The results of the Iowa caucuses are a shot across the bow for those in this country who argue that the populist sentiments which helped keep Jerry Brown's campaign alive for a few minutes, and drove the Perot candidacy to the best showing for an independent presidential candidate in decades, were a flash in the pan. To those who argue that anti-Washington, pro-outsider sentiment, suspicion and distrust of the big business forces that are bringing us the holy grail of untrammeled free trade in the form of NAFTA and other manifestations, and burning anger and contempt for the current political establishment, are merely scattered sectarian outbursts, I give you...
Pat Buchanan.
Most of us have heard all the excuses: Jerry Brown can't get the nomination, nor win the election: he's too far left. Ross Perot can't win the election: he's too loony. Pat Buchanan can't get the nomination, nor win the election: he's too far right. Well, Brown and Perot DIDN'T win, of course; but there is a rising tide of distrust, resentment, and disillusion in this country, and political instability and volatility HAVE won in the past five years. First, we have a popular former Pennsylvania govenor defeated for the Senate by a relative unknown, Harris Wofford. Then we have a President, whose success in a foreign military venture, Desert Storm, normally would have guaranteed his reelection, lose to a comparative unknown. Then we have the earthquake of a majority party being unseated in BOTH houses of congress.
The result of all this instability? Gridlock and finger-pointing. The president tries to push through universal health coverage. The effort fails in a sea of demagoguery and blame, despite the fact that the polls all show the people overwhelmingly support the concept of universality. The new majority party tries to balance the federal budget. The effort fails in a morass of claims, counter-claims, one-upsmanship, and scapegoating, despite the fact that the polls all show the people overwhelmingly support the concept of balance. It may very well be that this populist strain, so ignored and belittled by the elites, hasn't succeeded in making its way to the corridors of power. But it certainly HAS succeeded in destabilizing the political situation in this country to the point where our democratic government has become almost completely paralyzed. The people want action, they don't care about the ideology, and the political establishment is apparently totally unable to take care of business in this environment. Whether or not a solution is at hand, the fact is that the people are repeatedly sampling radical options in a desperate attempt to get us out of this paralysis.
It is no secret what drives this desperation. Income in constant dollars for the average American has remained steady, or even declined. It now takes two wage-earners in the typical household to maintain a standard of living which used to be available with one. Global competition has presented multinational corporations and big business with a bonanza, and the average Joe and Jill with insecurity, uncertain futures, rising interest rates, and unfair competition from underpaid, underprotected workers from outside of our borders. And the resulting reaction is perfectly understandable: a savage attack on the foundations of our democratic government, in the form of record turnovers, populist rhetoric, and volatile electorates.
It is not that the elite in this country have failed to note what is occurring. From Bill Clinton to Bill Bradley to Steve Forbes, their members have paid lip service to this insecurity and rising tide of unease. But the electorate's BS detector is finely honed these days, as a result of their personal pain. And the spokesman with point and fire will be recognized and honored in such an environment, and the easy platitudes will be tuned out.
In this politically unhealthy, sometimes downright poisonous, atmosphere, a demagogue like Pat Buchanan finds fertile ground. His success is a signal -- a signal of an elite dangerously out of touch with those it purports to represent, a signal that they have failed utterly to really connect with the concerns of the average voter. Frankly, there is a rough justice to this: whether it is a Republican establishment blithely telling people they really don't need a federal guarantee of health coverage for the less fortunate in our society, or a Democratic establishment cavalierly claiming that open trade zones will in the end lift all boats, despite isolated "dislocations" (i.e. poor slobs having their lives turned upside down because of the machinations of jungle capitalism), the fact remains that the elite is either turning a deaf ear to the people they represent, or suffers from a tin ear, and the resultant successes of a Ross Perot or a Pat Buchanan
It is not that I am unaware of the flaws in Pat Buchanan as the latest tribune of the plebeians. He is nativist and xenophobic. His idea of a wall around the United States is totalitarian and fascistic. His attacks on immigrants and affirmative action smack of Nazism. But as the only candidate really speaking to the concerns on economic insecurity currently plaguing our electorate he deserves our careful respect and attention. If nothing else, his success may serve to light a fire under purported leaders like Bill Bradley and spur them to do more than merely cluck their tongues over today's middle-class squeeze. And more they must most assuredly do. History is replete with terrifying examples of what happens when a smug, complacent elite ignores obvious unrest and ferment. I am very concerned that if the political establishment, whether we mean by that the Republicrats, or corporate America, or the special interests who lobby in Washington on all sides of the political spectrum, ignore or pooh-pooh these eruptions, whether of a Jerry Brown, or a Ross Perot, the eventual victory of Pat Buchanan or of someone of his ilk is virtually assured. It is time for some folks to wake up and smell the coffee. It is time for the issue of economic insecurity and jungle capitalism to receive a serious hearing and thoughtful consideration. And Pat Buchanan, whether it is in his skepticism of free trade agreements with countries our economic and social inferior, or his disdain for a political system far too open to the highest bidder, is to be commended for bringing them onto the national stage for discussion in an eloquent, articulate, and forthright manner. Whatever you think of the solutions he offers, he remains in some respects the only presidential candidate offering an authentic vision of this country's future, and the only candidate willing to offer leadership rather than followership. And so-called statesmen around this country better sit up and take notice.
What's your take on the Buchanan surge? How would you have politicians and presidential candidates respond to his challenge? Let me know; write me at