Patrick J. Buchanon: Standing on the Right Wing Alone
The tradition of American political third parties dates back to the distant end of American history. Generally, these third parties have had minimal, or no success when it comes to running for America’s highest office, that of the presidency. True to traditional form, 2000’s presidential hopefuls failed to garner much support in the general population. Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, with his left wing extremist views had the most success of any third party candidate. On the opposite end of the political spectrum stood Patrick J. Buchanon, the Reform Party candidate. Campaigning on a platform consisting, ultimately, of a single plank, that of “America First,” Buchanon failed to win even a marginal percentage of the popular vote in the election, possibly dooming the Reform Party into dissolution, as has happened to other third parties following miserable showings in an election. Although Buchanon’s campaign platform included many issues, it can be said to have viewed these issues entirely introspectively, regarding only the good of America, leaving every other nation to deal with its own contingencies. It may be that the American people felt this type of policy, “America First,” appeared to be an “America Only” policy, dissatisfying the voters and causing them to give their vote to another candidate. Whatever the reason for his failure, however, Pat Buchanon remains the conservative’s conservative, a politician holding firm on the right wing of the spectrum.
In matters of foreign policy, Buchanon is a die-hard nationalist. Declaring the interests of America as being one of the few vital considerations in most matters, Buchanon takes a hard stance in foreign policy. He feels that intervention in foreign matters is not in America’s interest, saying on the campaigns official website, “It’s not vital to American’s security whose flag flies over Jerusalem or the Golan Heights” (www.gopatgo2000.com). Advocating the return of America’s troops based around the world, Buchanon would abandon the tradition of intervention that has been the cornerstone of modern American foreign policy since the Second World War. In addition, Buchanon would “withdraw from all global organizations that do not serve US interests,” sending the message that America should not concern itself with the affairs of bodies such as the WTO, IMF, and IBRD, if such bodies are not in the interest of America. The necessity of these organs to other nations would not factor into the policies of a Buchanon led America. As such, Buchanon appears to be a strong advocate of isolationism, rather than of the political and economic interdependence that is developing in today’s globalizing world.
Buchanon’s policies regarding trade hold true to his foreign policy platform. In a statement about withdrawal from IGOs, he says that he would “put the American economy before the global economy.” To further retard the process of free trade with other nations, Buchanon would “protect vital US industries by passing tough anti-dumping legislation.” Decreasing trade with other nations is not the motivation for these policies, but they are end results of Buchanon’s efforts to “protect the jobs of [America’s] workers, the standards of living of America’s families, the independence of our country, and the sovereignty of the United States.”
Buchanon would challenge perception of America as a “melting pot” of immigrant diversity by changing the nation’s policies regarding immigration. Noting that mass immigration since the late 1960s has given rise to such problems as “exploding crime statistics, swamped social services, and the rise of ethnic militancy,” Buchanon says that “if America is to survive as ‘one nation’, we need an immigration ‘time out’ to mend the melting pot.” Therefore, Buchanon would halt illegal immigration and reduce mass legal immigration. Following these measures, Buchanon would implement a “national campaign of assimilation,” meaning that the “time out” period would be used to integrate existing immigrants and, in the future, integrate into society immigrants as they come to America. Buchanon’s proposed changes to immigration policy seem to support the “America Only” concept, rather than “America First,” in that shutting the borders to those in search of an improved quality of life denies would be immigrants hope of improvement, at least in America, to the benefits they might receive as citizens of America, regardless of the potential productivity these denied immigrants might provide to America as their new home. As a result, Buchanon’s immigration platform fits perfectly with the isolationist perspective he offers in his foreign policy and trade, placing the prosperity of America before anything else.
Possibly one of the most radical views on Buchanon’s single-planked “America First” platform deal with his response to foreign aid. Rather than focusing on foreign aid as a means by which America’s position of economic strength might be used to assist nations struggling to improve their weaker economies, Buchanon focuses on the fact that the nations being assisted by the US are driving America into debt, calling this the “looting of America.” Buchanon goes on to say, “America needs a policy that phases out foreign aid and focuses instead on forgotten Americans here at home.” Although the necessity of improving the economic lot for millions of Americans who have been left behind the nation’s prosperity cannot be questioned, doing so to the total neglect of other impoverished nations is not sound policy.
Buchanon’s views on the environment probably mirror the views of the American public fairly closely, being conservative and protectionist to America, but more than that, being fair to America. Buchanon is strongly opposed to international environmental accords such as the Kyoto Treaty, saying, “accords like the Kyoto Treaty would devastate American industry and obligate our country to onerous environmental regulations that do not apply to other nations.” Buchanon’s view is that America should not be punished for its success in production and manufacturing, and should not have to follow different guidelines than other nations, such as developing nations, just to allow an advantage to the producers in those developing nations. Buchanon seeks parity in environmental standards; while this may inhibit improvement to the environment, he does seek to protect it, focusing more on conservation rather than control. He would “offer incentives to industry to develop resource-efficient technologies,” citing examples of previous technological breakthroughs, such as the efficiency of fiber optics wire compared to copper cable. In addition, Buchanon supports “holding polluters to high standards of accountability and establish incentives for individuals and businesses to clean up pollution they create.” In following this policy, Buchanon observes the necessity of protecting the environment, but at the expense of neither undeserving individuals nor the American economy, without parity of accord by other nations.
By basing his presidential platform on an idea of “America First,” Pat Buchanon tapped into a source of ideology shared by many Americans. However, through the individual policies he would implement if elected, Buchanon gives the impression of one determined to achieve the greater good of America at the expense of all other nations, leading to the “America Only” conception. This stigma could have contributed to Buchanon’s failure to achieve even minimal success at the polls, as he failed to draw anywhere near significant numbers of votes. Buchanon’s greatest impact upon the election thus far has been as part of the ongoing election debacle in Florida, in which voters in Palm County allegedly “misvoted” due to a faulty ballot layout. Aside from this anomaly, however, it is clear that Buchanon’s hopes for America, though well intended, clearly do not speak the will of the people. America simply is not interested in isolating itself from an ever-increasingly globalizing and integrating world. America is not interested in reaping the prosperity of a finely tuned and well running economy without giving support to nations less fortunate. Moving so far out of alignment with the political essence of the majority of America during this campaign certainly cost Buchanon support, but the full ramifications of his election failure remain to be seen. Whether the Reform Party will now go the way of the Populist Party and countless other defunct third parties of yore only time will tell.
Works Cited
Buchanon, Patrick J. Reform Party Official Website. 16 October 2000.