Coming in as I did mid-speech, I assumed the words had fallen from the pen of one of our founding fathers. Given C-Span’s knack for airing historical readings it was a fair guess.
Augmenting the words and delivery was an impatient grandeur, a tone reminiscent of Hamilton, Jefferson, and Adams just before they unleashed a battle cry for independence. The language bore the marks of a cunning wit and age-old intelligence. The oratory was so compelling that I had to come in from the other room to lay eyes on the speaker.
“There has to be one party that will defend America's history, heritage and heroes against the Visigoths and Vandals of multiculturalism,” he thundered. “There has to be one party willing to drive the money-changers out of the temples of our civilization.”
This was a speech of ideas—at once provocative and insightful. It contained none of the worked-over vagaries so common in political speeches today: the rancid mushy talk written by committee, dictated by the latest polls. This stuff was explosive.
“Friends, I am ashamed to say it, but we have begun to behave like the haughty British Empire our fathers rose up against and threw out of this country. That, then, is what our party, our campaign, and our cause are all about. We are Americans who say with our fathers: To hell with empire; we want our country back.”
It was only when I crossed the threshold into the den that I saw it was Pat Buchanan, the embattled Reform Nominee giving the speech of his life. Like him or loathe him, it is hard to ignore Buchanan’s powerful rhetoric.
Right at the top of the speech he pounced on abortion: “What about the forgotten Americans of Philadelphia? I mean America's unborn children, another million of whom will die this year without ever seeing the light of day. For these lost innocents, there was barely a word of compassion from the party of compassionate conservatism. Well, Republicans may be running away from life, but as long as there is life left in me, I will never run away, because their cause is my cause, and their cause is God's cause.”
Moments later the statesman gave way to the tough street fighter:
“As for Communist China, we will no longer accept one-sided trade deals where we buy 40% of their exports and they buy 1% of ours. And I will tell them: Fellas, either you stop this persecution of Christians and these threats to our friends on Taiwan, and ratting missiles at the United States, or you fellows have sold your last pair of chopsticks in any mall in the United States of America.”
And he is still capable of hitting opponents with that razor sharp wit:
Let me turn now to the signature issue of the Bush campaign: education. Mr. Bush is so enthusiastic about it that he gets carried away. He told a baffled audience in Florence, South Carolina, and I quote directly: “Rarely has the question been asked: Is our children learning?” Is our children learning? Well, our children is certainly not learning in Texas, Governor.
Politicians just don’t talk like this anymore. Everyone today is so committed to being nice and pandering to his “base” that no candidate can really speak his mind. Buchanan is a refreshingly rare exception.
Though he has been marginalized in recent days, this political season owes much to Pat Buchanan. The culture war he brilliantly exposed in 1992 is now an accepted reality (just listen to Mr. Bush’s latest speeches). Buchanan’s frank talk of faith, morality, and religion has been shamelessly adopted by both parties. And it was Mr. Buchanan in 1992 who coined the phrase “Conservatism of the Heart” (kind of like “Compassionate” isn’t it?). And while the press moons over Mr. Gore having nominated an orthodox Jew as his running mate, Buchanan’s choice of a black woman gets hardly any ink at all. Now that is a bold choice.
For all his prophetic insights and sterling oratory, it is unlikely Pat Buchanan will capture the White House this year. At this point it is unclear whether he actually has the nod from the Reform Party at all. During its convention in Long Beach last week, the party split into two factions, each electing its own man: Buchanan and a man named John Hagelin. The Federal Elections Commission will have to settle the conflict and determine who may actually claim the Holy Grail of the Reform party: 12.6 million dollars worth of federal campaign funds.
At present, the polls have Buchanan at barely 2%. The endless negative media coverage doesn’t help. But when you shoot from the hip as voraciously as Buchanan, you have to expect some ricochets.
His about-face on free trade has been labeled “isolationist.” His opposition to Israeli control of Jerusalem, “anti-Semitic.” In spite of the fact that Buchanan’s stances on both issues seem to be inspired by the thought of John Paul II, his positions have been roundly demonized. He is even now a critic of US sanctions against Iraq. (As for the charge of anti-Semitism, Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democratic nominee for Vice President, this past weekend on Meet the Press said he “does not believe” Buchanan to be anti-Semitic.)
Unless his poll numbers start ticking up, Buchanan will lose the opportunity to do what he alone is so qualified to do: kick up some dust in the presidential debates. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have decreed that only candidates garnering 15% or more in the polls may enter the debates. This is absurd. When Teddy Roosevelt ran on a third party ticket, I doubt if anyone took a poll to see if he could debate his opponents.
No matter what people think of Buchanan, his voice clearly deserves to be heard. Though few will agree with him on every point, he has done what many thought an impossible task. In the face of insurmountable odds, he managed to breathe new life into the ruins of Ross Perot’s reform party, and has remade it in his own image. Buchanan has also successfully gotten his name on the ballot in nearly 50 states. Ralph Nader, the only other credible third party candidate, is not even close to accomplishing this feat.
The major parties are doing the public a great disservice using their power and influence to drive lesser voices from the public square. Buchanan should be allowed his place on the dais with Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore. If the third party candidates are indeed “flaky” and “radical,” then why not let the American people see them in all their glory? What are the Democrats and the Republicans afraid of?
Probably exposure. The two parties have become so similar in recent years, the last thing they need is a maverick pointing out the obvious. Of course it could boil down to self-preservation. After seeing Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush in debates during the primary, it is clear that Buchanan has the potential to destroy them rhetorically if not financially. (Throw Nader in and you’ve really got a show.)
No, Buchanan will probably not make it to the presidential debates this year—and we’ll all be worse off for it. He may not be electable, but Buchanan possesses the thing that makes politics so interesting: conviction and honest passion. As soon as the focus groups weigh in, his opponents might realize that they need to acquire these traits and fast, otherwise this year’s turnout could be abysmal.
