The trouble is, many of Buchanan’s most ardent fans in Iowa define “New World Order” somewhat more juicily. “It’s the international conspiracy,” said Ralph Clements, who cheered Buchanan in Waterloo. “It’s the bankers who want to establish a one-world government.” (It’s also the title of a ridiculous book by the tele-mongerer Pat Robertson rehearsing the greatest hits of modern paranoia.) Clements is, in some ways, Buchanan’s dream supporter: a retired blue-collar escapee from the Democratic Party. “The Democrats left us,” his wife, Frieda, insisted, “especially on social issues.” In some other ways, though, both Clementses may be just a bit too enthusiastic for comfort. “What do you think about these black helicopters and Russian tanks in the U.S. we keep hearing abut?” Clements asked the candidate. Buchanan replied that he hadn’t seen any “hard” confirmation of those stories.
In real life, of course, Pat Buchanan knows the conspiracy stuff is nonsense – but he’s not about to toss away the support of the clenched-fist and camouflage crowd. He will take succor where he finds it, and hope that he’s also connecting with more mainstream precincts – the Catholic and evangelical armies that are nativist, isolationist, protectionist and conservative on social issues (especially abortion), but don’t believe in black helicopters. It is not an impossible dream. “Buchanan has done an effective job of lining up key organization people,” Brian Kennedy, the Iowa Republican chairman, has said.
Pat Buchanan will not be elected president in 1996, but he bears watching for several reasons. For one thing, he is sort of hot right now. He is running second in some polls (albeit miles behind Bob Dole). He is drawing enthusiastic crowds. His main competitor for conservative hearts and minds, Phil Gramm, is accused of funding pornographers. For another thing, Buchanan happens to be very, good at this. He may be the best pure campaigner in the Republican field, He knows how to read a crowd, sell a song; he has the inspired propagandist’s ability to distill complex issues into epigrams. “If we can send an army halfway around the world to defend the border of Kuwait,” he says, in one of his sure-fire applause lines, “I don’t see why we can’t secure our border with Mexico.”
He also has a unique–and coherent–message. Buchanan’s reactionary populism has been a classic American theme ever since the specter of powerful banking interests and the fear of a “loss of sovereignty” (to a fast-growing federal government) propelled Andrew Jackson’s Democrats to power. Buchanan has been particularly creative, combining economic populism with social conservatism–an emotional commingling that touches nerves ignored by the hierarchies of both major parties. His target audiences are the two most fervent clusters in American politics, the religious right and Perot voters. He is to the left of most Democrats on trade issues–ad to the right of most Republicans on social issues. He is a loyal Republican, but his constituency seems more ecumenical: it may be the real radical middle of American politics–not a majority strain, perhaps; but not insignificant, either. “People feel alienated from Washington and from the turbo-charged, two-tiered, go-go global economy,” Buchanan said as we wandered about Iowa in his Winnebago last week. “They miss the America they grew up in . . . There are cultural, moral, social crises, plus the sense of economic insecurity. You have to be able to address both the economic and cultural sides of the problem.”
He does – outrageously, at times; inevitably playing to the worst fears of his audiences. But never diffidently. And this has appeal in a year when most of the plausible Republicans are running cautious, tactical campaigns–even the Christian Coalition trimmed Dole-ishly last week with its surprisingly moderate Contract with the American Family (“Lowest common denominator stuff,” Buchanan sniffed). It may be especially appealing in Iowa, where Pat Robertson surprised George Bush in 1988, finishing second to Bob Dole. The faithful are famished. “Phil Gramm has been a big disappointment to me,” said Charles Sabiston, a conservative activist who teaches at the University of Iowa. “He’s shied away from the abortion issue. I still might vote for Gramm if I feel he has a good shot and Buchanan doesn’t, but Pat’s a lot closer to my thinking on a lot of these issues.” What Dr. Sabiston is looking for is a plausible hothead, someone who’ll say what activists are really thinking without getting crazy about it. Pat Buchanan is probably a touch too hot to be the Republican hothead of choice–he nibbles at nihilism in a party that prizes order–but he’s closer to plausible right now than anyone could have expected.
