Buchanan is No Conservative

©1996 by Dale Franks

I am a conservative. I believe in the bedrock principles that have informed the neo-conservative movement since its beginnings. I know what conservatism looks like. I know what conservative speakers sound like. Pat Buchanan's message is about as far as it is possible to be from conservatism as I know it.

Conservatives support free trade. Free trade allows companies and individuals to move goods, services, and capital to those markets that provide the highest return. Free trade allows business owners the liberty utilize their resources in whatever market they choose to maximize the returns on their investment. It gives American consumers access to a much wider variety of quality goods at much lower prices. It also allows companies to ship lower-skilled jobs out of the country, creating room in the labor force that can be put to use in higher-paying, higher-skilled jobs.

But Buchanan doesn't like free trade. In Buchanan's world, free trade allows evil corporations to ship jobs to workers overseas, in effect stealing jobs from hard-working Americans. Buchanan would prefer to scrap agreements such as GATT and NAFTA, so that tariffs could be put on foreign goods. Rather than encouraging foreign nations to lower their own barriers to foreign goods, he wants to raise barriers in the US. This is protectionism, pure and simple, and the last time we had it, in the form of tariffs like Smoot-Hawley, it contributed to bringing about the Great Depression.

Conservatives support the right of business owners and investors to maximize their profits. The more profitable a business is, the more investment it can attract. The more investment a business can attract, the more it can grow, and the more jobs it can provide. Businesses do not exist to create jobs, they exist to make money for their owners and shareholders, period. Businesses that do not do this soon go out of business, and the jobs they provide are permanently lost.

But Buchanan seems not to believe this. Instead he thinks corporate profits are too high, and paychecks too low. He wants American workers to have a greater share of their employer's income. There would seem to be only two ways to do this: either enact a law that requires businesses to pay their workers a portion of the businesses' profits in addition to their salaries, or enact a law that raises salaries across the board. (There is actually a third way, which would be to turn over to the workers ownership of all the means of production. But this didn't seem to work well in Russia, so it's probably best if we don't try it here.) None of the above measures could possibly be called conservative.

Conservatives believe that moral decisions are best left to the individual, and that public morality should be a matter of social conscience and not law. Conservatives believe that public morality, when it must be regulated, is best regulated at the lower levels of government. They believe that the law exists to protect the rights and property of citizens, not to promote desirable social outcomes.

This may be the only area in which it may be argued that Buchanan has conservative principals, but even this is by no means clear. We like to quote George Washington a lot in this country, but one quote you hardly ever hear is one he wrote into the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, when he said, "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." But, Buchanan's philosophy is that America is traditionally a Christian nation, and that our public institutions should reflect that. The real question then becomes how he proposes to inculcate that principle into our public life. If his solution is to implement moral change from the Oval Office, or the Congress, or from anywhere else in Washington, DC, then it is inconsistent with the basic principles of conservatism.

But, if Buchanan is not a conservative, then what is he?

The answer is an uncomfortable one.

On February 12, 1934, the Austrian government was toppled by Englebert Dollfuss. He instituted what may best be described as a clerical-fascist dictatorship. After his murder by the Nazis in July of that year, Dr. Kurt von Schussnigg continued the clerical-fascist dictatorship until Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938.

The Austrian brand of fascism was not twisted and evil like Nazism, and was milder than even the Italian brand of fascism. Public Christian morality was important to Dollfuss and Schussnigg, and they enforced it, giving the Catholic Church a preeminent place in Austrian Society. Their economic policies were protectionist. The distribution of profits and wages were regulated by the state.

When I hear Buchanan discuss his moral and economic philosophy, I cannot help but be reminded of Dollfuss and Schussnigg. They loved their country. They were concerned with the plight of the Austrian worker. They were deeply concerned that Christian morality be elevated in their society. They were courtly, mannered, charming, and pious men. But they were fascists.

Pat Buchanan is, I am afraid, much like them.

Top