THE
STRUGGLE CONTINUES
Now
Buchanan can begin the work – the real work –
he set out to do in the first place. For the struggle to win
recognition as the new leader of the Reform Party, although
necessary, was only a temporary distraction from a vitally
important task. I'll let Pat describe it in his own words.
In an appearance on the Lehrer News Hour, interviewed
by Gwen Ifill, he was asked "What does the Reform Party
stand for?" His answer spoke volumes about the kind of campaign
we can expect:
"We
stand for a foreign policy that brings American troops home
from foreign wars that are none of our business; that opposes
wars like Kosovo, where America destroys countries that did
not attack us. We believe in protecting and defending America's
borders, if it means putting troops on our borders. We believe
in cutting back immigration along the lines of the Barbara
Jordan Commission to about 300,000 folks, rather than a million
a year so we can all come together. We believe in shutting
down some departments in Washington, DC, just as we sent welfare
to the states."
THE
LINCHPIN: A NONINTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY
Foreign
policy is clearly an issue that lies at the center of the
new movement he is building, an essential component of the
coalition that his campaign is galvanizing. Based on the precepts
of the Founders who abhorred "entangling alliances" and sought
to stay out of foreign wars, small government conservatism,
and a refusal to sanction the wholesale capitulation to political
correctness displayed with such brazenness by the Republicans
in Philadelphia, Buchanan's revived Reform Party is shaping
up as a long-term threat to the GOP on a national scale. Here,
at last, is a permanent home for "movement" conservatives.
Unlike the party of George Wallace, which faded away after
Wallace dropped out of the national spotlight – and which,
in spite of its populist fighting spirit and instinctive anti-elitism,
had some serious ideological shortcomings – the party
of Pat Buchanan is here to stay. As Pat put it:
"If
we do well and if we have a good campaign, I'm going to give
the rest of my life to build this party. And let me say this,
Gwen: I know we're at 1% or whatever. There is a vacuum in
American politics. No party today stands for an "America First"
foreign policy. No party says, "leave Microsoft alone; that's
an American asset." If you want to smash a cartel, criminal
cartel, break up OPEC. They're gouging American consumers.
They're bringing Europe to its knees! That is a criminal conspiracy,
a price-fixing conspiracy, which if it met in America, we
would arrest the whole lot of them. Why isn't Clinton fighting
against the OPEC cartel instead of Bill Gates? What has Gates
done to me? He tried to sneak me a free browser; that's the
only thing he's done."
REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS: THE PARTIES OF OPEC
Instead
of working to smash the OPEC cartel, Clinton, Gore, and their
Republican clone are all pledged to preserve and protect the
OPEC, notably Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, not only from the depredations
of Saddam Hussein but also from the wrath of their own subjects.
What else are American troops doing stationed out there in
the middle of the Arabian desert? It's a national disgrace,
as the price of oil climbs to a ten-year, that America's two
major parties are both errand boys for these oil sheiks, who
have no more gratitude or loyalty to their American gendarmes
than they would to an army of mercenaries. As the price of
oil skyrockets, and American and European consumers rebel
against the blackmailers of the House of Saud and the Emir
of Kuwait, tensions are breaking out between Iraq and its
neighbors over Iraq's disputed border with the Saudis and
Kuwait. . . .
WAR
CLOUDS GATHER
The
prospect of renewed warfare in the Persian Gulf has passed
from being solely the concern of this column and others who
write for Antiwar.com and burst into the general consciousness,
with daily news reports of rising tensions, overflights, and
preliminary skirmishing. We stand on the brink of yet another
war for oil – and only one candidate for President
has the guts to stand up to the War Party and say: "We must
we put a single American at risk for the sale of these royal
ingrates! Why must Americans die for the Emir of Kuwait of
the Saudi king – so he can turn around and rip us off
at the gas pump? This isn't our fight."
A
MOVEMENT IS BORN
Along
Serbia's border with Kosovo, too, war clouds loom, as the
run-up to the September 24 elections brings the prospect of
renewed trouble in the Balkans much closer. Here, too, Buchanan
has been vocal about his absolute opposition to US intervention.
The difference now is that he's got over $12 million to publicize
his position – and that has got to put a big crimp in
the plans of the War Party. For here is a man devoted in principle
to the idea that we ought to start minding our own business,
and that the main problem is not in Baghdad, nor is it in
Belgrade, but rather the source of the threat is right here
at home – in our very own Washington D.C. Buchanan is
a man of principle who now has the means to express and act
on those principles. Before Buchanan took his present course,
as a commentator on Crossfire and a newspaper columnist,
his was a powerful voice raised against the insanity of our
globalist foreign policy. However widely known and articulate
he was, however, his was a lone voice: now he stands at the
head of an organized movement, one that is growing in numbers,
and visibility, energized by the kind of enthusiasm the RNC
can only wish for in its grassroots activists. Buchanan is
no longer alone. He has a movement behind him, a rising Reform
Party that will remain a national presence long after November.
LET
THE POLARIZING BEGIN!
Today,
as a candidate, Buchanan is more formidable than ever: more
articulate, more self-assured, more ready to rumble: and,
what's more, the political atmosphere is heating up, as the
world crisis looms larger and more ominous than ever. With
war in the cards, and the "don't worry, be happy" economy
showing increasing signs of imploding, the prospects for Buchananism
are much brighter than Pat's many critics – on the Right
as well as the Left – are willing to admit. But when
it comes to Patrick J. Buchanan, neutrality is practically
impossible: you're either for him, or against him. He's that
kind of public figure, which our professional "centrists"
of both parties call "polarizing" and which the rest of us
call refreshingly honest, especially in the midst of this
deadly dull campaign of mushy platitudes and laughable trivia.
Well then, it's high time that lines were drawn and sides
chosen up, as American approaches a crossroads: let the polarizing
begin. . . .
A
MEDIA BLITZ FOR AMERICA FIRST
The
Buchanan campaign is planning a media blitz, plenty of radio
ads and local television, and we are in for a rare treat:
for the first time since the Vietnam war, foreign policy is
going to become a major campaign issue. That alone will shift
the focus of public attention on Buchanan by dint of its sheer
uniqueness. The old shibboleth that voters don't care about
foreign policy unless the body bags are coming home is about
to be disproved With Republicans in the House calling for
putting a deadline on the withdrawal of our troops from Kosovo
by April – a measure supported by House Majority Leader
Dick Armey – and with Bush calling for the Republicans
to cool it and get with the Clintonian program of jumping
into the Balkan quagmire head first, the foreign policy question
is going to be the defining issue of the Buchanan campaign
– and the presidential election.
THE
MAVERICK VOTE
Most
Republican members of Congress want the US out of Kosovo,
and the proportion of "isolationists" is even higher among
the GOP rank-and-file: yet Dubya
scolds the House GOP caucus for even raising
the issue, declaring that foreign policy must be a "presidential
prerogative." Oh yeah – since when? Since when
has the Constitution been revoked, or amended to cede Congress's
power to make war to the executive branch? Buchanan opposed
the Kosovo war as unconstitutional as well as immoral
and disadvantageous to the national interests of the United
States: it had never been approved by Congress, and he alone
among the major candidates has said so. If Pat makes Kosovo
the subject of a radio spot, or a television ad, suggesting
that we ought to bring our troops home – and, perhaps,
put them on the Rio Grande, to stop the real invasion
of our country by an army of illegal immigrants – it
would cause a sensation. Such a move would bring out –
in droves – the independents, who are looking for a maverick
and would be willing to overlook the smears and the pundit-approved
ready-made labels by voting for Reform precisely because
it is controversial, different, and refreshingly blunt.
BUCHANANISM
OR BARBARISM
I
have my differences with Buchanan: on trade, on some social
issues, but these are overwhelmed by centrality of his commitment
to a noninterventionist foreign policy. On domestic matters,
the President of the United States is relatively powerless:
he can take the legislative initiative, but without the consent
of Congress and at least the passive cooperation of the Fourth
Estate (the media) he's not likely to get very far. In the
foreign policy realm, however, our chief executive who is
also our Commander-in-chief has virtually unlimited power
to move American troops around the globe like pawns on a chessboard.
He can launch a thousand missiles at a moment's notice, and
plunge the world into a conflagration of global horror on
a the strength of a whim. In this aspect of the Presidency,
as military chieftain and world leader, the power of the White
House is virtually godlike. That is why the election of either
George W. Bush or Al Gore would be disastrous for the future
of America – and the world. It is also why the Buchanan
campaign is the only alternative to World War III. By getting
the 5% necessary to ensure federal funding for the Reform
Party, Buchanan will have put in place a permanent lobby against
intervention and war – a powerful counterweight to the
bipartisan hegemony of the War Party, and a stumbling block
on the road to empire. Far from being a wasted vote, a vote
for Buchanan will make the War Party think twice before they
launch the next "humanitarian" intervention, the next glorious
crusade to ensure the profits of Big Oil and the Arab sheiks.
In this context, any other vote is not only wasted –
it is practically a criminal act, and certainly a morally
indefensible one. As I said in my speech to the Reform Party
national convention in Long Beach: it is Buchananism or barbarism.
The choice is yours to make.
|
