The Core Issue Is Living Standards

What are conservatives to make of Patrick J. Buchanan and his insurgent candidacy? Is he the “extremist” that Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole has suggested, in contrast to what Dole calls his own “mainstream conservative” views? Or is he a left-wing wolf in conservative clothing? Lamar Alexander says Buchanan’s ideas have much in common with House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt’s, while George Will divines links to Karl Marx’s theories. It is not clear which is the greater slander in the conservative lexicon.

Neither of these assessments fully captures Buchanan and the nature of his appeal. But both camps agree--and are right--that he poses a serious threat to modern conservatism.

The cultural extremism that leads people such as former Education Secretary William J. Bennett and Colin L. Powell to say they could not support Buchanan as the GOP nominee is certainly a potential complication for the Republican Party. But all the talk about the impact of Buchanan’s convention speech in Houston in 1992--or in San Diego in 1996--is overblown. And, by standing up for hard-core Christian conservatives, Buchanan does the party a valuable service.

What’s truly dangerous for conservatives and the GOP are the heretical views Buchanan expresses on the economy. Buchanan has made “the economic insecurity of the middle class and declining wages of American workers” a central theme of his candidacy. This is not, to say the least, the usual stuff of GOP campaign oratory. He concentrates on two issues, corporate downsizing and persistent foreign trade deficits, to drive home his points. But his central theme is the fundamental question of the standard of living for average people.

Buchanan has broken a conspiracy of silence about the issue of living standards, one that included not only all Republicans but also many Democrats. It simply wasn’t polite to talk about corporate responsibility. He’s like the local gas-station owner who suddenly breaks the informal oligopoly arrangement and starts a price war. Others have to follow--but they sure are mad. Even Dole was forced to address the issue in New Hampshire, saying, “Corporate profits are setting records and so are corporate layoffs. The real average hourly wage is 5% lower than it was a decade ago.” When Dole said early in this campaign that he “would be Ronald Reagan, if that’s what you want,” he neglected to mention he’d also be Norman Thomas, if that’s what we want.

Buchananism is already coming under attack, and the rest of his world view--the intolerance, xenophobia, sexism--will aid those who want to derail this discussion. But it’s going to be hard to put this horse back in the barn. A larger intellectual and cultural shift appears to be underway. When a Newsweek cover reads “Corporate Killers”--downsizing consultants--something has changed.

Buchanan’s core issues of trade and downsizing also have real potential political power. Polls show that 88% fear there is more downsizing to come; 62% believe free-trade agreements have cost America jobs; a 52% majority now expects their children’s generation to be worse off than they were--they have given up on the American dream. A Newsweek poll even found pluralities of self-identified Republicans saying they wanted to see the GOP presidential candidates be “more critical” of large corporations, and that repealing the North American Free Trade Agreement would save U.S. jobs.

But in addition to these aspects that give his message power, Buchananism poses special challenges to the conservative movement.

Naming names. Average people are inclined to ascribe their economic insecurity to large, impersonal forces--such as global competition or technological change--that appear uncontrollable. That’s just fine with business and mainstream conservatives. But Buchanan indelicately suggests actual people and institutions are making conscious decisions to heighten insecurity. He talks frequently of “corporate butchers.”

He also makes a critical connection between declining living standards and high corporate profits, saying, “the standard of living of the middle class is falling, while the stock market soars.” He insists the market is rising, in part, “because of what is happening to the American worker. AT&T; laid off 40,000 workers [and] its stock soared.” Buchanan isn’t just saying that the economic pie isn’t growing fast enough, he’s questioning how it gets sliced.

The Nixon-to-China syndrome. The fact that Buchanan is such an established conservative voice gives a power to his message no liberal could match. When Democrats attack corporations, people suspect it is prelude to argument for bigger government--about which they are even more suspicious than big business. But Buchanan’s anti-government credentials are beyond reproach, so when he accuses corporate executives of irresponsible behavior, his argument has to be taken seriously.

Conservatives have a standard rejoinder to such messages coming from Democrats: fomenting “class war.” But can it be politics of envy when it comes from a wealthy, Mercedes-driving (until he was embarrassed into selling it) Republican?

He also raises questions of who the GOP speaks for today, accusing Dole of “hauling water” for Big Business.

His anti-corporatism is rooted in conservative values. When Will and others accuse Buchanan of being a leftist, they miss an important element of Buchananism. Buchanan has not simply tacked a set of liberal economic views onto a conservative social agenda. There is a coherence--Buchanan believes corporate excesses are undermining conservative values: “When go-go global capitalism is uprooting entire communities and families, I ask conservatives to figure out what it is we’re trying to conserve.”

His conservatism is classic, rather than the modern U.S. variety. What passes for conservatism today is really a radical laissez-faire ideology--19th-century liberalism on steroids. This has little in common with conservatism’s respect for tradition and community. One of the many ironies of Buchanan’s “America First” candidacy is that he represents a European-style conservative politics based on nationalism and religion. Who else would talk about his followers as “peasants” rising up against elites?

Buchanan is telling culturally conservative voters it’s possible to respect their values without supporting an uncritically pro-business agenda. This goes to the heart of the fault line within the GOP. The brilliance of Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition has been to obscure the possibility of disaggregating cultural and economic conservatism--to argue that free trade and tax cuts are “Christian” positions. Buchananism is a brisk wind that endangers this high-wire act.

No there there. In the end, the most severe challenge Buchananism presents for conservatism is he talks about the “vapidity and hollowness” at the heart of Dole’s campaign--and, by extension, the GOP. They really have nothing to say about middle-class economic anxiety--which is why they never wanted to have this discussion. Whatever else voters may see wrong with Buchanan, at least he is talking honestly about something important.

One of the most damning results for Dole in the early exit polls is that the personal quality most desired by GOP voters is “standing up for his beliefs”--and those voters chose Buchanan over Dole in New Hampshire, 53% to 15%, and in Arizona, 72% to 11%.

Buchanan has taken on the core message of House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “revolution”--that government is the root of all evil. He raises the possibility that there are things wrong with America that government did not cause, and problems a balanced budget won’t solve. Republicans wanted the discussion to stay where it was, but Buchanan changed the subject.

That Buchanan has cogent criticisms of corporate America does not, of course, mean he is on the side of working men and women--my enemy’s enemy may not be my friend. When it comes to real policies that can give workers more leverage, or protect people from economic adversity, Buchanan is usually on the other side. He opposes an increase in the minimum wage, the Family Medical Leave Act and laws prohibiting permanent replacement of strikers. Even on trade issues, his proposals are limited to crude tariff barriers--ignoring a more sophisticated approach that would pressure low-wage nations to raise incomes.

Buchanan is good at identifying enemies, but less talented about solutions. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that he embraces the trade issue as much for the opportunity it provides him to appeal to xenophobia as for any genuine economic reasons.

So, yes, Buchanan’s politics are--at the core--ugly. He fans some of our basest fears and resentments. But it is still hard to sympathize with all the gnashing of teeth by establishment commentators about how terrible it is that the country must now deal with Buchananism. For Buchanan’s success has its roots in the failure of the nation’s political and economic leaders to deal with the legitimate issues he has raised.

Not only have elites largely ignored the problems of economic inequality and insecurity, they have tried to silence anyone who raised them. Gephardt has tried to talk about them in a thoughtful way, but is often labeled a protectionist and ignored. When Ross Perot’s passion was deficit reduction in early 1993, he was a statesman; when he attacked NAFTA later in the year, he became a kook. But if responsible discussion is silenced, irresponsible will follow.

Managing the historic economic transition through which America is now passing is the central moral and social issue of our time. A serious political discussion is long overdue.