POLITICS & COMMUNITY
Is Pat Buchanan the Real Problem?
Published March 5, 1996.
In the past weeks, political pundits, most of the GOP establishment and moderate-to-liberal citizens across the country have watched, dumbfounded, as Buchanan swiped Louisiana, pulled a near-upset in Iowa, won New Hampshire, and stole delegates on Dole's home turf, the Dakotas.
On Arizona's election night, Buchanan supporters phoned Steve Scully's C-Span show to promote their candidate. After one caller warned of the foreign occupation of the United States by the United Nations, Bob Balkin, the editor of The Hotline, could only say, "There's a Buchanan supporter for you."
While Balkin's intent was obviously sarcasm, it exemplifies the basic reaction to Buchanan from the other candidates and most of the media: flabbergasted silence. At worst, Buchanan is labeled an extremist. But, when done so by Dole and the other contenders, it sounds like jealousy over Buchanan's success. And when the mainstream media run segments on candidates' shoes along with the latest campaign results (CNN), it is clear that they have become so obsessed with the whole campaign spectacle that they cannot take their own criticism seriously.
Why is it so difficult to criticize Buchanan? First of all, he is the most entertaining candidate of the lot. He has the motivational skills of a Southern televangelist, the passion of a missionary, the humor of a stand-up comedian, and it works.
When Buchanan recently criticized Dole for stealing his ideas about the attack on American culture embodied in Hollywood movies, he quipped, "Bob Dole hasn't seen a movie in 30 years. Last one he's seen was 'The Sound of Music,'" prompting an hysterical roar from the crowd. Then, taking aim at Clinton, Buchanan refined the now-standard rhetoric about the president changing his beliefs like he changes his socks. He predicted that Mr. Clinton would soon show up at NRA meetings in fatigues, rallying to protect the right to bear arms.
These potshots are Buchanan's weapons. They're funny enough that even his sharpest critics have to laugh, frivolous enough that any retort would be childish, yet biting enough to harm their targets. Not your typical election-talk. And to top it off, his humorous attacks fire up already emotional crowds.
But Buchanan is not a charisma-only candidate, and that makes him a threatening contender. He knows the issues that really interest "middle America" and he takes a stand on them, even if his stands are politically infeasible. His semi-outrageous proposals include erecting a wall on the US-Mexico border to keep out illegal immigrants, pulling the United States out of the UN, and tearing up the NAFTA and GATT treaties in order to protect American jobs.
At first glance, these ideas appear to be filled with holes -- and they are. But his supporters don't care. Buchanan offers specific solutions to real problems. Free trade advocates vowing less big government or a flat tax don't have much appeal to those facing the threat of unemployment due to corporate downsizing or the opening of overseas plants. And even if Buchanan's competitors could point out the impossibility of implementing his promises, it wouldn't do them much good. In an age when campaign promises are expected to be broken, any sign of hope, no matter how outlandish, is better than none at all.
Buchanan has combined this populist appeal with his strong Christian-right backing to create an emotionally charged support base. His post-Arizona rally was a wild, orgiastic event, with the crowd interrupting him at especially charged moments to chant, "Go Pat, Go!" Buchanan just grinned and laughed through it all, knowing that even these spontaneous outbursts were under his control. When he proclaimed that he would make abortions illegal, his supporters let out a scream so high pitched as to border on hysteria.
And all this hoopla for a man whose biggest accomplishment of the night was to take a handful of delegates in a small election. Yet it made Forbes' victory speech sound like a lecture from Charlie Brown's teacher. This is typical Buchanan. His media-savvy camp uses every opportunity to put its best foot forward, leaving the others struggling to keep up.
So, how do you compete with Buchanan? His Achilles' heel would appear to be his questionable ties to racists and bigots, and his extremist views as expressed in his columns over the last few decades. Accusations of connections with white supremacists and militia leaders have already prompted his campaign co-chairman, Larry Pratt, to take a temporary leave of absence. Buchanan himself was a scathing critic of Martin Luther King Jr., and he announced in a recent press conference that he still stands by those views. Overall, his attitude towards race-relations reflects a desire to move backward in history, to a time when, "the 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours."*
Considering that Buchanan is up for the GOP presidential nomination, his questionable views received remarkably little scrutiny from his competitors or the mainstream media. The sad truth is that the other candidates can't afford to seriously condemn the thinly-veiled racism and anti-Semitism which surround Buchanan. Ultimately, they need the votes of those who support him and, therefore, his views. This broad appeal, necessary to win the nomination, caters to the lowest common denominator, creating an environment conducive to the rise of a Pat Buchanan. But is he the real problem, then, or is it his followers?
While Buchanan is a remarkable speaker, nobody can win New Hampshire for being the president of the Toastmaster's Club. In simple terms, more people than ever support Buchanan's extremist views, which is a problem that most of his critics have yet to acknowledge. It's easy to peg Buchanan as dangerous and speak out against him. It's much more difficult to develop a strategy to deal with the large number of voters who are willing to embrace a leader so closely linked with white supremacists and other extremists.
Skeptics may argue that many of his supporters don't agree with all of his views, but they see him as the protector of their jobs. This may be true, but is racism any more acceptable when chosen out of desperation rather than hatred?
There is a tendency right now for Democrats and other non-Republicans to denounce Buchanan while secretly rejoicing as he splits the GOP party and increases the likelihood of Clinton staying in the White House. This may prove to be the outcome in November, but it is no cause for celebration.
Citizens concerned about Buchanan's popularity should continue to speak out against him, but they must also realize that he is not the Republicans' problem. He is not the real problem at all. The extremist views and attitudes Buchanan represents are the real danger, and they are unlikely to die with Buchanan's chances. Those who oppose racism, anti-Semitism and conservative extremism must find a way to address the attitudes and concerns of Buchanan's supporters. Otherwise these same issues will surely resurface in the future. Unfortunately, next time they might explode. And not in the form of an election.
*(Right from the Beginning, Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p.131)
