Freedom Writer - April 1996 The politics of cluelessness By Barry Lynn Just a year ago, I

Freedom Writer - April 1996

The politics of cluelessness

By Barry Lynn

Just a year ago, I was sitting in a broadcast studio 
with Pat Buchanan for about nine hours each week co-hosting 
"Buchanan & Co.," his nationally syndicated radio show. 
It was clear that he saw the program as a vehicle to 
locate and mobilize the troops for a nearly inevitable 
return bid for the White House. My association with 
Pat led to many media interviews after his quixotic 
campaign began to flourish. 

I'm very good with "sound bites" on most subjects, 
but Buchanan isn't easy to explain that quickly. He 
appeals to much that is deeply disturbing in the American 
psyche. But, for me, Buchanan's politics are driven 
more by naivete than by hatred. Pat has a crude inability 
and unwillingness to understand those who diverge from 
the narrow path that he follows himself.

One of the most interesting hours of the show was the 
day the renowned African American scholar Cornel West 
joined us. His book _Race_Matters_ had just been reissued 
and he was on a book tour. West's thesis, greatly simplified, 
is that race still makes a tremendous difference in 
how people are treated — that it still "matters" in 
the United States of the 1990s. Abandoning my usual 
role of combatant, I said almost nothing that hour 
and mainly listened to West attempt to explain his 
view to Pat. It was as if people from two different 
astral planes had met. Buchanan doesn't merely claim 
to believe — he does believe — that all races are now 
on the same playing field with equal-quality equipment 
and ready to compete. No number of studies on bank-loan 
redlining or experiential testing where otherwise comparable 
black and white couples are shown different potential 
homes for purchase by realtors, can persuade him otherwise. 
He dogmatically insists that the truth is equal opportunity 
— and any test to the contrary is either poorly designed, 
improperly executed, or biased.

Even worse, he seems to believe that even by the 1950s 
things weren't all that bad for non-whites. Buchanan 
grew up in what he regards as the "golden age" of Washington, 
D.C., when, although largely segregated, people of 
different races lived happily separate lives. To many 
of us, this romantic mythology is ludicrous, but it 
deeply informs Buchanan's view of race.

I never heard anything, even off the air, to suggest 
that Buchanan is a white supremacist, that he believes 
in some inherent inequality of races. He has a considerable 
sense of humor but never ventured into objectionable 
territory. Why then do Ku Klux Klan members and skinheads 
support him? Frankly, they don't care what motivates 
him, but only where he would take the country. A Buchananesque 
America would have no affirmative action programs, 
limited enforcement of civil rights law and — eventually 
— the repeal of civil rights statutes. That would obviously 
give white males even more power than they wield today, 
so Pat is their man.

Buchanan's views on public schools also come from his 
virtually nonexistent experience with them. His entire 
education occurred in Catholic schools, and since he 
has no children, he did not even need to consider public 
education during his adult life. Thus, his entire "understanding" 
of public schools is informed by right-wing claptrap 
from pseudo-experts. Without refutation or even skepticism 
by him on the show, he listened to the former president 
of the Vista, California school board explain that 
children should be taught that one theory about why 
the dinosaurs died was that they were too large to 
fit into Noah's ark. Similarly, he absorbed the view 
of a Maryland writer that schools might soon implant 
computer chips in students to keep tabs on their political, 
religious, and family background.

When gay activists came into the studio, Pat would 
chat with them, shake their hands (some right-wingers 
will not), and then argue with them about everything 
they stood for. When they left, he would never use 
a derogatory word. He might say, "I don't understand 
why people would want to live that way." Aside from 
the obvious question this should raise of whether people 
do or do not "choose" their sexual orientation (Pat 
clearly believes they do), it evinces confusion and 
annoyance more than hatred. There is no doubt that 
he positively loathes the sensational tactics of radical 
activists and believes gay men and lesbians are living 
a deeply sinful and perverse lifestyle. What bothers 
him most, though, is that they disrupt his sense of 
order.    	

Buchanan has a personal border every bit as inviolable 
as he would like to make the United States' geographical 
border. Diversity is not something to be championed; 
he wants "assimilation." Some people, like atheists, 
gays, and "radical feminists" are too far-out to be 
"assimilated." The only hope for dealing with them 
is to marginalize them. He has toyed with the idea 
of putting criminals on isolated islands where they 
would have only each other to maim and plunder. He 
knows you can't do this to other groups, but you can 
limit their rights and make them feel like second-class 
citizens. You can try to amend the Constitution so 
that women have no reproductive choice, with the inevitable 
negative economic consequences of losing options. You 
can support Amendment 2 in Colorado, which actually 
limits the ability of gays to engage in the political 
process on the same footing as others. Again, what 
is most important is not whether Buchanan has some 
personal animus against women and gays, but the damage 
to fundamental rights that his policies would do. 

Buchanan consistently flirts with the most anarchic 
substrata of populism: Tenth Amendment advocates who 
believe that if a state legislature passes a resolution 
of sovereignty, it does not have to follow most regulatory 
mandates of the federal government; people who feel 
that the principal reason to preserve gun ownership 
is to defend one's family, not against criminals, but 
the federal government (to them every American could 
be Randy Weaver; every church, Waco); secessionists 
who want to remove wealthier sections of New York City 
from the bothersome problems of the Bronx and upper 
Manhattan. The good news is that the primary season 
has demonstrated that such cranky fringe thinking is 
not motivating much of the GOP. This thing needs appropriate 
rebuttal, but it looks like we've got some time.

Finally, Buchanan has lately seemed to meld his orthodox 
Catholicism with some order of "end of history" theological 
move in line with the teachings of Pat Robertson and 
even Reconstructionists. He told the Christian Coalition 
convention that we will soon need to "gird ourselves 
and take that long march up to Armageddon to do battle 
for the Lord." 

Pat Buchanan's horseback charge to the White House, 
on the pony of economic populism and the stallion of 
the Religious Right, seems to have come to an impassable 
moat. Never able to achieve the support of more than 
about 25 percent of Republican voters, his campaign 
was doomed as alleged "moderates" coalesced behind 
the candidate they saw as their only hope, Bob Dole, 
and abandoned temporary flirtations with flat taxes 
and plaid shirts. As his campaign now flounders, he 
promises to go to San Diego and "break down the doors" 
of the Republican Party. He wants his supporters to 
know he will fight on because he is the only real hope 
for a cleansed America preparing for her final days. 
But the fight will soon lack a major arena.

The GOP is likely to view this as barbarism at the 
gates and find ways to minimize Pat's appearances at 
the convention. He was never enamored of third party 
politics and probably will not be part of one because 
he sets a high priority on booting Bill Clinton back 
to Arkansas. Despite all the sound and fury, this time 
next year, we'll all be to able to watch Pat argue 
with Geraldine Ferraro on "Crossfire."

_Barry_W._Lynn_currently_serves_as_executive_director_
of_Americans_United_for_Separation_of_Church_and_State._
This_article_solely_reflects_his_personal_viewpoint._

[ref001]Return to table of contentsCopyright 1996 IFASThe
Freedom Writer / ifas@berkshire.net

[ref001] index.html