As lifelong republican, the fact that a candidacy, even in a Republican primary, similar to that of Pat Buchanan can still exist in our so-called modern society worries me. For it is a candidacy that is not based on ideas, hope, or new solutions, but one based on stereotypes, fear, hatred, and reactionary thinking. I am worried about it primarily because if a candidate such as Buchanan is able to gain the nomination for the Republican Party, we may as well hand Bill and Hillary another four years in the White House and not even bother to hold the election. Buchanan is one of those people who, at the most, will get 38 percent of the vote and, simply due to his reactionary and hateful views, will never get any more than that from any election at any one time.
This is not to say that I have turned my back on conservatism. Far from it! However, there are two brands of conservatism, namely rational and irrational conservatism. Rational conservatism is not just a reactionary policy to counteract the excesses and failures of the left, but it can and does also work proactively to solve the current problems of our nation by using time honored traditional methods: a sound economic strategy; a social strategy based on law and order, not religion, that rewards the good and punishes the bad; and a political strategy that is aimed at creating solutions, not gridlock. Compare this tothe unsound failures of the left, where protectionism and unionism abound as a drain on government and the economy; implementation of a social strategy that has been a waste of trillions of dollars while the problems merely get worse and worse; and a political strategy based on divisiveness and disorder.
Unfortunately, Buchananism, as the pundits have called the angry rhetoric of Pat Buchanan's speeches, still comes on strong. His style, a la Jonathan Edwards, is one that is unable to produce a coherent strategy towards resolution of problems and a style that is very unwilling to compromise. In a word, the Buchanan strategy is simply irrational.
In real world application, most of his policies could either be considered unconstitutional, extremely unpopular, and/or simply doomed to failure. For example, what would those protectionist practices do to all of the jobs in the United States that have to deal with some kind of international trade? Nowadays, almost all major companies do some kind of international work. During speeches made by important Republicans, Buchanan's 10:00 pm speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention, that was shown to millions of citizens, was a divisive, angry, almost hate-filled speech that alienated many Republicans and further convinced swing and Democratic voters that the Republican Party was in fact, going to Do Horrible Things while in office. Ronald Reagan's speech, relegated to the 11:00 pm slot after everyone had gone to bed, was wonderful, inspiring hope, growth, and opportunity. But when the American public had to stomach an hour o' Pat, very few of them watched Reagan's warm, inviting, hopeful speech.
What is Pat so mad about? Pat doesn't like it when American companies in "New York" try to make a profit and move their plants, choking from government regulation and union stupidity, from the United States to a country where workers and government are eager for new companies to invest. We are now truly a global market, yet American government and most union leaderships choose not to realize this. Pat doesn't like it when other countries trade "unfairly" with the United States. While this is true for some countries, such as China and to an extent Japan, many of the problems with international trade simply have to do with the fact that American corporations do not cater to their markets as well as they should. This also has happened in Japan with American autos. The Japanese, like the British, drive on the "wrong" (left) side of the road. The American auto dealers sell cars with the steering wheel on the left, when it should be on the right side of the vehicle. And people wonder why the Japanese don't buy that many of our cars. This is just one example of how American corporations sell American goods to a non-American culture: to be successful, you must adapt.
Pat also doesn't like it when those people in Washington make laws that contradict how American society is supposed to work. You know what I mean. Deep down, I think that Pat would like it if every family in America was like, to quote Mad magazine, a "big mushy loaf of white bread." And then Ward would come home every day and there would be no crime and everyone would live on Oak Street and everyone would go to church on Sunday. And people would all have the same type of haircuts and go to the school mixer and no one would ever have any kind of problems about religion or sex or anything like that (because if they did, they would be shunned because it would eventually be found out by Mrs. Nesbitt, the old widow who had nothing better to do than eavesdrop on the party line). No thank you.
That's right, ladies and gentlemen, you have realized it as well as I, and this is probably not the first time you heard this because I find the historical parallels to be really, really eerie. Pat Buchanan is the William Jennings Bryan of our time. I'm going to put forth my thesis: Pat Buchanan is the Worst Thing in the World -- a true grassroots country populist whom I feel has little idea of the ramifications of what he is talking about É He combines the worst aspects of the right-wing elements of the party with the worst aspects of the left-wing elements of the Democratic Party to form this hybrid mass of nativist idiocy, of irrationality. He's a protectionist who loves family values, and he is never going to go away. He is going to run for the Presidency in the Republican primary forever. And people are still going to vote for him, and he is never going to get above 40 percent in any race.
When you look at all of the hype that Buchanan spews forth, drawing on the anger and the fear of workers who may very well lose their jobs anytime soon, you realize that ... there really isn't all that much there. He doesn't have a program. He has a "message," but not a program. He'll get you all mad and bitter and annoyed at the world, but after that he has nothing to offer. His anti-corporate rhetoric only serves to further alienate Republicans who are secure in their white collar jobs and do their best to keep the store afloat.
Hopefully, someday American politics will progress to the point at which the candidates will address each other like civilized people and simply present their messages with a positive light. It's starting to get there; such a tactic is being credited for bringing Forbes Arizona and Delaware victories. Quite frankly, people are sick of hearing negative campaign ads, and Forbes has realized this hasn't worked. People usually tend to get sick of how a candidate simply bashes another candidate when they don't present any kind of message of their own (that means you, Senator Dole).
That is the prime reason why this scourge of Buchananism still exists. Weak candidates who do not have a strong message and a strong program allow Buchananism to pop up like a weed. But unlike weeds, the root will always be there as long as fear about jobs and the economy, and irrational nativist thinking exists. In the future, the GOP presidential candidates in primaries and elections will be able to stop the populist weed at the roots if they are smart enough to focus early on their message and their program. They must focus on real issues to bring the country back together, to keep the country on a upwards bound course, and to prevent the Democrats from getting back into the White House or Congress. However, the GOP needs to work on this, or it can hand the White House back to Bill Clinton and consquently, any hopes for real sweeping change back to the drawing board. Or then again, possibly the file cabinet, where they can be stored for a few years until our next chance around.