As a change of pace, I thought my readers might like a break from my eternal soapbox, and get a taste of some of the reaction which my Musings have provoked. So without further ado, as they say, let's start by looking at some remarks from Scott Farrell from New York concerning Pat Buchanan. He writes in part:
"The economy is in a slump, and that is where Pat Buchanan gets his support. He goes on the fear of the American people, just like the Nazis did just before before the great crusade, World War Two. These are definitely scary times when a racist and a sexist can gain popular support. The idea I find even more scary is that people consider these ideas conservative. These are not conservative ideas; they are crazy ideas."
My reaction: While I would agree that sluggish growth is one contributing factor in the Buchanan boomlet, there are two other factors which I feel are equally important.
First, a lot of people have lost faith that our government is a democracy in more than name only. So they react very positively to someone like Buchanan who's willing to come out and point fingers at entities like multinational corporations, and scream that they have unfair and overweening power in the affairs of state. By attacking an entity which appears to have more than its share of power, Buchanan implicitly is promising the restoration of some holy grail of true democracy, a promise which has deep appeal to those of us who feel that our government no longer truly represents us or is responsive to our needs and desires. I am one of those people, and for this reason some of Buchanan's rhetoric pleases me greatly.
Secondly, there is a large segment of our society who feels that our country has lost its way morally. To this group, an appeal to outlaw abortions, with its implicit condemnation of easy, careless sex, coupled with exhortations to, for example, restore compulsory prayer in our schools, offers a tempting, authoritarian path to easy righteousness and religious orthodoxy, -- one which rigid theocracies like the Christian Coalition, and its legion of true believing followers, would love this country to take. While I personally am totally in DISAGREEMENT with the latter group, I recognize their frustrations, and pay homage to their ability to force their agenda onto the public consciousness and onto the pages of rhetoric from presidential candidates.
On Feb. 14 I wrote the following concerning the electoral successes of Pat Buchanan:
In response to those remarks, Marcus William Donegan of Wisconsin wrote:
"There is no way to stop this by the "waking" up you suggest. The problem of "jungle capitalism" you point out is a yearning for dependence and security. This runs head on to a similar rhetorical want of independence and less government. The country will not have it both ways. The problem of the electorate is one of their own because they cannot choose an ideology. To the left they see security but less freedom (more taxes), to the right they see a bold vision of greatness that entails more risk and more work. Will they choose the snooze on the beach with the couch potato attitude, or will they go for broke? Is the cavalier spirit in America dead? Are people ready to cash it in for one last party of security and go down as another Rome?"
Mr. Donegan has, I believe, brought up an important point. We live at a time when the electorate, while definitely energized emotionally by politics, has not bothered to rigorously explore the intellectual implications of the varying promises and exhortations declaimed from our political stage. In part, this is due to the lack of participation on the part of the people. Where participation is lacking, reasoned thought and rational conclusion will also be lacking. This is a polite way of saying that our people have become politically and philosophically lazy. In this atmosphere, political rhetoric is too often viewed in a vacuum, and supported and opposed merely by some amorphous vague standard of feel-goodism. Does the promise of a simpler tax feel good? Does the promise of chasing multinational corporations out of the temple feel good? Most people in this country do not have a clear intellectual framework, at least where political philosophy is concerned, which would enable them to place the lion's share of political rhetoric in context. It is because of this lack of intellectual rigor that a Pat Buchanan, a Jerry Brown, and a Ross Perot can wind up appealing to the same people.
Yesterday, in my Arizona Poll Corner, I wrote the following:
"The bottom line is that Dole is still clearly a viable candidate after beating Buchanan in Arizona after minimal campaigning, and after scoring his twin victories in the Dakotas; yes, the Dakota victories may have been anticipated, but if they HADN'T happened, Dole would have been a dead duck indeed...Buchanan's defeat [in Arizona], and ignominious third place position to boot, is, I believe, far more significant and serious for Buchanan than most observers seem to realize. Think of it: here he was, campaigning non-stop in the state, favored in the polls, while Dole barely squeezed out one day of campaigning there, and Forbes was struggling after weak finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire to reestablish himself as a viable contender, and yet all Buchanan manages is third. Third! As I said in my previous update, "Buchanan had to win here to survive," and I stand by that statement: I do not think that he WILL survive this defeat. He has limited financial resources, and his momentum depended on good free media, and the optimism and motivation of a rag-tag band of grass-roots supporters. A high-visibility loss like this one may be fatal."
But Alex Rodriguez from New York begs to differ:
"Other than winning all three contests on Tuesday, the Forbes win was the best news for Pitchfork Pat. ...The Buchanan first wave stategy involves having a divided opposition. A multi-candidate field of strong opponents helps the Pleasant Peasant. I understand now even Lugar is being exhumed by the New England states; or at least there is a possibility of that happening. The Arid-zona results mean that South Carolina is absolutely critical for Dole to win and that New York (yea!) is absolutely critical for Dole to win. I think he will lose both. Doledrums are sounding. Furthermore, Dole has the problem of the Senate. By now, he assumed, the nomination would be clinched and he could return to Senate business. He now faces a busy Senate calendar, no money to run an air-war campaign, an invigorated rich dude and the smell of revolting peasants wafting through the RNC."
Obviously a Forbes win was better than a Dole win for the Carping Commentator. However, I feel that what Buchanan now faces is the reality that the results in Arizona were a win by both Forbes AND Dole. Remember, perception is nine-tenths of reality in politics, and the perception spread by the media was that Buchanan was the hot candidate, the guy with big "mo." Forbes' and Dole's performance so far outstripped conventional wisdom and expectation, and Buchanan's underwhelming third place finish fell so far short of prevailing expectation, that it is difficult to see how the Arizona results were anything but a sharp setback for the right-wing populist.
Thank you for those cards and letters, folks. Keep 'em coming. Write me at