Buchanan and Republican Politics: There Is No There There
Peter Schultz
More
reflections on Patrick Buchanan’s book Nixon’s
White House Wars.”
What’s
revealed by Buchanan, inadvertently, in Nixon’s
White House Wars is the emptiness of the Republican Party’s politics during
the Nixon years – and beyond. After the 1970 mid-term elections, where the Republicans
followed what might be called the “Agnew strategy” of using intense rhetoric to
excoriate the Democrats as “radical liberals,” and did not succeed as they
thought they might, the party, including the likes of Buchanan, realized that
it was time to pull back. However, Buchanan did challenge those who were
critical of the Agnew campaign strategy in the following way: “The legitimate
question to ask the Mortons and others [critical of the Agnew strategy] is what
issues they would have had us run on….Had we devoted our campaign to the
economic issue – those final statistics about a seven-billion deficit for the
first quarter . . . would have been crippling blows.” [194]
This is,
although Buchanan doesn’t present it this way, an admission that the Republican
strategy reflected an essentially empty politics. This emptiness is also
revealed by some events, like Nixon delaying his departure from a speech in San
Jose so he could “taunt demonstrators.” From Haldeman’s diary:
“We wanted some confrontation and there were no hecklers in
the hall, so we stalled our departure . . . so they could zero in outside . . .
.Before [leaving], the P[resident] stood up and gave the V sign, which made
them mad. They threw rocks, flags, and candles as we drove out . . . .” [194]
Now the
same can be said of the decision to campaign against the Democrats by labeling
them “radical liberals.” This is an alternative to actually debating the
Democrats, debating the issues, revealing once again the emptiness of the
Republican Party’s politics.
In sum,
Agnew’s rhetoric, Buchanan’s rhetoric belie an emptiness, a hollowness beyond
or beneath it. “The social issue,” as Buchanan calls it, disguises this
emptiness and eventually people catch on which is why it became necessary for
the Republicans to back off such rhetoric. But the alternative, as Buchanan
presents it, is just as empty. To quote Buchanan:
“If I were
to make a shotgun judgment now as to the kind of campaign the president should
run in 1972 – I would recommend he wrap
himself in the trappings of his office . . . .” [195, emphasis added]
So, either
the Republicans would launch attacks on their “enemies,” or they would wrap
themselves and the president in “the flag,” as it were. But both strategies
belie an empty, hollow politics. There is no there there.
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment