Friday, January 10, 1992
At a time when the bleatings of the Democratic hopefuls are treated
with solemn respect, Pat Buchanan’s entry into the presidential
race was greeted by an unprecedented barrage of smear and vilification
from the media, right and left alike.
It is ironic that this savage treatment has been meted out to
a man who has refused to level any personal attacks upon George
Bush, and who has stuck to conveying a deeply held set of principles
with intelligence and good humor. And this from pundits who spend
a great deal of time deploring “negative campaigning” and calling
for candidates to come forward with “ideas.”
But God forbid that these ideas be Politically Incorrect!
Neither right nor left can stand Pat Buchanan’s ideas, which are
far from the usual torpid middle-of-the-road blather. The right
hates them because these are the very ideas that the Official Conservatives,
before they came to Washington, used to hold. And so Pat’s campaign
is a standing reproach to those Official Conservatives who, for
a long time, have stood for little but getting and keeping government
jobs and contracts.
And as for liberals, they can’t stand Pat because they know that,
unlike Mr. Bush, he means it, and everyone knows it; that his principles
are not simply trotted out for a little campaign rhetoric every
few years to keep the rubes outside the Beltway in line. No one
has to read Pat Buchanan’s lips or hips.
What are Pat’s principles? They are to return to the ideals and
policies of the Old Republic, to bring back individual liberty,
and therefore to whittle away and eventually abolish the Welfare
State and Regulatory State, as well as the official racism that
violates individual rights in behalf of set-asides, affirmative
action and other special privileges to Accredited Victim groups.
This means, in the depth of our severe recession, pointing out that
statism always deprives people of prosperity as well as liberty,
and calling, not only for drastic cuts in taxation, but also in
government spending and the giant bureaucracy that is destroying
Judging from overwhelmingly favorable response by the public to
Mr. Buchanan’s candidacy, not only are these ideas still popular
in the conservative heartland outside the Beltway, but they may
even be embraced by a Silent Majority that is getting increasingly
noisy – and that is what scares the establishment media about Mr.
Buchanan’s announcement. For by jumping into the fray, Pat has raised
a standard that is already transforming the meaning of “conservatism”
in the United States.
What about Mr. Buchanan’s much-deplored “isolationism?” Here we
have a remarkable failure of leadership on the part of the pundits
as well as of the Bush administration. In the last two years, we
have all experienced a truly astounding revolutionary change in
the world: the disappearance, the veritable implosion of communism
and the Soviet Union.
For almost 50 years, we have waged an unremitting Cold War against
this perceived threat, the Cold War virtually defining America’s
foreign policy, and now that that has collapsed like a house of
cards, what has been the Bush and the establishment response? The
only rethinking they have done is to do their pitiable and grotesque
best to save their beloved Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union
from collapse – and to prevent the new world of independent republics,
from the Baltic States to Ukraine, from coming into being. This
is not fundamental rethinking, this is absurdity, accompanied by
continuing alarms against the resurgence of “isolationism.”
Pat is one of the few leaders in America to meet the challenges
of this wonderful new world shorn of the horrors of totalitarian
communism. With the Soviet threat gone, he points out, it is time
for America to stop trying to run the entire world – a futile as
well as expensive task – and to turn to facing and solving our mounting
problems at home. What’s wrong with that?
Pat’s policy of America First is simply that: to act in foreign
affairs at all times on what is in the best interests of the American
people – and not in the service of any abstract chimera such as
“global democracy.” Once again, Pat’s opponents on right and left
know full well that this is what the American people want, too,
and that is precisely why they fear him.
The phoniest charge leveled against Pat is that he is a dread
“protectionist.” As a free-market economist who believes in unrestricted
free trade, it is my considered opinion that George Bush and all
of the other candidates are far more protectionist than he. The
Bush administration has been one of the most protectionist in decades;
it is already trying to keep out Japanese mini-vans, and Mr. Bush
is traveling to Japan to force the Japanese to buy more American
cars and sell fewer automobiles here. This is “free trade?”
More importantly, Mr. Buchanan wants to abolish the subsidized
trade racket known as “foreign aid,” in which the American taxpayer
is fleeced to help foreign governments dominate their own populations,
and especially to subsidize American export industries and their
bankers. Furthermore, Pat is opposed to the Bush establishment drive
toward economic world management by central bankers and international
regulatory treaties. Compared to the subsidies and restrictions
his opponents would levy on trade, Pat is virtually a free-trader.
And why else would Pat name former Rep. Ron Paul, well-known as
a libertarian and free-trader, as chairman of his Economic Advisory
The American people are entitled to a full and fair airing of
these vital issues. If television can bring us the details of Patricia
Bowman’s underwear, as well as the seven boring debates among the
Democrats, it can also bring us debates between George Bush and
Pat Buchanan. Surely the American public are entitled to no less.
And why is Mr. Bush unwilling to go head-to-head with Pat Buchanan
on television? It is because he knows that Mr. Buchanan is a real
person, who writes his own speeches and scorns the ministrations
of pollsters and handlers Is George Bush afraid of Pat Buchanan?
Is the wimp factor to prove dominant at last?
Murray Rothbard was S.J. Hall Distinguished Professor of Economics
at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and vice-president for academic
affairs of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.