COLUMN: Plotting to win it all

From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96 From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96Pat Buchanan's efforts to polarize the nationFrom Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96Pat Buchanan's efforts to polarize the nationare not new, but this time, they will backfire. From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '96Pat Buchanan's efforts to polarize the nationare not new, but this time, they will backfire. The name on the lips of political commentators for the past two weeks has been that of Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan. Buchanan's upset victory in New Hampshire, in which he captured slightly more than a quarter of the vote, has been the cause of widespread speculation on the future of the Republican party, the presidential race and even the state of the nation itself. Beneath these surface sound bites lies the vision Buchanan holds of and for America. As a candidate who stresses the importance of America as an entity, Buchanan's beliefs on America's nature are of utmost importance. The America whose self-importance he trumpets and intends to protect is simply not the sum of the nation's diverse peoples and viewpoints. Instead, Buchanan holds that there are two groups of people in America, and as ordained in the Constitution, the views of the majority should be preeminent. These groups do not peacefully coexist nor are they accepting of each other's viewpoints. Indeed, "there is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America," Buchanan preached in his famous speech given at the 1992 Republican National Convention. The "other side," as painted in this speech, is sympathetic to the plight of HIV victims, supportive of the gay rights, against prayer in public schools and unwilling to support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Hillary Clinton served as Buchanan's perfect example; as a "radical feminist," she is emblematic of those in the minority who force their amoral opinions on an otherwise passive public. Perhaps this story sounds familiar. Issues on which Americans disagree have been exploited as a means to further the political aspirations of countless leaders. "Divide and conquer" is not just a page from a history textbook, however, for it was not too long ago that President Nixon won re-election using the anger of the "silent majority." This group was embittered by the permissiveness of American society, tired of watching the vocal minority scream at him from their television screens, mocking the nation as a whole. It was Buchanan who conceived of polarizing the nation along these lines in order to guarantee the continuation of Nixon's reign. Besides being a speechwriter for Nixon and Vice President Agnew, responsible for their often venomous rhetoric, Buchanan led a committee charged with determining the strategy of the 1972 Republican presidential campaign. Buchanan realized that by polarizing the country along racial lines, the Democratic party and the country itself could be torn in two. He was certain that the Republicans would win the far larger half. To accomplish this goal, the Nixon team needed to prevent the unification of the Democratic party behind a centrist candidate who could not be portrayed as a partisan of the radical fringe and who could stand for Democrats from all walks of life. Buchanan's committee worked to ensure the rapid fall of an early favorite, a popular moderate senator from Maine. They then clandestinely supported the campaign of eventual Democratic nominee George McGovern, whose early stand against the Vietnam War and haughty, intellectual demeanor made him an easy target for Nixon's harangues. There is bitter irony in this year's round of election-time polarization. If by some miraculous twist of fate Buchanan manages to win the Republican nomination, the Republican party will be badly split. Even if Buchanan does not win the nomination, as now seems likely, his very inclusion in what is construed as the rational debate surrounding the positions of the Republican party is bound to push it toward the right. This phenomenon also occurred in 1992, when Buchanan's positions on abortion and the cultural war against "deviants" in Hollywood made their way into the Republican party platform. Buchanan's views may also find their way into into the campaign of the eventual Republican nominee in a less formal manner. The nominee's stances will echo at least some of Buchanan's words, despite their overall unpopularity, in order to garner votes from Buchanan's supporters in the general election. The target of Buchanan's attempts at division in the early 1970s was the Democratic party; to voters, the Democrats appeared not as a unified front, but as an agglomeration of anti-American tendencies. Gone was the legacy of prudent social action, firm foreign policy and strong leadership that had characterized previous Democratic presidents of the 20th century. The Democrats became the radical party of student protesters, anti-war activists and militant blacks. The biggest winner in the polarization game of 1996 is Bill Clinton. Not only is the Republican party being weakened by the particularly violent and negative campaigning of the spring primaries, more pronounced this year than ever before, but the eventual nominee's hyper-conservative positions will alienate the average vote in November. Perhaps there is someone working underground for Clinton to promote Buchanan's ascendancy. The willful distortion of the legitimate message of the Republican party, devoted to conservative economic policies and a smaller government with firmly inclusive undertones, could only be the product of the opposition. Although 24 years have passed, Buchanan is again in a position to ensure re-election of an otherwise uncertain incumbent.