MUCH ADO ABOUT PAT
A great many powerful people are determined that American voters will
hear nary a word about the criminal folly of our foreign policy this
presidential election cycle, and naturally the leaders of the two major
parties are prominent among them.
These two parties have been collaborating on a policy of perpetual war for
perpetual "peace" since the end of the last world war, and they are not about to
stop now: indeed, with the cold war over and America the world's sole
superpower, the party has just begun. To the victor goes the spoils, and
America's corporate elite is taking this old saying quite literally: big
corporate donors to both the Democrats and Republicans getting rich off
government handouts and other "foreign aid" that make their exports especially
profitable and keep the military-industrial complex humming with activity. But
that collaboration is no longer limited to the "majors" – now a significant
portion of the Reform Party leadership has joined the club.
THE REIGN OF THE BOSSES
A small cabal of Reform Party bosses – now there's an ironic phrase for
you! – is trying to cheat Pat Buchanan out of the party's presidential
nomination, by hook or by crook to block him from raising the key issues
this election year. From Connecticut to Georgia to Colorado, and now
California, the entrenched leadership is determined to keep out
supporters of Buchanan's candidacy by simply disenfranchising anyone
but themselves.
In California, for example, at their recent state convention, the Reform
leaders ruled that party members who have been enrolled for less than
six months were ineligible to be delegates – thus effectively depriving the
majority of the Buchanan supporters from even having the right to speak at the
convention. This from a party that boasts of its 'inclusiveness' and
much-vaunted populism!
Wasn't it Ross Perot who championed voting via the Internet, opening up
the process, and holding national referendums: now those who speak in
his name (or, at least, are invariably described as "Perot loyalists" in the
media) are setting up a self-perpetuating Reform Party oligarchy that rivals
Tammany Hall in the brazenness of its bossism. Are these people completely
insensitive to irony?
THE PARTY-BUSTERS
In his speech to the convention, Buchanan appealed to the delegates'
sense of fairness as well as their party loyalty: "If we win this battle and
we've got the delegates, I would ask people even if they disagree: What good is
it going to do, then, to keep arguing and damage our cause?"
But that, I'm afraid, is the whole point – these people want to do damage, as
much as possible: that has become their mission in life. They have no
alternative to Buchanan: in their desperation they are grasping at any straw. As
Connecticut Reform chairwoman Donna Donovan – one of the charter members of the
"Hate Buchanan" brigade – told a reporter, some members continue to talk about
drafting Mr. Perot, jointly nominating Green Party candidate Ralph Nader "or not
endorsing anyone." This Dallas Morning News story informs us that the
Connecticut Reformers also passed a resolution denouncing Buchanan for making
"demoralizing" public statements that supposedly imply the party is
"dysfunctional."
To begin with, Buchanan has always loyally defended the Reform party
from the snide characterization by many in the media that likens it to a
"circus." But perhaps he should have spoken out a little more forcefully
against that section of the party leadership that clearly is dysfunctional, in
the exact meaning of that word, and seems intent on self-destructing rather than
accept a Buchanan victory. "Anybody but Buchanan" is at least a plausible
political strategy for his opponents in the Reform party to pursue: but "Nobody
instead of Buchanan" reveals the complete political bankruptcy and negativity of
this retrograde trend. They have no politics, no strategy, and no program
except: "get Buchanan!"
CLUELESS IN LOS GATOS
The mini-bosses who have clung to their tiny Reform Party fiefdoms like
barnacles on a rock haven't got a clue about how to put together a real
third party movement in this country – and have long since lost sight of
ever achieving such a goal, blinded as they are by their hatred of
Buchanan.
For the truth is that before the entrance of Buchanan and his supporters
into the organization, the Reform Party was dying on the vine. But they
don't want to believe it: "He's not rescuing us; it may be just the
opposite," said Bob Ferrario of Los Gatos, Calif., to a reporter at the
California convention. "He just wants to use it as a platform for his social
philosophy, but that's not what we're about. We're centrist."
I have news for Bob Ferrario and the rest of the political geniuses in his camp:
we already have not one but two presidential candidates moving rapidly toward
the mushy "center" of American politics, namely George "Dubya" Bush and Al Gore.
If Americans want more of this "centrist" politics, then why should they vote
for some nutball third party that normally hasn't got a snowball's chance in
hell of winning the election?
THE HOMO QUESTION
After doing everything in their power to exclude Buchanan and his
supporters from the Reform Party in state after state, these very same
people have the nerve to turn around and rail at Pat for not being
sufficiently "inclusive." Aside from the shenanigans of the minuscule
Connecticut group, the Dallas Morning News also reports that something
calling itself the Reform Leadership Council has declared that Buchanan
must disavow the remarks of one of his followers to the effect that Jim
Mangia, the party's national secretary – a former member of the Fulani
group well-known for his charter membership in the "rule or ruin" faction
of the party – should resign.
Since Mangia is gay – as is also well-known – this was immediately and
inevitably interpreted by Buchanan's enemies as an example of
Buchananite "homophobia." Mangia, said Delaware Reform Party
chairman William Shields, should be removed from his convention and
kicked out of the national convention "along with any trash or dangerous
biological waste that may have founds its way onto the convention floor."
The "Leadership Council" – which we are told exists to "promote unity" in
the party – is demanding that Buchanan ask Shields to resign. While the
meaning of Shields' remarks appear cloudy, at best, and certainly open
to interpretation, one has to wonder exactly what the pro-"unity"
Leadership Council (including Russell Verney, Perot's aide) think they
are going to get away with. For why is this "tolerance" question always a
one-way street? How come it is always Buchanan who is being called on
to be "tolerant," while his intransigently intolerant opponents get to make all
the demands? In the name of "tolerance" and "diversity," they aver, Buchanan
must now prove that he isn't "hateful" and "homophobic" and disavow Shields.
This is utter crap: Pat Buchanan is no homophobe, he just doesn't
approve of homosexuality. I have written about my own homosexuality in
this column, and elsewhere through the years – but that didn't stop Pat
from appearing at Antiwar.com's national conference, or from putting my
articles on his website, or from writing a laudatory introduction to my first
book, Reclaiming the American Right.
And so to Jim Mangia and his many friends in the American media, who
have faithfully recorded every syllable of Mangia's utterances on the
Buchanan question, I ask: If he's such a big homophobe, then how do
you explain that?
SEX, LIES, AND THE REFORM PARTY
The problem is not Mangia's sex life – although, looking at the guy, it
may be a problem for him – but his politics: the difference between
Mangia and myself is that I don't demand that everyone take a position
on the morality or immorality of my private life, I don't see gays as an
"oppressed minority" in need of special protections as an official victim
class – and I applaud Buchanan for his principled position that Cabinet
members will be appointed on the basis of their ability and their views,
and not because of their sexual "orientation."
And, no, I'm not angling for Secretary of State: even if Buchanan did rule out
homosexuals (known, unknown, or possible) from so much as hanging the new
curtains Shelley has all picked out for the White House, I could not only learn
to live with it – I could and would learn to love it as we brought home all our
troops from Kosovo inside of a few months.
Hell, I wouldn't even remember it – and neither would anybody else – as
President Buchanan told the Europeans: "You're on your own, fellas,"
and not only halted NATO expansion but got us entirely out of NATO,
and out of the middle of Europe's wars. Sell the Taiwanese the weapons
to defend themselves, let the South Koreans decide how they want to
deal with their collapsing adversaries to the north, and tell the Europeans "au
revoir" – Pat's program of peace and a return to the foreign policy of the
Founders would be such a plus that I wouldn't be too upset about not being
appointed Secretary of State, or even Ambassador to Luxembourg.
THIS ISN'T ALL ABOUT ME
For in the end, this isn't all about what's good for me, personally, but
what's good for the country and the cause of liberty. This is why I find the
prattle about Buchanan's position on the social issues so annoying.
Compared to the question of whether or not 5,000 Iraqi children will be
starved to death by US sanctions this month – which Buchanan would
end on his first day in office – is Jim Mangia's sex life (or mine, for that
matter) really all that important? So what if I can't bring my Significant Other
to the presidential swearing-in ceremony. It's enough, for me, that, as Pat puts
it, "when I raise my hand to take that oath of office, their New World Order
will come crashing down!"
THE LOYALTY PLEDGE
At the California convention, the outgoing Executive Committee issued a
series of demands centering on Pat's position on social issues, declaring
that he must not interfere in the party's platform, must have no litmus
tests for his vice presidential candidate and indeed must have no say in
determining who is running is to be – a resolution that was overwhelming
voted down by the general convention.
Every Buchananite worth his or her salt can have only one answer to
such arrogance: to hell with you, buddy! It is high time the Buchanan
camp stopped conciliating some of these habitual factionalists –
including some supposedly aligned with him – and started making some
demands of his own.
The first demand should be to party loyalty: as the national secretary of
the Reform Party, Mangia and other Reform Party officers must either
pledge to abide by the results of the Long Beach convention – or get out
now. Here is a point that every loyal Reform Party member can agree on,
and that is a pledge to support the party's presidential nominee,
whomever it might be.
Although I would be bitterly disappointed and even outraged if Ross Perot
listened to Arianna Huffington, Mangia, and their friends in the media and
jumped into the race as abruptly as he quit the last time, if he beat Pat fair
and square I'd support him in the end. Could the "Anybody but Pat" crowd make
the same claim? I thought not. . . .
COMPLEMENTARY FACTORS
This alleged division between the Buchanan and Perot factions is largely
a product of Mangia's imagination. When he made headlines with the
news he and his allies were holding nationwide rallies urging Perot to
take the field against Buchanan, it was little noted that these events
were very sparsely attended. These are generals without much of an
army.
The reality is that Buchanan and Perot have much in common: Perot
was an early and vociferous critic of the Gulf war, and his opposition to
NAFTA and the corporate elite that controls the Republican party puts
him in ideological sync with Buchanan. The irony is that the efforts of self-
proclaimed Perot "loyalists" to create an artificial division plays right into
the hands of the viciously anti-Perot and anti-third party media, which has
always characterized the Reform Party as Ross' cult of personality – and also
obscures the very real appeal of Perot's ideas.
Besides the twin political themes of opposition to foreign wars (such as
the Gulf war) and "free trade" agreements, Perot was also making the
point, in his two presidential runs, that America was facing a crisis. The
vehicle is broke, and we have to get down under the hood and fix it; a similar
theme that "all is not well" pervades Buchanan's rhetoric, and he has further
developed this Perotista populism by calling for popular referendums and radical
campaign finance reform, including making ballot access less onerous.
Furthermore, Buchanan has taken the original Perot theme of opposition
to the Gulf war and extended the lesson of that sinful war to the whole
realm of foreign policy. Far from being in conflict, the two main
tendencies in the Reform Party, followers of Perot and Buchanan, are
ideologically complementary.
OUTSIDE INTERVENTION?
In this election, both main parties will have their own "third party"
problem, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they are intervening, however
indirectly, in the internal politics of both the Reformers and the Greens. When
I wrote about Ralph Nader the other day, I got angry letters from a bunch of
Greens who assured me that Nader hasn't got the Green Party presidential nod
yet, and that this just shows my complete ignorance of what the Green Party is
all about.
To these folks, I say: go for it! Nader could cost the Democrats
California, and I hope the DNC gives the "Anybody but Nader"
headquarters all the soft money they can spend.
On the other hand, if I were the Buchanan campaign, I would pay very
close attention to what is going on in the camp of the enemy. And I don't
mean Ross Perot, who has said he wouldn't interfere in the nominating
process; in spite of having his name taken in vain by his alleged
followers, Perot has so far stubbornly and admirably stayed above the
fray. I'm talking about the grand poobahs and strategists in the Bush
camp, who rightly fear Buchanan's pull on their right flank.
A WRECKING OPERATION
These guys have a lot of money to throw around – more than any
presidential candidate in history – and also motive to spend it: It takes
money and organization to create a credible presidential operation, and
Buchanan has managed to do it. But it also takes money and
organization to disrupt and derail a political party, to carry out a
coordinated splitting operation and run what is in effect a wrecking
operation.
They almost did it at the recent California Reform Party convention,
where the plan was to deny Buchanan ballot status in California by
taking advantage of state election laws giving the state party organization (in
effect, a small clique) the ability to control who appears on their ballot –
regardless of what the national Reform Party decides.
By law, the Reform Party of California can put anyone they want on the
ballot – or no one at all. At the last minute, the Buchanan forces
managed to elect a state party chairman sympathetic to their cause,
effectively foiling this bureaucratic ploy, but the forces of goodness and light
came within a hair's breadth of losing it – and we haven't even gotten to the
main event yet.
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW . . .
I am, by the way, an alternate delegate to the national Reform Party
convention – yes, you'll be getting on-the-spot reporting fresh, a blow-by- blow
account of the Battle of Long Beach. The media is sure to play up the last
Reform Party high-level meeting that made the news, where the "chairman" refused
to open the meeting and chairs were thrown, and you can be sure that more than a
few provocateurs – paid and unpaid – will be in that crowd, ready to make their
move on cue. But who is giving the cues? That's what I want to know . . .
THE NON-INTERVENTIONIST CASE FOR BUCHANAN
Oh, but so what, say those of you as yet unconvinced by my constant
harping on the subject of Buchanan, why are you writing about this again
in a column ostensibly devoted to analysis of foreign policy. Okay, once
more with feeling: The reason is that if Antiwar.com had been around
during the campaign of Eugene McCarthy for President, then he would
have earned our plaudits – and gotten them.
So, today, with Buchanan the only candidate who would stop the
murderous war on Iraq, on those grounds alone he is the one possible
choice for antiwar activists of the left as well as the right. From Colombia to
the Caspian, from Kosovo to Peru, the War Party has great plans for the
post-cold war era – a new era of wars, and conquests, and perhaps a new empire
that spans the globe.
Buchanan has challenged them head on – and don't think they are going
to let him get away with it. He is fighting an heroic battle, and as a
chapter in the history of the movement against global intervention, the
Buchanan campaign will go down in the history books – along with the
McCarthy campaign and that of Eugene Debs from a jail cell during
World War I – as a high point. We are almost never given a choice when
it comes to foreign policy in presidential elections, but this time around it
could be different. But never forget: the War Party has more than one trick up
its sleeve, and we have yet to see the end of their shenanigans. It will be
interesting, if nothing else. . . .
THE HEIR OF CHARLEMAGNE
I can't end this column without noting that our beloved President has
been awarded the Charlemagne Prize for his efforts at promoting
European unity. He proudly accepted an honor named after one of the
worst tyrants in European history, who put more peasants to the sword
than the Serbs ever did. Charlemagne was an absolute autocrat and the
founder of the "Holy Roman Empire" – an entity that was neither Roman,
nor all that holy. As historian Alexander Murray, a professor of European
history at the University of Toronto, put it to the National Post:
"One point of similitude, he offered, was their joint enthusiasm for
sponsoring decadent parties for the rich and powerful. 'Charlemagne
would encourage large numbers of people to bathe together, including
courtiers and bodyguards,' said Mr. Murray. 'Eventually, his son, Louis
the Pious, was forced to kick out all those courtiers for moral and sexual
reasons. When Louis came, the court was cleaned up.'"
THE "DR. FRANKENSTEIN" THEORY OF EUROPEAN UNITY
If history is repeating itself, there are elements of tragedy as well as
farce. This award for fostering the growth of the European Union super-
state is well-earned – and while the Europeans are hailing him, his own
countrymen may come to curse him for it. Ever since the end of the cold
war, the War Party has been looking for a credible enemy to put in its
place: an excuse for huge profits for the armaments industry, a reason to
divert attention away from the crisis at home, another reason to empower
and enrich the Washington elite. They have so far failed to come up with
a convincing placebo for the old Soviet Union, since neither Russia nor
China quite fit the bill. The solution: create a suitable enemy, a
Frankenstein monster made out of the broken bits and pieces of the
historical nation-states of Europe. But that, as they say, is another
column. . . .
--------
Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com. He is also the
author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the
Conservative Movement (with an Introduction by Patrick J. Buchanan),
(1993), and Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S.
Intervention in the Balkans (1996). He is an Adjunct Scholar with the
Ludwig von Mises Institute, in Auburn, Alabama, a Senior Fellow at the
Center for Libertarian Studies, and writes frequently for Chronicles: A
Magazine of American Culture. He is the author of An Enemy of the
State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (forthcoming from Prometheus
Books).
Please Support Antiwar.com
A contribution of $25 or more gets you a copy of Justin Raimondo's Into
the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the
Balkans, a 60-page booklet packed with the kind of intellectual
ammunition you need to fight the lies being put out by this administration and
its allies in Congress. And now, for a limited time, donors of $50 or more
receive a copy of Ronald Radosh's classic study of the Old Right conservatives,
Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism.
Send contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
