 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 7 - 13 October 1999 Issue No. 450 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 7 - 13 October 1999 Issue No. 450
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Interview Features Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters A very Republican rebel
By James Zoghby *
The political antics of TV commentator Pat Buchanan are threatening, once again, to create an upheaval in US presidential politics. In 1992 and 1996 Buchanan's blistering presidential campaigns exposed deep divisions within the Republican Party. The difference this year is that he is not only pressing at the fault lines of the Republican coalition, but he may end up causing a bit of havoc within the fledging Reform Party as well.
Buchanan, prior to his starring role on CNN's Crossfire, was a long-time Republican political operative. Between 1966 and 1987, he spent 12 years working in the White House for Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan.
Reagan's 1980 victory over Carter ushered in a 12-year Republican domination of the White House. But Reagan's winning coalition was not simple: there were Cold War hawks, small government anti-tax conservatives, deeply religious proponents of morality and a significant segment of angry middle and working class Americans who blamed Carter and the Democrats for everything from economic collapse to moral decline.
While Reagan was able, for a time, to hold this group together, Bush had difficulty sustaining support, in particular, from the religious right and the "Reagan Democrats."
Buchanan's challenge to Bush's 1992 reelection bid exposed Bush's weaknesses. In his primary campaign against the sitting president, Buchanan often won over 30 per cent of the vote.
Buchanan voters were those hurt by the economic downturn, the same group that had turned against Carter though now it was Buchanan who gave focus and voice to their anger. The Buchanan message is a combination of social conservatism, economic populism and near xenophobic protectionism.
Buchanan maintains a rigid and narrowly defined moral appeal. He is "pro-life," meaning anti-abortion. And he is pro-family, meaning that he is against any and all forms of acceptance of homosexuality. His "moral" message was best captured in his chilling 1992 Republican convention call for a "cultural war to take back America." What distinguishes Buchanan from other Republican candidates, however, is economic populism. He is a protectionist and economic nationalist, who opposes the closing of US factories and the exportation of industrial jobs overseas and US involvement in NAFTA, GATT and the WTO.
An extension of this is Buchanan's "America First" foreign policy that warns against "foreign entanglements" and cautions that the only time Washington should commit troops is if the US is directly threatened by a foreign army. Buchanan charges that despite their other differences, Republicans and Democrats have merged into one party, supporting the establishment of an American empire that is overextended, at constant risk and unable to provide for the security of ordinary Americans at home.
A final extension of this highly nationalistic approach to politics is Buchanan's "tribalism." The problem is that the tribe Buchanan seeks to "protect and preserve," at time, appears to be a quite limited group. Buchanan is opposed to what he calls "excessive immigration", but it appears that the immigrants he is concerned with are exclusively non-Europeans. He is also opposed to affirmative action because it has displaced "whites."
Much of Buchanan's economic populist message was absorbed by the campaign of Ross Perot who ran in 1992 as an independent. The 19 per cent of the vote won by Perot insured Bush's defeat. When Buchanan returned to run again in 1996, he initially appeared to retain his base of supporters. The Republican establishment's support of Senator Bob Dole angered Buchanan, who felt they had conspired to deny him the candidacy.
When confronted with the same coalescing of the party's establishment around a candidate whom they feel can win back the White House -- George W. Bush -- Buchanan has responded by threatening to leave the Republican Party altogether and take "his forces" to the Reform Party, founded by Ross Perot after the 1992 election.
It is here that the Buchanan saga becomes interesting. On the one hand, his threat to leave the Republican Party has elicited a divided response. The chair of the party, Jim Nicholson, and its front runner, George W. Bush, have urged Buchanan to stay.
Bush's comment was "I need every vote I can get." Nicholson termed Buchanan "a friend and a valued Republican." On the other hand, three other Republican candidates, Senator John McCain, Elizabeth Dole and Steve Forbes have sought to distance themselves from him.
An interesting side note here is the role of some Jewish organisations and pro-Israel neo-conservatives who have led the anti-Buchanan change, wanting to see him not only out of the Republican Party, but out of politics altogether. According to one, Buchanan "ought to be purged from the political bloodstream of this country." This anger, of course, is due to the fact that when criticising foreign entanglements and foreign lobbies, Buchanan devotes special attention to Israel.
(When I first met Pat Buchanan as a frequent guest on his 1970s and 1980s radio show he was anti-Arab and strongly pro-Israel. It was his tribalism that created the change. When Reagan traveled to Germany in the mid-80s American Jewish groups attacked him. When, a short time later, a confrontation developed between a Catholic convent at Auschwitz and the Jewish groups that wanted it removed, this was, for Buchanan, the last straw. They had attacked his tribe and in response, he became an Israeli critic.)
Buchanan is now publicly weighing whether or not to enter the Reform Party. But here too, all is not rosy. While the economic populism of that party's founder Perot is a perfect fit for Buchanan, his social conservatism and some of his nationalistic views are not. And so a rupture of sorts has been created between the Perot wing of the party (which apparently favours a Buchanan bid) and others in the party who oppose Buchanan.
There is, at this point, no certainty how this will resolve itself. Two things, however, are certain. Buchanan has insured that the Republican Party will have to redefine itself and he has guaranteed that the Reform Party will have a real intra-party contest for the 2000 nomination. All of this works to make the over all 2000 elections a race to watch.
* The writer is president of the Washington-based Arab-American Institute.
