Principalities & Powersrnfev Samuel FrancisrnRevolt of thern300-Pound Beefy GuysrnDiscontent is the parent of all radicalism,rnand in these happy days, Pat Buchanan’srnthird and ever more radical challenge tornthe globalist ruling class may not attractrnthe political following it deserves. Thernnational happiness that smothers healthyrnpolitical disgruntlement is due to the success,rnby conventional standards, of thernClinton presidency. There is no protractedrnforeign (or even a domestic) war,rnand violent crime, unemployment, andrnwelfare are all down. The cities and campusesrnare not aflame, and even if half thernCabinet as well as the President and hisrnwife belong in jail, virtually no one seemsrnto care. Of course, uncontrolled immigrationrnis well on its way to wiping Westernrncivilization off the map of the UnitedrnStates in much the same wa’ vou wiperndead insects off your windshield, and thernevaporation of national sovereignty andrnthe economic, social, and polihcal independencernof American cihzens proceedsrnapace, encouraged by both Democratsrnand Republicans and unchallenged byrnanyone other than Mr. Buchanan.rnAs welcome as Mr. Buchanan’s moernto the Reform Party was last fall, onl- arnfev’ weeks later, he proceeded to confusernmany supporters b eleating within hisrncampaign black leftist Lenora Fulani.rnMiss Fulani promptly vowed that “we’rerngoing to integrate that peasant army ofrnhis. We’re going to bring black folks andrnLatino folks and gay folks and liberal folksrninto that army” and announced that shernand Buchanan would soon be meetingrnwith the Rev. Al Sharpton, perhaps thernmost loathsome anti-white rabble-rouserrnin the country.rnThe rahonale for the Fulani ententernwas that, as a power broker within the ReformrnParty, she would be able to helprnBuchanan win its presidential nominationrnagainst rival factions that are lessrnthan enthusiastic about him and hisrnagenda. That may be a sound reason —rntime will tell whether she really will orrncan help Buchanan —and it may justif)’rnwelcoming her into the campaign. But itrndoes not seem to justify promoting her tornthe position of co-chairman, along withrnBay Buchanan and Pat CJhoate, Ross Perot’srnvice presidenhal candidate in 1996,rnwho is said to have been the architect ofrnthe Fulani tactic. If it is only a tactic,rnaimed at securing the nomination—andrnespecially if it’s a tactic that actuallyrnworks—then it is justifiable. But if it’s thernopening shot of a major strategic move,rnwhich is how both Fulani and Choaterntried to bill it, really aimed at constructingrnwhat Choate called a “left-right-centerrncoalition” and what Fulani describedrnas an effort “to bring black and whiternAmerica together,” then it may posernmore of a problem.rnOne major value of the Buchananrncampaign, especially since his move tornthe Reform Party, is not so much that itrnmight win the presidency this ear as thatrnit offers a ver)- real opportunity- to build arnserious, mass-based political part’ able torncompete for —and e’entually to win —rnpower on a national scale by mobilizing arnMiddle American coalihon. As I wrote inrnan article here last month, whatrnBuchanan must offer is not “conservatism”rnas it is either currently or historicallyrndefined by the “conservative movement,”rnbut a vision, drawn fromrn19th-century traditionalist and counterrevolutionaryrnconservatism, that affirmsrnand defends such social parficularisms—rntribalisms, if you will-as class, cult, kinship,rnconnnunih, race, ethnicity, andrnnahonality, each of which are legitimaternand important parts of the politico-culturalrncomplex. His break with the Republicansrnlast fall offered an historic opportunityrnfor him to begin articulatingrnthis affirmation far more cleariy than hisrnearlier Republican candidacies allowed,rnbecause it disengaged him from the eonfinesrnof the classical liberal-libertarianrnuniversalist ideology that Republicansrncontinue to mouth, an ideology that onlyrnalienates and frightens the Middle Americansrnon whom Buchanan’s campaignrnmust be built. But the Fulani alliancernmay well prove to alienate and frightenrnhis Middle American base even more.rnIn the course of the demonizationrncampaign against Buchanan conductedrnby the neoconservatives and their alliesrnon the left last year, Weekly Standard seniorrneditor David Brooks wrote an attackrnon Buchanan in the Los Ange/es Timesrnthat was concerned to prove, once again,rnthat Buchanan really was not a Republican.rn(Since the column appeared fiverndays after Buchanan’s move to the ReformrnParty, his point is conceded.)rn”Buchanan crowds don’t look like Republicanrncrowds,” Brooks sneered:rnThere are none of those Chamberrnof Commerce officers in golf shirtsrnand tasseled loafers. Instead,rnBuchanan draws the beefy, 300-rnpound guys with tattoos up theirrnarms and sleeveless T-shirts. Herndraws the guys with shaggy bikerrnbeards and the Teamsters who parkrntheir rigs in the lot and get hoarsernshouting, “Co, Pat, go!” It may bernhard to classify’ exactiy which politicalrncategory diese people belong to,rnbut thev are certainK- not Republicans.rnAetuallv, it’s not so hard to classifyrnwhich political categor}- such people belongrnto. Thev’re called “Democrats,”rnand the contempt for them that our Mr.rnBrooks exudes helps explain why theyrnnever show up in the crowds around otherrnRepublican candidates. Buchanan’srnappeal to them is exactiv the same as thatrnof George Wallace, Richard Nixon, andrnRonald Reagan, and their attraction tornthese candidates explains why the firstrnwon more popular support than any otherrnthird-parh leader since Theodore Rooseveltrnand w h the latter two actually wonrnthe presidenc twice.rnA further reason Buchanan is no truernRepublican, according to Mr. Brooks, isrnthat, while Buchanan’s speech at thern1992 GOP consention in Houston declaredrn”a culture war, which the GOPrnfaithful were happ’ to enlist in,” todayrn”Buchanan has stopped talking aboutrnculture and started talking about classrnwar, which the GOP faithfiil do not wantrnany part of”rnWhat Mr. Brooks and his fellow neoconsrncannot seem to grasp is that thern”culture war” is a “class war” —and thatrnthey are on the wrong side of it. Therernhas been a class revolution —a replacementrnof one ruling class by another, thernonly kind of real resolution there is—inrnthe United States. The new ruling classrn32/CHRONICLE5rnrnrn