of the state as it is presently structured derive from its controlrnand exploitation by the Ruling Class, that the elites themselvesrnare the real enemy and that the state, while far too large and intrusive,rnis simply their instrument. Control of the state by a socialrnforce or elite different from the forces that now control itrncould shape the state to support Middle American interests andrnvalues rather than crush them.rnHence, Buchanan has rattled free-market antistatist conservativesrnby his support for higher unemployment benefits forrndisplaced workers, and last fall he tossed a brick at congressionalrnRepublicans who were insisting on cutting the growth ofrnMedicare. “Instead of going after Medicare,” Buchanan toldrnNew Hampshire factory workers, “we ought to start dealingrnwith foreign aid, end those $50 billion bailouts, start dealingrnwith the Worid Bank loan guarantees.” He explained to TomrnCarson that “I think government can fairly be used” to restructurerntax incentives and penalties to discourage businesses fromrnmoving their operations overseas. Buchanan’s antistatism isrngenuine, but it rightly focuses on dismantling the present staternas the present Ruling Class has constructed it; he does not purportrnto be an anarchist who imagines the state is an unnecessaryrnand unmitigated evil, and “anarcho-libertarians” drawn to hisrnAmerica First foreign policy need to understand that RichardrnNixon’s former speechwriter would have no hesitation in makingrnfull use of the constitutionally legitimate powers of the federalrngovernment. They also need to understand that reducingrnthe leviathan to its constitutionally legitimate powers wouldrnnot excite any but their most eccentric phobias of statism.rnNeither the antistatist right nor cultural conservatives havernany good reason to be uncomfortable with the new identityrnBuchanan is building, though Economic Men like Kemprnand Gramm and neoconservative apologists for the federalrnleviathan have plenty of reason to resist him and the new politicalrnhorse he is saddling. If the antistatists bridle at his protectionism,rnthey will at least get the satisfaction of replacing muchrnof the current tax structure of the state with tariffs, and the OldrnRight has long recognized that cultural and moral destructionrnis in large part driven by the swollen state and the powers of socialrnmanagement it has usurped in education, the arts, and thernimperial federal judiciary. Buchanan explicitly vows to disman-rnTHE CROSS OF GOLDrn”We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest;rnwe are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families,rnand posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions havernbeen scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties have beenrndisregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when ourrncalamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petitionrnno more. We defy them.”rnâ€”William Jennings Bryan, 1896rntie these parts of the leviathan, and given the Middle Americanrnsocial structure that today must underiie any serious politicalrnresistance to the federal megastate and the Ruling Glass it supports,rnthe Old Right has no practical alternative anywav.rnYet, if Buchanan has one major flaw as a spokesman for andrnan architect of the new Middle American political identity thatrntranscends and synthesizes both left and right, it is that he exhibitsrna proclivity to draw back from the implications of his ownrnradicalism. This became evident in 1992, when he insisted onrnendorsing George Bush and even on campaigning for him, andrnlast year he also vowed to support the Republican ticket even ifrnhe was not the nominee. Any such commitment onrnBuchanan’s part should be contingent on other candidates’rncommitment to support him if he is nominated, but so farrnnone has bothered to do so. Buchanan, for all the radicalism ofrnhis ideas and campaign, remains deeply wedded to the RepublicanrnParty and to a conservative political label, and he tends torngreet criticism of his deviations from conservative orthodoxyrnwith affirmations of doctrine. Last year, as conservative criticismrnof him increased, his response was that “the only area ofrndisagreement I have [with traditional conservatives] is trade,rnand that’s crucial to bringing back the Perot voters” to the RepublicanrnParty.rnBuchanan’s loyalty to the GOP is touching, especially sincernalmost no Republican leader or conservative pundit has muchrngood to say about him, and the loudest mouths for the “BigrnTent” are always the first to try to push him out of it. Even today,rnmany Republicans try to blame the 1992 defeat of GeorgernBush’s inept and lackluster bid for reelection on Buchanan’srnnow-famous speech at the Houston convention, a speech thatrnwas the only memorable event of the whole proceeding andrnwhich Buchanan himself continues to defend and even to distributernas literature for his present campaign. But, touching orrnnot, Buchanan’s refusal to break even more definitely with arnconventional conservative identity and with a Republican Partyrnwhose leadership fears and despises him, his beliefs, and his followersrnis a serious error. I recall in late 1991, in the aftermath ofrna wall-to-wall gathering at his home to discuss his coming campaign,rnI told him privately that he would be better off withoutrnall the hangers-on, direct-mail artists, fund-raising whiz kids,rnmarketing and PR czars, and the rest of the crew that today constitutesrnthe backbone of all that remains of the famous “ConservativernMovement” and who never fail to show up on therncampaign doorstep to guzzle someone else’s liquor and pocketrnother people’s money. “These people are defunct,” I told him.rn”You don’t need them, and you’re better off without them. Gornto New Hampshire and call yourself a patriot, a nationalist, anrnAmerica Firster, but don’t even use the word ‘conservative.’ Itrndoesn’t mean anything any more.”rnPat listened, but I can’t say he took my advice. By making hisrnbed with the Republicans, then and today, he opens himself torncharges that he’s not a “true” party man or a “true” conservative,rnconstrains his chances for victory by the need to massagerntrunk-waving Republicans whose highest goal is to win elections,rnand only dilutes and deflects the radicalism of the messagernhe and his Middle American Revolution have to offer.rnThe sooner we hear that message loudly and cleady, withoutrndistractions from Conservatism, Inc., the Stupid Party, andrntheir managerial elite, the sooner Middle America will be ablernto speak with an authentic and united voice, and the sooner werncan get on with conserving the nation from the powers that arerndestroying it.
January 1975April 21, 2022By The Archive