Where Was Pat?

Andrew Sullivan quotes from Daniel Larison: "My 2000 Buchanan vote seems smarter and smarter every day."

This reminds me that Buchanan's 2000 campaign struck me as wildly undermotivated at the time. By today, it looks very well motivated in retrospect -- there seems to be a clear political space for someone who espouses a Buchanan-esque combination of foreign policy restraint, globalization skepticism, nativism, and culture war populism. Crucially, this political space also seemed to be open in 2004. If Buchanan had run then rather than in 2000, it seems to me that he could have easily picked up 3-4 percent and tipped the election to Kerry.

Comments

Basically, it's the Republican platform with the corporatism subtracted. Kulturekampf, isolationism (the traditional conservative position for US foreign policy), nativism, and populist economics.

Posted by NBarnes | June 3, 2007 8:05 PM

Isn't he getting pretty old?

Posted by otto | June 3, 2007 8:45 PM

I always thought Buchanan was recruited by Rove to take over the post-Perot Reform Party in 2000 and put it to sleep. Remember that Rove and Buchanan go back to the Nixon White House. As I recall, Buchanan was uncharacteristically absent for the final two weeks of the campaign. And what happened to the $13 million in public support for the Reform candidate?

Undermotivated? My hunch is that Buchanan was bought and paid for to kill the publicly-financed Reform Party.

Posted by GCollington | June 3, 2007 8:46 PM

"If Buchanan had run then rather than in 2000, it seems to me that he could have easily picked up 3-4 percent and tipped the election to Kerry."

Nah. The right lined up behind Bush, and the presence of a highly motivated right-wing isolationist would implant an impression of Bush not being so extreme. Furthermore, a few in that crowd may have only voted if a Buchanan-type were in the race, or perhaps were so disgusted with Bush's foreign policy, domestic spending, and curtailing of civil liberties that they held their noses for Kerry (which I doubt was the case).

But, most of all, given the electoral college system, I believe sophisticated voters in this crowd would have listed their preferences: 1) Buchanan-type, 2) Bush. They would have assessed the political climate in their homestate, believing that Bush is superior to Kerry (most likely because of Supreme Court justices), and if they lived in a contentious state like Florida or Ohio, they would have voted for Bush, giving him the election.

What voters prefer out of all possible outcomes is a more important indicator of how they'll vote than what their ideal candidate is. I don't recall any nutjob from the Tancredo/Buchanan crowd gaining national attention for suggesting that Bush and Kerry were essentially the same thing, which was Nader's case on the left about Bush and Gore in 2000, with tragic results. Because Nader voters in swing states felt that a Gore administration would have been no better than a Bush administration, they had no issue voting for a Nader. I doubt that someone in the Tancredo/Buchanan crowd, given the importance of cultural issues to the conservative base, would feel that way about Bush and Kerry.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | June 3, 2007 9:14 PM

Pat Buchanan fell sick in the middle of 2000 and had gall bladder surgery, missing a lot of the campaign.

It would have been fun to see Buchanan and Nader on the same debate stage with Bush and Gore.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 3, 2007 9:52 PM

Yes. Particularly if the ceiling had fallen in on all four of them.

As for Buchanan, it's going to take a lot more than isolationism to make me feel warm about a candidate who would have appointed Dr. Mengele as Surgeon General.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | June 4, 2007 1:47 AM

I love how Nader voters were just dumb but Republicans would never be foolish enough to vote for a conservative-alternative candidate and throw the election to the Democrats. Isn't this part of the story as to how Bush I lost his re-election bid?

I think establishment Republicans just have it bred into them to not rock the boat at the wrong time. Even Chuck Hagel, who has destroyed his political career over the past two years, waited unit AFTER Bush was re-elected to start in on the serious criticism. I imagine Buchanan knows his job well.

Posted by mpowell | June 4, 2007 12:42 PM

"I always thought Buchanan was recruited by Rove to take over the post-Perot Reform Party in 2000 and put it to sleep. Remember that Rove and Buchanan go back to the Nixon White House. As I recall, Buchanan was uncharacteristically absent for the final two weeks of the campaign. And what happened to the $13 million in public support for the Reform candidate?

"Undermotivated? My hunch is that Buchanan was bought and paid for to kill the publicly-financed Reform Party."

To support this thought, consider that Buchanan chose as his running mate a black female, Ezola Foster. Exactly the thing to motivate a splinter-right, nativist, culture warrior voting block.

Posted by Betty Black | June 4, 2007 3:18 PM

"I love how Nader voters were just dumb but Republicans would never be foolish enough to vote for a conservative-alternative candidate and throw the election to the Democrats. Isn't this part of the story as to how Bush I lost his re-election bid?"

I think Perot had a "throw the bastards out and change the entire system" appeal to independent voters. He took votes from Clinton, also, who had only 42% of the vote. I'm not convinced that Perot's presence in the race cost Bush I the election.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | June 4, 2007 6:11 PM

rydacn kwad qcvr omchneyz bwng mrjqzb oqmfj

Posted by akzdo slovbmkui | June 7, 2007 11:53 AM

rydacn kwad qcvr omchneyz bwng mrjqzb oqmfj

Posted by akzdo slovbmkui | June 7, 2007 11:54 AM

lfakysv qceuavnbf lfgodph uswhvenp jicuhsraq tfuqk tfgoz http://www.nyjhmk.mhiq.com

Posted by indc eidlhm | June 7, 2007 11:55 AM