Posted by Joe on August 15, 19100 at 04:11:58:
In Reply to: Sounds good Conrad. posted by Figo, who can't believe he ever described Conrad as *fringe.* on August 15, 19100 at 03:07:45:
As annoying as it may be, a successful politician has to be much more compromising and accommodating than Buchanan is capable of. You do yourself no favors by trying to cram policies through Congress that most congressmen don't like. Although you may remain true to your principles, you will have accomplished nothing. Buchanan gives very good speeches and is one of the few interesting candidates to listen to, but he would accomplish nothing if he were somehow elected, no matter how hard he tried. It may seem like a wishy-washy thing to say but being able to work well with people who don't agree with you is absolutely necessary for success in Washington.
I don't think Buchanan's views are particularly fringe. His views vary from conservative to moderate to downright liberal, but his positions are well within the mainstream, by any poll. As many people support his virulent anti-abortion stance as Al Gore's abortion-at-any-time stance. In fact, Al Gore's support of partial birth abortions makes his views even more outside the mainstream than Buchanan's. Buchanan only appears to be more radical because he expresses himself so adamantly and without appearing even slightly tempted to compromise. Were his personality more like Cheney's or Lieberman's, he could make the same points and be seen in a very different light. Unfortunately, people judge politicians by their personality rather than their views quite regularly.
Ironically, Buchanan really is his most radical when he is his most liberal. His proposal for an across-the-board 20% tariff on imports is more radical than anything Bush or Gore is saying. He trumps even Ralph Nader in his anti-globalization crusade and is far more eloquent than Nader on the subject (of course, Nader just isn't eloquent, period.)
He also harps on homouality to an extent that I find a little weird. Whatever one thinks of homouality, it is hardly a major issue facing any presidential candidate. Aside from gays in the military, what gay issues ever really come up during a Presidency? Even Buchanan isn't going to deny anybody equal protection under the law, and the issue of gay marriages are handled at the state level, if at all. You would think that gays are sending bills to the White House every week the way Buchanan ures us he will protect us from them.
I understand Buchanan's sympathies with the "working poor." He has always been a softy for the under-privileged (despite ignorant stereotypes of him to the contrary). He is certainly not racist in any serious meaning of that word, and no black who has worked with him would ever claim otherwise (see e.g., his running mate). Unlike Gore and Bush, he was never pre-ordained for success, and he has a real ability to connect with working people that will always elude our two primary candidates. That said, I believe he grossly over-estimates the harm caused by international trade. It is easy to do what he does - visit one-company towns where the company has downsized and then extrapolate from this some lesson about our international trade policy. In fact, businesses downsized and laid people off long before the "new economy" began. Our unemployment is very low. We are certainly not "losing s" in the abstract. We are losing some s and gaining others. If others can accomplish manufacturing s more cheaply, that is where the work should be done. If Buchanan and Perot were correct, we would have rampant unemployment and minimal growth right now.
Joe, amused that the Reform Party was created to take the divisiveness out of politics.