Substance Behind the Antics

The Reform Party has been in a strange search for its identity now that its diminutive godfather Ross Perot has stepped aside to allow a new generation to run for president with the party's federal funds. But with Perot's retirement, the Reform Party has lost much of its already vague identity, along with Perot's distrust of bearded men,

Former Republican Pat Buchanan has stepped into the breach, claiming to be the sole defender of a swath of Americans whose interests have not been well represented by major candidates in either party. Specifically, Buchanan claims to represent blue collar workers, the urban poor and others who, despite their hard work, have been left behind during the spurt of economic growth.

But Buchanan's flagrant positions and advocacy of solutions which fundamentally do little good may undermine the political fortunes of those he is trying to help.

In an election where public opinion is largely like a bowl of lukewarm cream of wheat, Buchanan has felt the ire and vitriol of countless columnists and commentators. While no one has risen to heights of indignation over Bush or Bradley, Buchanan has left a trail of incendiary and occasionally offensive comments from his previous two presidential runs and "off season" political columns. They range from his proposal to build a triple wall along the Mexican border patrolled by the National Guard to his new book questioning American involvement in WWII. He has pledged that, under a Buchanan regime, the "Chinese won't sell another pair of chopsticks in any mall in America."

These kinds of statements--coupled with proposals to disband large swaths of the federal government, ranging from the Department of Education to the National Endowment for the Arts--have turned Buchanan into a favorite subject of criticism and hand-wringing. This is a shame, for in the process, Buchanan's constituents and their needs have been quickly forgotten.

Buchanan recognizes that most of the issues debated in politics today concern either those at the very bottom of society or the middle and upper middle classes. Between these two is a great mass of Americans who are not dependent on the government, but survive by working long hours at low wages (sometimes in multiple jobs). They work without the security of knowing there will always be enough to make ends meet.

For these Americans, the job at Wal Mart is better than the dole, but it is still a life of constant worry--always watching the margins to make sure ends meet, always making sacrifices. They must support their families on real wages that are now at the same level as they were in 1973, a full thousand dollars below what they were at the start of this decade of remarkable growth. For Buchanan, these Americans "have been left behind and left out." They see future hopes not in stock options but in slot machines.

But the policies Buchanan advocates and the language he uses fail to live up to the importance of the cause he has embraced. Buchanan has not been shy in calling for dramatic changes, such as a moratorium on immigration and an aggressive campaign to build "American morals." He has called for a radical shift in America's trading policy, to orient it toward preserving the standard of living of American workers through tariffs and subsidies.

These are bold ideas, but remarkably useless ones. The call to end immigration appeals more to prejudice and fear than economics. It obscures the fact that many immigrants share the same economic troubles and concerns that affect working Americans. Although we should question the motivation behind these trade agreements, Buchanan's call for high tariffs and import substitution is foolish. The deceptively simple idea that by importing less, we will manufacture more has left a trail of ruined economies around the world.

Buchanan deserves commendation for thinking boldly and exploring solutions ignored by other politicians. But they are all too backward looking. They appeal to an inchoate resentment and confusion, rather than articulate a positive plan for the future. Buchanan, like many others, looks back to the postwar years when many Americans could live a comfortable and stable life with a unionized blue collar job. He is right to recognize that many of the benefits of this life have been lost and to search for solutions. But instead of trying to bring the backward sectors of the economy into the phenomenal growth that some have experienced, he tries to recreate the world of 30 years ago. Improved education, small business programs and vocational programs that pair young people with business are the sort of positive solutions that can restore the dignity and security many Americans have lost, without the politics of fear and resentment.

Buchanan thus creates a dilemma for those he claims to defend. His presence in the presidential election will cause other mainstream politicians to recognize this "forgotten" constituency. It may lead to newer and wiser policies to win their support. But there is also a danger that a Buchanan candidacy will lose the genuine concerns of blue-collar workers amidst his occasionally outrageous statements and ineffective proposals. Buchanan has said that "the economy is not the country; the country comes first." This is an interesting idea, and it merits debate. But a worthwhile debate can exist only without extremism and must be based on proposals which appeal to hope and openmindedness, rather than emotion and resentment.

Charles C. DeSimone '01 is a government concentrator in Dunster House.