Beck, Palin, O'Donnell, and the Tea Party Are the New Buchanans

September 21, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (21)

Last month’s “Restoring Honor” rally (“America today begins to turn back to God”) and the Delaware GOP primary victory of Christine O’Donnell (“We’re not trying to take back our country; we are our country”) reveal that the Tea Party movement isn’t really a revival of Goldwater Republicanism.

[See photos of Glenn Beck’s D.C. rally.]

Rather, it’s becoming increasingly clear that its nearest antecedent is 1992-era Pat Buchanan. Revisit, if you will, the crescendo of Pat’s notorious convention speech at the GOP Convention in Houston, in which he exhorted the “Buchanan Brigades” to “come home and support” that RINO, George H.W. Bush.

He concluded with a dramatic and jarring anecdote from the L.A. riots: a picture of a phalanx of young state troopers, armed with M-16s, bracing against an angry, cursing black mob. He then called on his fellow Republicans to “take back our cities and take back our culture and take back our country.”

The meat never got any redder.

David Frum, in his book Dead Right, surmised that Republicans had abandoned a belief in the “essential moral and cultural health of American society.”

Frum continued:

As families disintegrate, as the poor become ever more dependent, as new immigration weakens the country’s cultural links to Europe, American conservatism seems to be adapting by jettisoning its Reaganite optimism and individualism. A very secular anxiety—a fear that something had gone deeply wrong with the soul of the country, something that tasty Reaganite medicine could not cure—was the true inner meaning of Houston.

The more refined intellectual bent of Newt Gingrich; improving social indicators in the ’90s, including drops in crime, abortion, teen pregnancies, and divorces; a booming economy; George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism”—these factors conspired to drive the anger of Houston underground.

But now it has bubbled to the surface anew.

The difference between then and now, however, is that the glowering face of Pat Buchanan has been replaced by the far more attractive Sarah Palin; his comparatively rigorous study of history by the blubbering conspiracist Glenn Beck. When Palin talks about “real America,” it didn’t sound as menacing as it might have from Pat.

[Check out our editorial cartoons on Sarah Palin.]

What Palin and the Tea Party movement enjoy that Buchanan didn’t in 1992, of course, is Barack Obama. Sure, Pat had the draft-dodging, pot-not-inhaling Bill Clinton—but let us all agree that President Obama lacks the ingratiating charms of an overweight Southern Baptist from Arkansas.

Obama has proved the perfect foil for Buchananite anger. He enables today’s Buchanan Brigades to avoid the trap described by Frum: They can once again claim that America is culturally and morally healthy; the problem is that Kenyan-Muslim interloper, with his alien cancerous social-democratic parasitic economic theories and his liberation theology.

Over the last 18 months, the truth of this cultural, not economic, anxiety has slipped out, as in Arizona and the “border wars.” But for the most part Obama has been an ideal lightning rod--he’s an easily targeted, solitary vessel of yesterday’s culture-wide decay.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not making this argument out of support for Obama but rather as a Republican who has seen Buchananism get trounced at the ballot box. It may not happen in 2010. But make no mistake. Eventually, it will happen.

Tags:
Pat Buchanan,
Tea Party,
Congress,
2010 Congressional elections,
Glenn Beck,
George W. Bush,
immigration reform,
economy,
unemployment,
Ronald Reagan,
George H.W. Bush,
Newt Gingrich,
Sarah Palin,
Democratic Party,
Barack Obama,
Christine O'Donnell,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (21)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Please don't compare these warmongering Israeli first traitors to a true patriot and conservative like Buchanan.

Christine of MN 7:38PM September 29, 2010

F/F didn't purchase or guarantee the vast majority of the subprime loans; it was mostly private mortgage lenders who originated and sold them on the secondary market primarily to private hedge funds and investment banks.

"Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble. During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

"By 2006, the market had surpassed $600 billion and accounted for one-fifth of mortgage originations. Independent mortgage companies made 46 percent of these loans; banks and thrifts made 29 percent. Affiliates and subsidiaries of banks and thrifts made the remaining 25 percent. While subprime lending existed before the 1990s, the flagrant and widespread abuses in this market did not occur until the late 1990s. The originate-to-distribute model presented the opportunity for independent lending institutions and mortgage brokers to make substantial profits. In this model, originators sell, or “distribute,” loans to the secondary market and have less incentive to scrutinize the riskiness of these loans than if they keep them. Their income and fees are based on volume of loans sold, so their focus is on quantity. Before the subprime market fell, securities backed by these loans yielded high returns and were thus appealing to many investors... Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan reported that [Nondepository mortgage lenders and brokers] “originated the overwhelming preponderance of toxic subprime mortgages” and these loans “account for a disproportionate percentage of defaults and foreclosures nationwide..."

http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/bcp/2009/bcp0901.cfm

F/F didn't cause the crisis. Reforming F/F would not have averted it. F/F doesn't make loans to borrowers; they purchase mortgages from commercial banks and guarantee them so as to give banks an incentive to loan to first time home buyers and those who meet certain credit standards but who would have a hard time getting credit in tough times. This has been its mission since its founding in the 1930s. Private sector lenders lowered standards to sell MBS derivatives. Bush's warnings on F/F were meaningless.

steve of IL 2:34PM September 23, 2010

After looking through his other comments Steve is a cookie cutter talking point liberal. Any truth will be lost on his ideals.

However my post is really intended for intelligent people who make decisions on facts not feelings and all the information can be researched.

Steve selectively finding facts to meet a predetermined conclusion is unbecoming.

Cryos of MN 6:52PM September 22, 2010

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo is a Washington-based freelance writer. He formerly worked for House Republican Leader John Boehner, and was a staff writer for The Washington Times.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

A Democracy in Crisis

Can the country long survive an ever-growing government?

Latest Videos

advertisement