A Demagogue Is Born

A demagogue--"A leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power" (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary).

On February 20, 1996, a demagogue was born in the state of New Hampshire. The fetus was conceived decades ago, metamorphosing in the politically nurturing setting of the White House into a right-wing, conservative speech writer under Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. The American media was a second protective womb for the developing organism on CNN's "Crossfire" and in such conservative papers as the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, which voiced expressions of support for Barry Goldwater and Senator Joseph McCarthy. Finally, one week ago, the moment of emergence arrived, and out came Patrick J. Buchanan as New Hampshire's victorious Republican candidate.

Part of what is so frightening about this man is the very fact that his ultra-right platform has not just suddenly appeared, but has been growing since the mid-1960s. Yet only recently does it seem to have attracted such attention. That it has gained this recognition today is an unfortunate reflection on the direction in which this country is moving. Buchanan's extremist ideologies are directed toward addressing people's fears and resentments, giving him what New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani termed "a career in which he has by and large been against things."

These two targets, namely fear and resentment, are not the ingredients of a democracy but of history's most brutal regimes. In a country which has prided itself on being a true melting pot for a diverse population of many different racial, ethnic, religious and cultural strands, Buchananism is at the very least problematic and at the very worst utterly destructive of our socio-political heritage. His is the constitution of a rising demagogue.

And yet it seems few people comprehend the grave implications of Buchanan's appeal. Responses to his growing power are disappointing in that they fail to address the anti-democratic (with a lower-case "d") and un-American nature of Buchanan's beliefs. Many Republicans see his corporate bashing and economic protectionism as an affront to and betrayal of their party platform, ideas which reach out to a Democratic constituency. In addition, they mourn the fact that his ultra-conservatism is giving the party a bad reputation and posing an unexpected challenge to the more moderate Bob Dole, who fares a far better chance of defeating Clinton than does Buchanan.

Dole, selfishly-motivated, refers to Buchanan as an extremist so as to paint himself in the colors of moderation. The New York Times reported him as saying, "This now is a race between the mainstream and the extreme, that's what it's all about." Democrats, on the other hand, are celebrating the demise of Republicanism as it becomes tainted with and supplanted by Buchananism. Pat Buchanan's extremism has left President Clinton with what the New York Times called "quiet glee," making Clinton's mistakes and controversial policies seem relatively excusable.

In other words, politicians are focusing on how Buchanan's candidacy will affect the partisan warfare and determine the election outcome. They consider his role in influencing the course of national politics or question the economic soundness of a complete withdrawal from the global economy. Anti-Buchanan arguments like these do very little for the American people and their values system; they merely teach them the art of campaign tactics. The social conservatism advocated by Buchanan should frighten and outrage our populace, and yet all it does is present politicians and voters with an unexpected, but unfortunately accepted variable.

We have had decades of social movements, constitutional amendments and judicial precedents all advocating racial, sexual and religious equality, and yet a man can not only run for office, but actually gain a plurality of a state's votes despite the fact that he stands opposed to this historical legacy of our system. Sure, everyone jokes about his sexism or homophobia, but this misses the point. The situation would be humorous if he failed to obtain enough votes to last in the race, but he is not even trailing as one with such fanaticism should be. Even once people concede that he actually emerged victorious in a state, they nevertheless laugh off the fact that he does not stand a real chance, and that at least he adds some excitement to what would otherwise be a boring showdown between the uncharged and uncharismatic former Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander and the wornout and politically mechanical Dole.

No one is confronting the unfortunate fact that a system which, by definition, should filter out Buchananism has failed to do so thus far. No one is facing the upsetting reality that white, Anglo-Saxon supremacy has grown popular. No one is condemning Buchanan for a social ideology reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s. No one is standing up to Buchanan purely for the purpose of preserving all for which this country stands. It is feeling deprived of the full portrait of "Buchanan as bigot" which leads me to this artistic task.

Where to begin? Blacks, Jews, women, homosexuals--which continuously discriminated-against group is at the top of his hate list? The common and unfortunate thread uniting all these groups is that, despite decades of struggling for equality, they continue to evoke resentment and fear from portions of the population. It is through this window of opportunity that the winds of Buchananism blow through our society. (The statements that follow were detailed in a 1993 report of the Anti-Defamation League).

In 1992, Buchanan declared, "The U.S. should stand up for values, shared values. Why are we more shocked when a dozen people are killed in Vilnius than a massacre in Burundi? Because they are white people. That's who we are. That's where America comes from." All this from the mouth of the man who purports to distance himself from David Duke, Larry Pratt and Sandy Lamb so as to dissociate himself from white supremacy. Very convincing, Mr. Buchanan.

The demagogue further plays on American society's fears that immigrants leave U.S. natural citizens worse off economically. However, he attacks the issue of immigration not merely from an economic standpoint but with an ethnocentric overtone. "Does this First World nation wish to become a Third World country? Because that is our destiny if we do not build a sea wall against the waves of immigration rolling over our shores...."

On the issue of blacks, Buchanan asserted in 1972 that "the ship of integration is going down. It's not our ship." By speaking in the first-person plural, Buchanan is exhibiting a detachment from black citizens. The cause, one for which the fight continues, is not his. This is a frightening fact--that the push for racial integration is not a goal of a political leader. That this unconstitutional mindframe can appeal to a portion of the populace bears testimony to the erosion of America's social values. Where are the counter-attacks to his monstrous assertions?

Buchanan expressed his sentiments for a Christian America when he said: "America was a Christian country. A quarter of a century ago, without prior consultation with a democratic people, without support in precedent or the Constitution, the Warren Court undertook the systematic de-Christianization of America." It seems Buchanan ought to refresh himself on the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights. Is not there something on religious freedom written there?

For Buchanan, the feminist movement is against the will of God. "Rail as they will against discrimination, women are not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism.... The momma bird builds the nest. So it was, so it ever shall be. Ronald Reagan is not responsible for this; God is."

Equally condemned by God is homosexuality, according to Buchanan. "With 80,000 dead of AIDS, 3,000 more buried each month, our promiscuous homosexuals appear literally hell-bent on Satanism and suicide."

And finally, the Jews and the State of Israel rank high on the Buchanan list of scapegoats. In 1989, he declared, "To orthodox Catholics, the demand to be more sensitive to Jewish concerns is becoming a joke. Referring to Congress as an "Israeli-occupied territory" and as a Parliament of whores incapable of standing up for U.S. national interests, if AIPAC is on the other end of the line," Buchanan has deservedly been subject to charges of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, Buchanan is known for his hyper-sensitivity to comparisons between him and Hitler--I wonder why. Is it because he referred to the man who came closest to annihilating the Jewish people as "an individual of great courage" or that he equated Holocaust Survivor Syndrome with "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics"? As a man hoping to distinguish himself from Hitler, he ought to rethink his oratorical strategy.

After hearing statements like these, it comes as no surprise that Vladimir V. Zhirinovsky, the Russian ultranationalist candidate, could call him a "brother in arms" and acknowledge a problem they share. "You say that Congress is Israeli-occupied territory. We have the same situation in Russia. So to survive, we could set aside places on U.S. and Russian territory to deport this small but troublesome tribe."

The anti-Semitic rhetoric understandably struck a personal nerve. I feel uneasy knowing that nearly one in three Republican voters in New Hampshire felt nothing uneasy about Buchanan. The truth is that his is a platform which goes beyond fostering uneasiness. His is one repulsive to the very system we have fought so hard to create. Pat Buchanan has identified certain prejudices and fears embodied in our people and has used them as a foundation on which to erect his candidacy.

Many are chuckling now as they watch this fanatic, making light of his extremism and trusting our system to disqualify him before he disqualifies us. But as this demagogue rises in the political rankings, the laughter will die down. Those who did not beforehand will then recognize that our political filtering process needs reforming. They will then realize the grave implications of the New Hampshire primary--that out of the popular vote can come one whose very platform is utterly antithetical to our constitutionally-based political system. That is, the ship of American democracy is going down, and it is most definitely our ship.

Erica S. Schacter '97 is an editor of the Harvard Crimson.