Murray N. Rothbard/For President: Pat Buchanan

For President: Pat Buchanan

by Murray N. Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, Rothbard-Rockwell Report, January 1992, Volume III, Number 1 [1]

In writing an article on strategy for this issue, one of us, demonstrating the crying need for a dynamic, exciting, charismatic leader to build a paleo movement, a right-wing populist movement to rouse the middle and working classes, to return America to a free and prosperous land of productive citizens enjoying their rights to person and property, ends with the cry: where is that leader? Where is that presidential candidate? As if our prayers were swiftly answered by Heaven, we now have that candidate and that leader: Patrick J. Buchanan.

One might well ask: what about Ron Paul? In November, we called for Ron Paul to enter the Republican primaries, and we joined an exploratory committee to test the waters for that race. We generated an enormous and unexpected amount of interest, from libertarians and conservatives, and from the media, starved for some kind of contest in what had looked like a torpid and boring Bush coronation in 1992. Ron was determined that Bush would not go unchallenged, but he was not anxious for personal reasons to make the race. When Pat phoned him, without hesitation, Ron welcomed Pat's entry into the race, and pledged his support to the Buchanan effort. Unlike most libertarians, Ron Paul understands the real world of politics, and he realizes that in Pat Buchanan we have an unprecedented opportunity to forge a powerful paleo coalition, to create a new libertarian-conservative, Old Right movement that can grow, can became extraordinarily influential, and that can even take over the presidency within a short period of time.

To libertarians: the opportunity is here. This is it. This is the real world. Get real!

Pat Buchanan is our ideal candidate. He is highly intelligent; he is deeply principled; he is known and loved by millions of Americans; he has a great deal of experience in politics, though not in running for office. He is a superb public speaker; and his is personally a remarkable blend of reason and passion, which enables him to rouse the masses as no one else can do in our lifetime. He is a paleo through and through; he stands for America First, and for an older and finer America, an America of liberty and individual responsibility, of a culture permeated by sound religious values, and marked by a happy and optimistic view of mankind and of the universe. He speaks to the best in every American, and he has the capacity to get them to listen. He is the best hope for bringing back that kind of America.

And wonder of wonders, they can't demonize him. He is lot only loved by millions, he is warmly liked by everyone who knows him, even those who disagree violently with every one of his ideas. Liberal after liberal pundit in the media has gotten up and said: "I haven't agreed with Pat for twenty rears, but he's a great guy, and will bring principle back into politics." The reason is that he is indeed a great guy, friendly, and humorous, and has the rare ability of stating his position strongly while remaining on personally friendly terms with his opponents. And hat basic likability comes through on the tube.

They tried hard to demonize Pat a year ago, when the neo-conservative, neo-liberal/leftist Smear Bund launched a vicious concerted attack on Pat for being "anti-Semitic." The smear campaign failed badly--and how often has that happened in recent decades? It failed because Pat fought back hard, and nailed and named the enemy, so that the truth plus his basic likability carried him through with scarcely a scratch. In other words, Pat has shown the unique capacity to battle against an elite smear campaign--and win! Pat is our leader.

We can already hear the small Modal voices bellyaching: But Buchanan's not a purist, e.g., "he's weak on free trade." To this we say: Come off it! To call for purity in a Libertarian Party candidate makes sense; the whole point of a libertarian political party is to expound a consistent doctrine. But to expect libertarian purity in a real-world candidate comes close to imbecility. On television and in his column, Pat has expressed forceful views on hundreds if not thousands of political, social, and cultural topics. Do we agree with every one of them? Of course not, and so what? That misses the point. The point is that Pat Buchanan is strongly infused with libertarian principle, and that he is as close as any real-world candidate could possibly come to paleo-libertarianism. All of us should be proud and delighted to work as hard as we can for a Buchanan presidency.

What are the prospects for a Buchanan race? At minimum, he can throw a big scare into Bush, build a movement for the future, assume leadership of the conservative and paleo ranks, marginalize the Bush conservatives and neocons, and make a tremendous splash at the Republican convention. At maximum, he can knock Bush out of the box--in the same way that Gene McCarthy did in 1968. By getting a large (though not winning) percentage of votes in New Hampshire, McCarthy forced Lyndon Johnson to retire and not run for reelection. Consider this: suppose that Pat gets 30 or 40 percent of the vote in New Hampshire. Bush then faces a year of Pat on his neck through the convention, perhaps an independent Southern race by David Duke in November, and perhaps also a strong Democratic challenger like Cuomo --capped by an ever-deepening "recession" (read: depression). Is it so crazy to envision Bush, a few weeks after New Hampshire, announcing that for the sake of his health, for the sake of Barbara's health and blah blah, he has decided not to run in '92? Would you bet your life against this scenario? And at that point of course: Pat could actually win it.

We have a dream: and perhaps someday it will come to pass. (Hell, if "Dr." King can have a dream, why can't we?) Our dream is that, one day, we Buchananites can present Mr. and Mrs. America, and all the liberal and conservative and centrist elites, with a dramatic choice. We can, in the scintillating terms of Tom Wolfe, "Mau-Mau the Flak Catchers," except usually it's leftists Mau-Mauing liberals. We can say: "Look, gang: you have a choice, It's either Pat Buchanan or David Duke. If you don't vote for us, baby, you're going to get Duke. And how do you like them apples?"

Note: This personal endorsement does not imply endorsement of Buchanan by the Center for Libertarian Studies, which is a non-partisan, nonpolitical organization.