THE
REIGN OF THE BOSSES
A
small cabal of Reform Party bosses – now there's
an ironic phrase for you! – is trying to cheat Pat Buchanan
out of the party's presidential nomination, by hook or by
crook to block him from raising the key issues this election
year. From Connecticut to Georgia to Colorado, and now California,
the entrenched leadership is determined to keep out supporters
of Buchanan's candidacy by simply disenfranchising anyone
but themselves. In California, for example, at their recent
state convention, the Reform leaders ruled that party members
who have been enrolled for less than six months were ineligible
to be delegates – thus effectively depriving the majority
of the Buchanan supporters from even having the right to speak
at the convention. This from a party that boasts of
its 'inclusiveness' and much-vaunted populism! Wasn't it Ross
Perot who championed voting via the Internet, opening up the
process, and holding national referendums: now those who speak
in his name (or, at least, are invariably described as "Perot
loyalists" in the media) are setting up a self-perpetuating
Reform Party oligarchy that rivals Tammany Hall in the brazenness
of its bossism. Are these people completely insensitive
to irony?
THE
PARTY-BUSTERS
In
his speech to the convention, Buchanan appealed to the delegates'
sense of fairness as well as their party loyalty: "If we win
this battle and we've got the delegates, I would ask people
even if they disagree: What good is it going to do, then,
to keep arguing and damage our cause?" But that, I'm afraid,
is the whole point – these people want to do damage,
as much as possible: that has become their mission in life.
They have no alternative to Buchanan: in their desperation
they are grasping at any straw. As Connecticut Reform chairwoman
Donna Donovan – one of the charter members of the "Hate
Buchanan" brigade – told a reporter, some members continue
to talk about drafting Mr. Perot, jointly nominating Green
Party candidate Ralph Nader "or not endorsing anyone." This
Dallas
Morning News story informs us that the Connecticut
Reformers also passed a resolution denouncing Buchanan for
making "demoralizing" public statements that supposedly imply
the party is "dysfunctional." To begin with, Buchanan has
always loyally defended the Reform party from the snide
characterization by many in the media that likens it to a
"circus." But perhaps he should have spoken out a little more
forcefully against that section of the party leadership that
clearly is dysfunctional, in the exact meaning of that
word, and seems intent on self-destructing rather than accept
a Buchanan victory. "Anybody but Buchanan" is at least a plausible
political strategy for his opponents in the Reform party to
pursue: but "Nobody instead of Buchanan" reveals the
complete political bankruptcy and negativity of this retrograde
trend. They have no politics, no strategy, and no program
except: "get Buchanan!"
CLUELESS
IN LOS GATOS
The
mini-bosses who have clung to their tiny Reform Party fiefdoms
like barnacles on a rock haven't got a clue about how to put
together a real third party movement in this country –
and have long since lost sight of ever achieving such a goal,
blinded as they are by their hatred of Buchanan. For the truth
is that before the entrance of Buchanan and his supporters
into the organization, the Reform Party was dying on the vine.
But they don't want to believe it: "He's not rescuing us;
it may be just the opposite," said Bob Ferrario of Los Gatos,
Calif., to a reporter at the California convention. "He just
wants to use it as a platform for his social philosophy, but
that's not what we're about. We're centrist." I have news
for Bob Ferrario and the rest of the political geniuses in
his camp: we already have not one but two presidential
candidates moving rapidly toward the mushy "center" of American
politics, namely George "Dubya" Bush and Al Gore. If Americans
want more of this "centrist" politics, then why should they
vote for some nutball third party that normally hasn't got
a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election?
THE
HOMO QUESTION
After
doing everything in their power to exclude Buchanan and his
supporters from the Reform Party in state after state, these
very same people have the nerve to turn around and rail at
Pat for not being sufficiently "inclusive." Aside from the
shenanigans of the minuscule Connecticut group, the Dallas
Morning News also reports that something calling itself
the Reform Leadership Council has declared that Buchanan must
disavow the remarks of one of his followers to the effect
that Jim Mangia, the party's national secretary – a former
member of the Fulani group well-known for his charter membership
in the "rule or ruin" faction of the party – should resign.
Since Mangia is gay – as is also well-known – this
was immediately and inevitably interpreted by Buchanan's enemies
as an example of Buchananite "homophobia." Mangia, said Delaware
Reform Party chairman William Shields, should be removed from
his convention and kicked out of the national convention "along
with any trash or dangerous biological waste that may have
founds its way onto the convention floor." The "Leadership
Council" – which we are told exists to "promote unity"
in the party – is demanding that Buchanan ask Shields
to resign. While the meaning of Shields' remarks appear cloudy,
at best, and certainly open to interpretation, one has to
wonder exactly what the pro-"unity" Leadership Council (including
Russell Verney, Perot's aide) think they are going to get
away with. For why is this "tolerance" question always a one-way
street? How come it is always Buchanan who is being
called on to be "tolerant," while his intransigently intolerant
opponents get to make all the demands? In the name of "tolerance"
and "diversity," they aver, Buchanan must now prove that he
isn't "hateful" and "homophobic" and disavow Shields. This
is utter crap: Pat Buchanan is no homophobe, he just doesn't
approve of homosexuality. I have written about my own homosexuality
in this column, and elsewhere through the years – but
that didn't stop Pat from appearing at Antiwar.com's national
conference, or from putting my articles on his website, or
from writing a laudatory introduction to my first book, Reclaiming
the American Right. And so to Jim Mangia and his many
friends in the American media, who have faithfully recorded
every syllable of Mangia's utterances on the Buchanan question,
I ask: If he's such a big homophobe, then how do you explain
that?
SEX,
LIES, AND THE REFORM PARTY
The
problem is not Mangia's sex life – although, looking
at the guy, it may be a problem for him – but his
politics: the difference between Mangia and myself is that
I don't demand that everyone take a position on the morality
or immorality of my private life, I don't see gays as an "oppressed
minority" in need of special protections as an official victim
class – and I applaud Buchanan for his principled
position that Cabinet members will be appointed on the basis
of their ability and their views, and not because of
their sexual "orientation." And, no, I'm not angling for Secretary
of State: even if Buchanan did rule out homosexuals (known,
unknown, or possible) from so much as hanging the new curtains
Shelley has all picked out for the White House, I could not
only learn to live with it – I could and would learn
to love it as we brought home all our troops from Kosovo inside
of a few months. Hell, I wouldn't even remember it
– and neither would anybody else – as President
Buchanan told the Europeans: "You're on your own, fellas,"
and not only halted NATO expansion but got us entirely out
of NATO, and out of the middle of Europe's wars. Sell the
Taiwanese the weapons to defend themselves, let the South
Koreans decide how they want to deal with their collapsing
adversaries to the north, and tell the Europeans "au revoir"
– Pat's program of peace and a return to the foreign
policy of the Founders would be such a plus that I wouldn't
be too upset about not being appointed Secretary of
State, or even Ambassador to Luxembourg.
THIS
ISN'T ALL ABOUT ME
For
in the end, this isn't all about what's good for me, personally,
but what's good for the country and the cause of liberty.
This is why I find the prattle about Buchanan's position on
the social issues so annoying. Compared to the question of
whether or not 5,000 Iraqi children will be starved to death
by US sanctions this month – which Buchanan would end
on his first day in office – is Jim Mangia's sex life
(or mine, for that matter) really all that important?
So what if I can't bring my Significant Other to the
presidential swearing-in ceremony. It's enough, for me, that,
as Pat puts it, "when I raise my hand to take that oath of
office, their New World Order will come crashing down!"
THE
LOYALTY PLEDGE
At
the California convention, the outgoing Executive Committee
issued a series of demands centering on Pat's position on
social issues, declaring that he must not interfere in the
party's platform, must have no litmus tests for his vice presidential
candidate and indeed must have no say in determining who is
running is to be – a resolution that was overwhelming
voted down by the general convention. Every Buchananite worth
his or her salt can have only one answer to such arrogance:
to hell with you, buddy! It is high time the Buchanan camp
stopped conciliating some of these habitual factionalists
– including some supposedly aligned with him – and
started making some demands of his own. The first demand should
be to party loyalty: as the national secretary of the Reform
Party, Mangia and other Reform Party officers must either
pledge to abide by the results of the Long Beach convention
– or get out now. Here is a point that every loyal Reform
Party member can agree on, and that is a pledge to support
the party's presidential nominee, whomever it might be. Although
I would be bitterly disappointed and even outraged if Ross
Perot listened to Arianna Huffington, Mangia, and their friends
in the media and jumped into the race as abruptly as he quit
the last time, if he beat Pat fair and square I'd support
him in the end. Could the "Anybody but Pat" crowd make the
same claim? I thought not. . . .
COMPLEMENTARY
FACTORS
This
alleged division between the Buchanan and Perot factions is
largely a product of Mangia's imagination. When he made headlines
with the news he and his allies were holding nationwide rallies
urging Perot to take the field against Buchanan, it was little
noted that these events were very sparsely attended.
These are generals without much of an army. The reality is
that Buchanan and Perot have much in common: Perot was an
early and vociferous critic of the Gulf war, and his opposition
to NAFTA and the corporate elite that controls the Republican
party puts him in ideological sync with Buchanan. The irony
is that the efforts of self-proclaimed Perot "loyalists" to
create an artificial division plays right into the hands of
the viciously anti-Perot and anti-third party media, which
has always characterized the Reform Party as Ross' cult of
personality – and also obscures the very real appeal
of Perot's ideas. Besides the twin political themes of opposition
to foreign wars (such as the Gulf war) and "free trade" agreements,
Perot was also making the point, in his two presidential runs,
that America was facing a crisis. The vehicle is broke, and
we have to get down under the hood and fix it; a similar theme
that "all is not well" pervades Buchanan's rhetoric, and he
has further developed this Perotista populism by calling for
popular referendums and radical campaign finance reform, including
making ballot access less onerous. Furthermore, Buchanan has
taken the original Perot theme of opposition to the Gulf war
and extended the lesson of that sinful war to the whole realm
of foreign policy. Far from being in conflict, the two main
tendencies in the Reform Party, followers of Perot and Buchanan,
are ideologically complementary.
OUTSIDE
INTERVENTION?
In
this election, both main parties will have their own "third
party" problem, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they
are intervening, however indirectly, in the internal politics
of both the Reformers and the Greens. When I wrote about Ralph
Nader the other day, I got angry letters from a bunch of Greens
who assured me that Nader hasn't got the Green Party presidential
nod yet, and that this just shows my complete ignorance of
what the Green Party is all about. To these folks, I say:
go for it! Nader could cost the Democrats California,
and I hope the DNC gives the "Anybody but Nader" headquarters
all the soft money they can spend. On the other hand, if I
were the Buchanan campaign, I would pay very close
attention to what is going on in the camp of the enemy. And
I don't mean Ross Perot, who has said he wouldn't interfere
in the nominating process; in spite of having his name taken
in vain by his alleged followers, Perot has so far stubbornly
and admirably stayed above the fray. I'm talking about the
grand poobahs and strategists in the Bush camp, who rightly
fear Buchanan's pull on their right flank.
A
WRECKING OPERATION
These
guys have a lot of money to throw around – more
than any presidential candidate in history – and also
motive to spend it:. It takes money and organization to create
a credible presidential operation, and Buchanan has managed
to do it. But it also takes money and organization to disrupt
and derail a political party, to carry out a coordinated splitting
operation and run what is in effect a wrecking operation.
They almost did it at the recent California Reform Party convention,
where the plan was to deny Buchanan ballot status in California
by taking advantage of state election laws giving the state
party organization (in effect, a small clique) the ability
to control who appears on their ballot – regardless of
what the national Reform Party decides. By law, the Reform
Party of California can put anyone they want on the
ballot – or no one at all. At the last minute, the Buchanan
forces managed to elect a state party chairman sympathetic
to their cause, effectively foiling this bureaucratic ploy,
but the forces of goodness and light came within a hair's
breadth of losing it – and we haven't even gotten to
the main event yet.
INQUIRING
MINDS WANT TO KNOW . . .
I
am, by the way, an alternate delegate to the national Reform
Party convention – yes, you'll be getting on-the-spot
reporting fresh, a blow-by-blow account of the Battle of Long
Beach. The media is sure to play up the last Reform Party
high-level meeting that made the news, where the "chairman"
refused to open the meeting and chairs were thrown, and you
can be sure that more than a few provocateurs – paid
and unpaid – will be in that crowd, ready to make their
move on cue. But who is giving the cues? That's what I
want to know . . .
THE
NON-INTERVENTIONIST CASE FOR BUCHANAN
Oh,
but so what, say those of you as yet unconvinced by
my constant harping on the subject of Buchanan, why are you
writing about this again in a column ostensibly devoted
to analysis of foreign policy. Okay, once more with feeling:
The reason is that if Antiwar.com had been around during the
campaign of Eugene McCarthy for President, then he
would have earned our plaudits – and gotten them. So,
today, with Buchanan the only candidate who would stop the
murderous war on Iraq, on those grounds alone he is
the one possible choice for antiwar activists of the left
as well as the right. From Colombia to the Caspian, from Kosovo
to Peru, the War Party has great plans for the post-cold war
era – a new era of wars, and conquests, and perhaps a
new empire that spans the globe. Buchanan has challenged them
head on – and don't think they are going to let him get
away with it. He is fighting an heroic battle, and as a chapter
in the history of the movement against global intervention,
the Buchanan campaign will go down in the history books –
along with the McCarthy campaign and that of Eugene Debs from
a jail cell during World War I – as a high point. We
are almost never given a choice when it comes to foreign
policy in presidential elections, but this time around it
could be different. But never forget: the War Party has more
than one trick up its sleeve, and we have yet to see the end
of their shenanigans. It will be interesting, if nothing else.
. . .
THE
HEIR OF CHARLEMAGNE
I
can't end this column without noting that our beloved President
has been awarded the Charlemagne Prize for his efforts at
promoting European unity. He proudly accepted an honor named
after one of the worst tyrants in European history, who put
more peasants to the sword than the Serbs ever did. Charlemagne
was an absolute autocrat and the founder of the "Holy Roman
Empire" – an entity that was neither Roman, nor all that
holy. As historian Alexander Murray, a professor of European
history at the University of Toronto, put it to the National
Post:
"One
point of similitude, he offered, was their joint enthusiasm
for sponsoring decadent parties for the rich and powerful.
'Charlemagne would encourage large numbers of people to bathe
together, including courtiers and bodyguards,' said Mr. Murray.
'Eventually, his son, Louis the Pious, was forced to kick
out all those courtiers for moral and sexual reasons. When
Louis came, the court was cleaned up.'"
THE
"DR. FRANKENSTEIN" THEORY OF EUROPEAN UNITY
If
history is repeating itself, there are elements of tragedy
as well as farce. This award for fostering the growth of the
European Union super-state is well-earned – and while
the Europeans are hailing him, his own countrymen may come
to curse him for it. Ever since the end of the cold war, the
War Party has been looking for a credible enemy to put in
its place: an excuse for huge profits for the armaments industry,
a reason to divert attention away from the crisis at home,
another reason to empower and enrich the Washington elite.
They have so far failed to come up with a convincing placebo
for the old Soviet Union, since neither Russia nor China quite
fit the bill. The solution: create a suitable enemy, a Frankenstein
monster made out of the broken bits and pieces of the historical
nation-states of Europe. But that, as they say, is another
column. . . .
|
