections.