by Jacob F.M. Oslick
Over the past few weeks, perennial GOP presidential contender Pat Buchanan has made noises about bolting the Republican Party to seek the nomination of Ross Perot’s Reform Party, and the nearly $13 million in federal matching funds that go with it. In response, most Republican leaders have urged Mr. Buchanan to stay, rather then fragment the “conservative” vote, thus facilitating yet another Democratic victory. Yet with Mr. Buchanan’s support currently hovering in the low single digits, it seems unlikely that a Buchanan bunny hop to the Reform Party will throw a significant dent in the GOP’s Y2K prospects. In fact, drumming Mr. Buchanan out of the GOP could constitute not only an act of moral righteousness, but also political expediency.

The current Republican strategy, repudiating Mr. Buchanan’s hateful agenda while ignoring the progenitor of this venom, strikes many as disingenuous. How can Republicans claim to preach acceptance of all races and creeds, while tolerating a man who once stated, “ David Duke is busy stealing from me. I have a mind to go down there and sue that dude for intellectual property theft”; a man who recently attacked the Allied powers for trying to stop Hitler’s genocidal expansionism in World War II? A man of whom conservative icon William F. Buckley once said that it is “impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against charges of anti-Semitism”; a man who recently lamented that what he calls “the upper crust of society“ (non-Jewish “Euro-Americans”) do not receive their fair share of representation at elite colleges? Comments like these exceed the pale of acceptable political discourse, into the trough of race baiting. Further, such jingoistic lunacy does not fairly represent the Republican Party. Yet, as long as Mr. Buchanan goes around proclaiming himself Republican, he places the GOP in a bad light. He force all Republicans to wear his stain, and defeats any chance of appealing to traditionally Democratic minority groups (blacks, Jews, and Hispanics). Conversely, expelling him would firmly establish the GOP as a party of ethnic inclusiveness. In fact, Mr. Buchanan’s presence in the race, as a third-party candidate, might even help to secure the GOP nominee’s rear — isolating him from liberal charges of right-wing extremism, and instantly redefining the social-issues center rightward.

Second, Mr. Buchanan preaches a dangerous brand of protectionism: demanding the U.S. place high tariffs on Japanese, Chinese, and Mexican goods. His rationale: a gaping trade deficit between the U.S. and her principal trading partners. Yet such logic, while appealing politically to the simple-minded, defies rational economics. What precisely does a trade deficit imply? In exchange for useful items, like clothes, food, and electronic equipment, foreigners have gratefully taken from us only little green slips of paper. Not only do these useful items provide benefits to their users, but to the entire economy as a whole — limiting the power of domestic producers to raise prices (ensuring U.S. consumers pay as little as possible), and thus squelching inflation. Perhaps Frederick Bastiat best proved the idiocy of protectionism, when he wrote this following petition on behalf of a domestic industry:

“We are suffering from the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to ours ... that he absolutely inundates our national market with it at a price fabulously reduced. The moment he shows himself our trade leaves us — all consumers apply to him; and a branch of native industry ... is at once rendered completely stagnant.”

The industry Mr. Bastiat referred to was candle making, and their foreign competition the sun. Despite Mr. Bastiat’s excellent satire, protectionism continues to rear its ugly head every few years. By tolerating Mr. Buchanan, the Republicans tacitly accept such views as sound and “conservative.” In reality they are nothing but. Expelling Mr. Buchanan could once again demonstrate that Republicans the party of individual freedom, including the freedom to buy what one likes, and from where one likes. It could demonstrate that the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, do not approve of taxation to solve social problems (in this case, unemployment in the garment industry), but rather they emphasize the dynamic spirit of free-market capitalism (the natural shifting of unemployed workers to newer, high-tech jobs).

In short, rather than conservatism, Mr. Buchanan represents a disgusting mix of nationalism and socialism. Individually, these two forces have led to xenophobic isolationism and stagnation, respectively. Combined, they are responsible for the greatest tragedies of the 20th Century. Neither of these attributes remotely resembles standard Republican ideology. However, with Mr. Buchanan serving as poster child, he can mislead Americans into thinking his ideals reflect those of the GOP. On the other hand, as a third-party candidate, Mr. Buchanan would allow the Republican candidate to set himself apart, as a man of a promising future, not the distasteful attributes of the past; as a candidate prepared to stand up to the kind of challenges that face America, even if that means picking fights with his own party; in total, as a candidate prepared to make the tough choices for America, while representing all Americans.MR

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Go, Pat, GO! America First!

by James Yeh
Ever since Pat Buchanan popped his head up in the national scene seven years ago, the liberal media has done nothing but brand him as a racist and an anti-Semite. But those that have truly read his works and have formed their own opinions don’t think this way. Only those sheep that take everything that the liberal media feeds them as truth believe this. If fully understood, Pat Buchanan will come out as a great American, if not a great president.

People claim that Buchanan is anti-Semitic because he made statements that criticized the pro-Israel lobby in Washington. Does criticism an anti-Semite make these days? He was simply stating what he thought. He thought that American interests were taking a back seat to Israeli interests, a statement that may or may not be true. He’s simply sticking to his America first policy. The Arabs sell the United States oil, Israelis don’t. The Arabs control the Suez Canal, the Israelis don’t. Arab spies haven’t been caught stealing American military secrets, Israeli ones have. Simply stating that American foreign policy in the middle east is too pro-Israel does not make him an anti-Semite.

Buchanan has been accused of making several “racist” comments because he has spoken out against immigration — especially illegal immigration — and multiculturalism. He’s accused of being a racist because he laments the loss of America’s melting pot and is adamant about making immigrants learn English.  Is that so wrong? Many immigrants today are coming over to America as economic mercenaries. They come to leech off of America’s vibrant economy, without ever wanting to truly become Americans. He has said that there should be no hyphenated Americans. What’s wrong with that? Immigrants coming to America should come to America seeking to be free, and to be free to practice their own religion, to speak their mind, and to associate with whomever they want to, not just to make a big fat American paycheck. They should be willing to become the melting pot that made America great, not the salad bowl of recent years that has seen America on a decline.

America is nation of immigrants, and her culture is a conglomerate of cultures, brought over by the millions of immigrants that have come to toil on the land, from sea to shining sea. America started out an English colony, yet we don’t have tea time every day. America had a great number of German immigrants during the 18th century, yet people don’t consume bratwurst and sauerkraut on a regular basis. Likewise, all immigrants should learn to speak English, like all immigrants before them. Why should immigrants today be treated any differently than the immigrants of yesterday? They made it, struggling to learn English, teaching their kids to learn English. It’s been said that America and England are separated by a common language. Do the English know what “chutzpah” is? Probably not. Yet this word has made it into the vocabulary of millions of Americans. Do people in England know what “cajones” are? Again, probably not. But most Americans will be able to understand if it were said that someone had some big cajones for doing something. Watching a game of football on the tube has a totally different meaning here than it does in England. Buchanan doesn’t expect immigrants to speak the Queen’s English, rather, he wants them to speak the American English that was created in the over two centuries of American history. American English is a delicate mixture of all cultures, just like America is a delicate mixture of all cultures. Immigrants shouldn’t disregard their heritage, but they should recognize that America is their home now, not just some other country. They must see themselves as American citizens, American citizens that must recognize the principles that made America free.

Buchanan’s views on American foreign policy have been under attack numerous times. Again, he’s seeing things through American interests first. He adheres to George Washington’s warning against foreign entanglements. He got a lot of flak for saying that Nazi Germany didn’t present a threat to American interests in World War II. He saw it as the Germans going after the Soviets, except the French and the British had to get in the way. Hitler’s plans for conquest were outlined in Mein Kampf, which was published in 1924, a good nine years before he’d become chancellor. Buchanan didn’t see America threatened. German forces weren’t interested in war with America, and in fact, Hitler was very angry at the Japanese for provoking war with America. Whether Buchanan’s views on American involvement in the war were right or wrong can be debated until the end of time. Nevertheless, these aren’t pro-Hitler views; rather, they are pro-American.

 Buchanan’s stance is pro-American, in every issue. He’s not coddling special interest groups to get their votes. He’s sticking to his guns, telling the truth, even if may cost him a few votes, which is more than his fellow Republicans are doing. The truth may be ugly, and it may hurt, but nevertheless, it is the truth. And until people realize that Pat Buchanan spews truth, rather than hate, he will remain a racist anti-Semite in their eyes, rather than a patriotic American. MR