When Pat Buchanan was finally fired by MSNBC in February 2012, it probably symbolized the end of an era for our culture and, in retrospect, for the Republican Party. Buchanan was the first person Richard Nixon hired when he started his campaign for the presidency in the 1968 election. Buchanan grew up in segregated Washington DC, and he liked it that way. He was one of the first strategists to realize that the Republican Party could make a comeback from its post-1964 nadir by adopting a Southern Strategy based on racism. He’s the living embodiment of the persistence of a Jim Crow mentality in this country and within the modern Republican Party. He survived and prospered in the Washington media despite persistent accusations of anti-Semitism (which is usually fatal) because he carried the torch for that Jim Crow mentality. Buchanan could oppose the Republican party line on trade, on foreign policy, on Israel…but he could appear on cable television from morning until night because his positions on racial matters were mainstream conservative positions. No one lost their job for being anti-black.
Yet, what ultimately cost him his job wasn’t defending Nazi war criminals or minimizing the impact of the Holocaust. What cost him his job was the publication of his book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025, which argued that whites had lamentably lost control of America. The following two passages from that book crossed some kind of invisible line that existed by late 2011, when he was initially suspended, but did not exist at any time prior to that.
“Those who believe the rise to power of an Obama rainbow coalition of peoples of color means the whites who helped to engineer it will steer it are deluding themselves. The whites may discover what it is like to ride in the back of the bus.”
“Mexico is moving north. Ethnically, linguistically, and culturally, the verdict of 1848 is being overturned. Will this Mexican nation within a nation advance the goals of the Constitution—to ‘insure domestic tranquility’ and ‘make us a more perfect union’? Or has our passivity in the face of this invasion imperiled our union?”
Buchanan was an ubiquitous presence on cable television from its inception, but he is now gone. Disappeared. Socially unacceptable. He says he’s been blacklisted, which is an ironic term under the circumstances. Yet, he can still write, and he is freer than ever to be candid about his views. What cost the Republicans the 2012 election? Buchanan has an opinion.
First, he defines how the modern GOP found its initial success:
In 1966, Nixon led the GOP back to a stunning victory, picking up 47 House seats. In 1968, he united the Rockefeller and Reagan wings and held off an October surge by Hubert Humphrey, which cut a 13-point Nixon lead to less than a point in four weeks.
In 1972, Nixon swept 49 states. The New Majority was born. How did he do it?
Nixon sliced off from FDR’s New Deal coalition Northern Catholics and ethnics — Irish, Italians, Poles, East Europeans — and Southern Christian conservatives. Where FDR and Woodrow Wilson had won all 11 Southern States six times, Nixon swept them all in ’72. And where Nixon won only 22 percent of the Catholic vote against JFK, he won 55 percent against George McGovern in 1972.
Then he describes how they undermined themselves.
What killed the New Majority?
First, there was mass immigration, which brought in 40 to 50 million people, legal and illegal, poor and working class, and almost all from the Third World. The GOP agreed to the importation of a vast new constituency that is now kicking the GOP into an early grave.
When some implored the party in 1992 to secure the border and declare a “timeout” on legal immigration to assimilate the millions already here, the party establishment repudiated any such ideas.
“We are a nation of immigrants!” it huffed. Well, we sure are now.
Buchanan is probably correct that the changing demographics of the country have finally tipped the country permanently away from unreconstructed Jim Crowism-by-another-name. If we had a rematch today between Richard Nixon and George McGovern, McGovern would win more than one state. He might even win the Electoral College and the presidency.
The firing of Pat Buchanan was a canary in a coal mine that ought to have warned the Republican Party that Romney’s strategy was not going to work. The country had finally become diverse enough that racial polarization was no longer a winning strategy.
Some people are surprised that the Republicans took their defeat so hard. I mean, it never looked for a single moment like Obama might actually be defeated. We talk about how the Republicans deluded themselves with talk about skewed polls, but the real trauma is the realization that Pat Buchanan’s brand of racial politics no longer works.
Without race resentment, the conservative movement has precious little to talk about. People are bored of talking about the debt. In a post-Bush era, Republicans are divided on foreign policy and defense. The old social wedge issues now cut against the GOP.
The Republicans have begun a period of reflection. It started the moment that Mitt Romney conceded defeat, but it could have started the day that Pat Buchanan was finally deemed too racist to be a respectable mouthpiece for the party on cable television.
I do very much appreciate the effort you put into this (and many other) posts, drawing the threads together into whole cloth.
The Republicans have begun a period of reflection.
I’m not convinced of this. They are indulging in some of that “Something’s wrong, we need a better coat of polish on this turd” marketing stuff, but that’s not particularly meaningful reflection and I don’t know if they’re capable of the real thing anymore. They’ve systematically driven out anyone whose policy calculation is more sophisticated than incoherent rage.
Yes, they’re polishing the turd, but they’re also flirting with amnesty, the former-third-rail of GOP politics. This tells me they know they’re toast. Thing is, they’re toast either way. By embracing immigration reform, there’s potentially a path beyond toast. That’s the only difference.
I agree with you because any serious reflection should have them targeting women voters. Instead they are pushing their War on Women and teachers in ND, AR, WI and everywhere else they hold legislative majorities.
Since the immigration issue is unlikely to yield many votes for them anytime soon and since they will never overcome their racism, their ripest target ought to be women voters.
But their congressional votes on the VAWA, repealing ObamaCare, the minimum wage, and (eventually) on gun safety only further alienate them from women voters’, even the subset – white, unmarried women – most likely to be picked off from the Democratic coalition.
If they are reflecting on their last two presidential losses, they are seeing something no one else does or the grifters are in full control and intend to gouge their party and its donors for every last consulting/retainer/polling dime.
Bob McDonnell is a 2016 presidential candidate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/bob-mcdonnell-abortion-_n_2955628.html
He was fired by a liberal cable network under enormous public pressure from the entire professional left.
Contrast his work and his fate with those of John Derbyshire, fired by NRO for a no longer permissible racism in response to complaints from their own readers.
That magazine has historically been a bastion of white supremacy in the US and abroad, and I do mean to refer personally to WFB who, all the same, when PB ran for the GOP nomination, attacked him repeatedly and with effect for anti-Semitism on account of PB’s insufficiently hawkish views regarding America’s commitment to Israel.
As a loyal conservative, PB will never admit the truth that Nixon was not a conservative, that conservatives have since taken over the GOP who have made no secret of this, and that the Nixon landslide cannot be repeated just because any GOPster now likely to get nominated will have to be a conservative.
PB still publishes his commentary at numerous mainstream conservative outlets and still appears on cable TV.
They are glad to carry his work because he has readers and viewers, and he adheres to the core values of contemporary conservatism and the Republican Party.
That is, he is first and above all a fiscal conservative and a loyal party man for the GOP.
Those are the two litmus tests for being respectively part of the conservative club and a welcome son of the GOP.
During the 2012 campaign and several times since, he has denounced the neocons and the dominant foreign policy outlook of the GOP.
He compared Romney and Obama by name and condemned the former as far more likely to get us into unnecessary and foolish wars.
He regularly lambastes the GOP and the neocons for subservience to “The Lobby” and what he calls “The War Party,” and he praises the isolationism of Ron Paul.
And he has written many columns specifically opposing an attack on Iran by us or by Israel as well as efforts to goad Iran into provoking war.
But when the moment came he told everybody to vote for Romney and the reasons he gave did include God and guns, but the big one was loathing for “tax and spend liberalism.”
Yup.
Just like all the rest of them.
It’s all about the money.
Not a word about race.
Buchanan was one of the types that Buckley really tried to get to the sidelines, a more-or-less Bircher. While “the Southern Strategy” was a workable proposition, the biggest problem was that eventually that was going to be a losing proposition, regardless of immigration.
One of the things that Buchanan never seems to have grasped was it wasn’t just the “we’re a nation of immigrants” argument that was in play, it was that there’s a big swath of the American economy that relied on legal and illegal immigration to function. Since that was “where the money was,” they were never going to support a (unenforceable) ban.
The fact is that the race card and the anti-immigration card still works for Republicans. Their problem is that there aren’t enough people in the country buying it.
One of the things that Buchanan never seems to have grasped was it wasn’t just the “we’re a nation of immigrants” argument that was in play, it was that there’s a big swath of the American economy that relied on legal and illegal immigration to function. Since that was “where the money was,” they were never going to support a (unenforceable) ban.
That reflects a split in the GOP and in the conservative movement between the anti-immigration Main Streeters and the pro-immigration Wall Streeters and agri-businessmen.
The plutocracy has always insisted on high levels of immigration to hold down the price of labor and keep the working class polyglot and disunited.
But Main Street worries about getting “swamped” with “too many foreigners” all at once.
The more alien the foreigners, the bigger the worry.
Oh, it was Buckley and his gang who openly favored Jim Crow, white supremacy in the South and denying blacks the vote.
He and his magazine also defended Ian Smith and later the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
He and his gang were never anything but Birchers with a more expensive education.
If there was ever a time when white backlash politics were going to work, it was during a stagnant economy with a black liberal president.
It didn’t work, under the most favorable circumstances.
Well, except in 2010. At least here in IL. That’s what got us Joe Walsh. Now if Melissa Bean and Barack Obama hadn’t sucked up to the big banks, it might have been different, but maybe not.
It’s tough to make a case that that something (in this case, white backlash politics) is a powerful force among the public based on the results of a single low-turnout election. By definition, such an election can turn on something that isn’t much of a force.
Or actually tried to fight for real health reform instead of torpedoing those efforts.
“fighting” for something that was never going to pass would have been stupid on a ton of levels. Hi lets hand the GOP a massive political and moral victory. BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PUUUUUUREEE!
Unlike a lot of the left, Obama can count votes. The ACA barely passed as it was.
Instead and the process of people like you screaming “STOP BEING PURE!” and the republican plan that was passed depressed the Dem base and actually did hand the GOP a massive political victory (2010 midterms say hello!)
I’m ignoring your point about moral victory because it is impossible for republicans to score a moral victory here.
I think that time after the first debate when the lead built up over the summer evaporated is a time when Obama looked like he could actually be defeated. I was almost ready to endorse your landslide theories before that!
Note, there is a difference here between could and might.
While I admire your political enthusiasm, Boo, you continue to be confused about the rural heartland, since I think you know nothing about it. McGovern would win NOTHING in SD, ND, UT, ID, MT, NE, AR, and 20 more states. He would carry IL, NY, NJ. PA? MI? WI? MN?
I wonder if he would carry MN. That is the home of Michelle Bachman, remember, re-elected this year despite redistricting and a strong challenger.
While the Repukes are toast nationally, do not underestimate their ability and appeal in the rural areas. Look at PA, OH, WI, and MI regarding that. These states were easy wins for Obama, and have a Repuke gov, legislature, and congressional delegation.
I had just looked into Pat’s early career a few days ago when I heard the Johnson tapes about Nixon going behind Johnson’s back and convincing the South Vietnamese to sabotage peace talks with the US that were going on in the summer/fall of 1968. The idea being that there would be a better outcome for them when Tricky got elected. Doesn’t look like that quite happened for them and for the US it meant another 20,000 dead.
So the question for Pat is: Was that YOUR idea?
He surely had to at least have known about, right? Nixon’s first political hire? C’mon!
And say what we will about Pat, he is still a very insightful commentator. His might be the words that finally push the corpse of conservatism over the cliff by speaking too explicitly. He is very entertaining, imo, on the McLaughlin Group show, where he is a regular.
The spy for the Nixon campaign in Paris at the Vietnam Peace Talks was Henry Kissinger, this is well documented. Pat Buchanan was part of the Nixon Comeback in 1966 and hired as an opposition researcher and speechwriter.
So Johnson said something about a hated political enemy on a phone call and you take it as gospel?
Just like that?
Johnson had the wiretaps that proved it. He didn’t want to ‘expose the means and methods’ of the spooks at the FBI because they were bugging our ally’s embassy, so he passed on exposing the plot. He also gave the info to Humphrey, but he also passed on using it against Nixon in the election.
Johnson gave the wiretaps to Walt Rostow and told him to give it to the LBJ library with the instructions to keep it hidden for a long time. Rostow called it the “X’ file. No shit.
When Tricky became President, he had Kissinger look all over for the wiretaps, but they couldn’t be found. There has been speculation that Tricky was very concerned that this would surface and destroy the CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect the President) agenda in 1972.
Stripped of the fear-mongering that is palpable in the quotes, they ARE valid questions.
Valid if you believe that Mexican-Americans don’t believe in the Constitution.
Valid if you think white people are especially endowed with reason and entitled to steer matters of state according to their racially-determined interests.
Otherwise, it’s just Jim Crowism. Oh wait! It’s Jim Crowism either way.
It can be both valid and Jim Crowism; the question is if people actually thought Whites would (should?) be steering the bus – if so then they are deluded. The other question (to those who don’t interact with/know those “others”) is what do those “others” believe in? These are valid questions, they just show the Jim Crowism of the one asking.
It’s like I’ve said about a lot of politicians apologizing for saying something repulsive – in most cases it isn’t a bad choice of words for which they should apologize, it’s that what they’ve said reveals themselves to be repulsive and no mere apology can fix that. A track record of correct/corrective action can mitigate it (q.v. Robert Byrd) but by and large the words one speaks and the questions one asks reveals who and what one really is.
I can’t agree with that. It is valid for whites to fear that the pendulum has swung the other way and now that they (we) are in the minority to worry about anti-white discrimination. I’m saying that black people in particular have to be saints to not desire revenge. And I hear the hostility here with the blanket condemnation of “old white men”.
And as for the USA staying the USA, as Latino numbers approach white numbers, it’s not about whether brown people respect the Constitution but where the culture is heading. Hell, white people don’t respect the Constitution. However, the culture is changing. I’m getting commercial mail in a language that I can’t read. I’m buying items at the grocery store printed in a formerly foreign language. The last time I attended Election Judge training we were told that if there wasn’t enough room to put up both the English and Spanish signs, we must put up the Spanish signs. I now have neighbors who think it’s OK for dogs to roam the neighborhood and crap on other people’s property because that’s OK in their culture. They are good people in every either way but have no respect for private property, which of course is a cultural concept. Buchanan coined the phrase “culture wars” and that is what they are, and we of the Anglo-British culture have lost. I speak of the culture which is tightly bound with the language not the ethnicity. I have, AFAIK, not a single drop of English-Scottish-Welsh blood, but culturally I am much closer to them than to the culture of modern Italy or Germany because I was raised in the dominant culture not in the culture of my grandparents and all I know of their language is what I learned in school. I think it is a very valid question to ask if bilingualism (which means Spanish preference) inevitably bends American culture toward being Latin American instead of British European.
I’m not even saying that our culture is better than theirs, but it’s the one I was raised in and I mourn its passing.
White people comprise at least 63% of the American population and 72% of the 2012 voting population. White people are not in the minority.
I’m not completely unsympathetic to your cultural concerns (I worry that people coming from places where outright bribery and violent intimidation are normal will weaken rule of law further) but get your facts straight.
It all depends on where you look. My town is 50.8% white, 28% Latino and 15% Asian. That’s according to http://www.illinois-demographics.com and the local newspaper. Probably the other 7% is black which is very low for the county. There are lots of states like Iowa where you will see a vast sea of German faces, but the urban and suburban areas of the country are much different.
I say 50.8% and dropping is getting close to minority and I believe the US Census Bureau agrees with that trend.
I know those figures because they came up as I was researching candidates for the upcoming local elections. Interestingly enough, I like the Hispanic school board candidates best. We have six candidates for three positions and I’m voting for the two Hispanics (both Democrats) as I don’t think the other four, including the white bread incumbent Board President, are worth spit. BTW, the Republicans are starting to field a lot of Hispanic candidates here./ I voted for one for state rep last Fall as he was more liberal economically than the incumbent corproDem.
you know what? I’m white. I’m descended from three Mayflower passengers. I grew up in an elite Ivy League town. I’m about as privileged as middle class kid can be. And I have absolutely no fear that white people are going to be discriminated against or become any kind of second class citizens. None. Not if we fall below 50%, not even if we fall below 40%.
Blacks and Latinos don’t want revenge. They want equal opportunity. Why do I focus on racial issues so much? It’s precisely because the central promise of America is that race, ethnicity, and religion don’t matter. Those values are the same values that will protect you and your children from having to worry about discrimination in the future.
Now, as to your neighbors who let their dogs crap in your yard, I don’t think it’s quite accurate to attribute that to some kind of non-English lack of respect for property rights. It’s more likely that renters have less respect than owners, or that it is simply a class thing. It’s possible it’s a cultural carryover, but it’s still a class thing. Go into poor white trailer parks, and you’ll see the same behavior.
I hope you are right about the revenge. Around five years a black friend of my age told me that it bothered him a lot that his ancestors in the South outnumbered whites but did not revolt. How could the minority enslave the majority? I think I’ve posted this before. I told him most sincerely, “I think white people are inherently meaner than black people.” While I know that that statement is racist, my experience has shown me that black people are more tolerant and forgiving than white people. Of course, I grew up in a lily white Republican community.
Buchanan coined the phrase “culture wars” and that is what they are, and we of the Anglo-British culture have lost.
So cultural influences that aren’t from “Anglo-British” culture are, by definition, a loss.
Most of us Americans don’t see it that way. This country has always been made better by the roil of cultural cross-pollination and the revitalization it brings.
No, they are the winners. Lots of cultures lose. You don’t see much sacrificing to Dagon anymore and when was the last time someone was outlawed at the Thing?
Anyway, I wasn’t talking about “influences”. I was talking about wholesale replacement. American English diverges from British English with a lot of words that were picked up from immigrants. Some even seeped back to Britain, like ‘boss’ which came from Polish. American cuisine varies also as does a hundred little things. I like tacos too. I just don’t want to have to order them in Spanish. A lot has been made of the “Protestant” work ethic, but religion has nothing to do with it. It’s a Northern vs Southern European cultural difference.
Again, you are just asserting that for our culture to be influenced by non-Anglo cultures is a “loss.” This is just your own prejudice talking.
Anyway, I wasn’t talking about “influences”. I was talking about wholesale replacement.
Then you’re trembling at shadows. The United States of American is the greatest assimilation machine human society has ever produced. The vast majority of people who come here desperately want to join our society. Even the tiny segment that does not is doomed to see its efforts fail. Their kids are going to know all the lyrics to the 50 Cent songs by the time they’re fifteen, and there’s not a thing their parents can do about it.
Correct.
And the beginning of the Rand Paul GOP.
Watch.
They have nowhere else to go except forward, into the future.
The DemRats are now the party of the past.
The tides, they are a’shiftin’.
Watch.
The DemRats just got old.
Watch.
AG
No, that party lost in 1964. And when the evangelicals sit out — if they do, which I have my doubts — then they’ll lose even more than they did in 1964 going that route.
Watch as the younger and/or smarter Dem voters glom onto how jive the whole DemRat thing has become.
Obama’s signing of the National Defense Authorization Act will haunt the DemRat Party for generations.
Watch.
Watch.
AG
Maybe, but I am a young voter; I’m probably younger than half your age. NDAA was already law before Obama, just not in writing.
Besides, like libertarians, I value economic justice (tax cuts for them) before civil liberties in almost every political decision, especially on the presidential level. Unlike them , I will admit to that; they will not. The proof in the pudding was when every libertarian organization did their best to successfully defeat Russ Feingold, the lone vote against the Patriot Act. But they just needed them some more oligarchy-friendly Ron Johnson. Which is fine…but they’d never admit as much.
Climate change is going to make militarism and imperialism seem like child’s play in terms of its severity and difficulty to challenge in any case.
You write:
Actually, seabe…if climate change produces effects as radical as many people believe that they will, the “militarism and imperialism” that we see today will resemble child’s play compared to what will go down if there is a real, sustained climatological fail that produces severe food and water shortages.
You think Blood For Oil wars are bad? Check out Blood For Food and Blood For Water wars.
The real necessities.
Watch.
AG
You mean the Sections of the NDAA that were amended in by republicans that Obama wrote out of existence feb 29th 2012, at which point everyone stopped worrying about them. Also the ones which Obama is supporting something like 18 bills to repeal?
Oh yeah, and Ron Paul voted for the NDAA.
Yeah. He did. And he also promised to bring American Blood For Oil war adventure troops home “…as soon as the ships can get there.” If we stopped murdering innocent civilians and others who are simply trying to defend their own homes we wouldn’t have to worry so much about “terrorism,” especially the homegrown kind. Many of the people who would be at risk if the N.D.A.A were to be forcefully used would be the same people…you and me, Suanis1, you and me and a whole lot more…who have been opposing these wars over the last 50 years or so.
AG
Barack Obama has been President for over five years.
Kindly give us the name of a single person who has been put into definite detention in that time.
C’mon, Mr. “Watch,” surely you can come up with one.
Just one? To show us you’re actually just a paranoid crank ginning up fear, uncertainty, and disinformation?
I repeat:
Let’s bring it down to a local thing, Joe.
You’re from Lowell, MA, right?
Let us say that the quite liberal and so far relatively trustworthy governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, signed a bill that enables the Massachusetts State Police to arrest and imprison any citizen of that state on “suspicion” of some kind of wrongdoing w/absolutely no recourse or representation. Drugs, terrorism, gang involvement, organized crime involvement…whatever. Guilty until proven innocent, only no chance of proving anything because they are incarcerated in some sort of Guantanamo North. Just a bill. And say Patrick claimed that it was simply a political maneuver, which is basically what Obama has said about the N.D.A.A.. That there is no way that he would actually use those powers. Unless of course there was some sort of as yet undefined emergency. And in that bill were also clauses that could be interpreted as giving Patrick sole decision-making powers over the assassinations of citizens of the state even if they were living in another state or country.
Uncomfortable yet?
Y’oughta be.
Take it further.
The bill remains in effect but instead of Deval Patrick at the helm you have another version of Mitt Romney. It happened in Massachusetts once; it could happen again. Bet on it.
How comfortable are you with that?
Further?
Sure.
The mayor of Lowell signs a similar, more locally oriented law….also unchallenged in the courts or by the legislature. Do you trust your local police to be straight? I don’t. What if you have a beef with a neighbor and that neighbor has some local pull? Still comfortable? How about if some gang-related pol gets in? Or some version of the Bulger brothers? Still happy, bro’?
If so…you are so armored up against any idea other than some kind of stone-age level “Dems good, Repubs Bad!!!” grunt-think that you are beyond the reach of any sort of logic.
Which…on the plentiful evidence of your posts here…seems to be the case.
So it goes.
See ya in the future. Or maybe in the prison yard. Wherever. I hope you’re right. But I think that you are not.
AG
Poor AG here still hasn’t recovered from the GOP choosing Rick Santorum over Ron Paul, despite his “WATCH” predictions, and then when Ricky’s shine fell off they went back to NEWT GINGRICH rather than his idol.
Rand Paul is just his father without the niceness, the charisma, and the political sense.
So many of you people approach politics as if it were a later-life version of of some kind of post-pubescent “I’ve got a crush” on him!!!” lovelife.
We’re not talking about Justin Beiber here, we are talking about the lives of millions.
If Ron Paul actually took action to use the N.D.A.A. I’d oppose his old ass, too. In fact I would oppose him if he just let it lay, were he president.
Grow the fuck up. This ain’t middle school, Suranis1. It’s life and death we are talking about, here.
Life and death.
Grow the fuck up.
AG