In the late 1960s, the Democratic party encountered in its ranks a New Left contemptuous of American institutions but powerful in the most prestigious of them. A few Democrats in the old Harry Truman mold were willing to confront the radicals head on. But the party establishment decided to be “sophisticated.” They tried to work with the radicals, to corral them, to engage them in dialogue.
The American people drew the obvious conclusion: The Democratic party establishment was gutless. Since the party elites didn’t have the courage to defend American institutions and principles against the Blame America First crowd, Americans decided that the Democratic party could not be trusted with the White House. The Democrats went on to lose five of the next six presidential elections.
Now the Republican party faces a similar challenge, in the person of Pat Buchanan. The essence of Buchananism is not anti-Semitism, or protectionism, or isolationism. The core belief that animates these derivative elements of Buchananism is that American government throughout the twentieth century has been a disgrace and a fraud. Buchanan is as much a Blame America First radical as the leftists of the late 1960s. His claim that the United States had no business getting into World Wars I and II follows from his belief that for the past hundred years, and right up till today, the American government has been hijacked by elite and ethnic interests that do America harm. He believes the American government stupidly and malevolently sent hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths. Today, he doesn’t want America to lead the world because he doesn’t think America is worthy of leading the world. He doesn’t want to export our ideals because he doesn’t believe in American ideals. For all of his reactionary nostalgia for an America that allegedly once was, he objects to the core principles of the American experiment. That’s why, like the New Left, he objects to the American Century.
How is the Republican establishment responding to the rise of a Blame-America-Firster in its midst? Well, everyone steps up to the microphones and offers ritual denunciations of Buchanan’s theories about World War II. But then, in the next breath, most Republican leaders become detente-niks. The Republican national chairman, Jim Nicholson, pays a call on Buchanan at his home to ask him to remain in the party. Senior Republican senators equivocate. Most of the presidential candidates express the hope that Buchanan will be with them on GOP debate platforms early next year. George W. Bush sets the tone. “It’s politics. I don’t want Pat Buchanan to leave the party. I think it’s important, should I be the nominee, to unite the Republican party. I’m going to need every vote I can get among Republicans to win the election.”
The Republican establishment, of course, has some sophisticated reasons for appeasing Buchanan. Sometimes publicly, and more often privately, party operatives will explain their tactical calculation: Denouncing Buchanan will alienate some of his supporters in the party and only give him more attention. They even offer a few bad historical analogies. Dwight Eisenhower, they claim, let Joseph McCarthy burn himself out rather than split the party by taking him on. But Eisenhower’s kid-glove treatment of McCarthy, even after McCarthy’s attack on George Marshall, was a shameful blunder that Eisenhower later regretted. The GOP’s tolerance of McCarthy, meanwhile, damaged anti-communism for a generation.
Denouncing Pat Buchanan may indeed alienate some of his supporters. But failing to denounce him will alienate the country. For the Buchanan question isn’t finally about Pat Buchanan. It is about the Republican party. Does the party stand for anything? Does it believe in American ideals and American global leadership? Does the Republican party celebrate the achievements of the American Century and does it plan to build on those achievements in the century to come?
Or is it just a collection of politicians who seek office, and who will swallow anything in their efforts to accumulate support for the next election? Is the Republican party’s slogan really going to be “It’s Politics”? At the beginning of this decade, the national Republican party repudiated David Duke. Surely it should not close the decade with the appeasement of Pat Buchanan, who once said: “David Duke is busy stealing from me. I have a good mind to go down there and sue that dude for intellectual property theft.”
The differences between Pat Buchanan and Republican principles are not minor issues that can be smoothed over behind closed doors. They are fundamental. Some Republicans, to their credit, have recognized this. Of the presidential contenders, John McCain has made the essential point: “By continuing to appease Buchanan, several of our candidates appear to have put politics ahead of our party’s principles.” On Capitol Hill, a few clear voices have acknowledged that inclusion becomes suicide when it means including enemies. “I would say, don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” Senator Slade Gorton declared. Senators George Voinovich and Chuck Hagel have echoed these remarks.
It’s not hard to predict what will happen if Republicans continue to appease Buchanan. The public will conclude that Republicans don’t really believe in anything but winning. And Republican loyalists will know in their hearts that this conclusion is not wrong.
Meanwhile, Buchanan’s dark influence will grow within the party, simply because the forces of Buchananism will know what they believe and what they want. The Republican establishment will not. Buchanan seems to believe that he can exploit the mushiness of his opponents. Last week, he said, “If you stay with it, and . . . keep going back at ’em, and back at ’em, and let them keep hitting you and go back at them, then it sort of fades away and you are standing there smiling.” If Pat Buchanan is smiling at the end of all this, the Republican party will be much diminished.
Last week, George W. Bush showed no hesitation in criticizing House Republicans for trying “to balance their budget on the backs of the poor.” Needless to say, there was a fair amount of politics involved in this statement, with Bush polishing his “compassionate conservative” credentials at the expense of the hapless House GOP. Here Bush is willing to sacrifice party unity to help himself in next year’s election. That’s fine with us. But on the much more important matter of Buchanan and Buchananism, an issue that truly defines him and his party, Bush goes wobbly.
If the Republican party can’t stand up to Pat Buchanan, and if it can’t explain why it rejects his view of America, is it a party worthy of governing?
William Kristol
