State of the Union

Some Good News From the European Commission

Is Santorum Pat Buchanan 2.0?

By Daniel McCarthy • February 8, 2012, 10:38 AM

Not by a long shot, but the Pennsylvania ex-senator’s victories in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado yesterday attest to the enduring strength of Buchanan’s formula: combine social conservatives with a blue-collar economic program, and you have a force that can threaten the establishment. Unfortunately for voters, Santorum isn’t really a break with the country-club set; as a politician, he’s stamped from exactly the same mold as George W. Bush. And while the coalition built around “Middle American” values can give guys like Mitt Romney or Bob Dole dyspepsia, it’s never been enough to deny them the Republican nomination.

Still, Santorum’s success shows the tectonic plates of the GOP are still in motion: social conservatives and the establishment aren’t completely fused, the establishment looks weaker than it has in 20 years (thanks to the lingering contamination of the Dubya debacle), and although all of this augurs ill for the party’s November prospects, it suggests there could be a reckoning before 2016 that will reshape the GOP’s identity. I’m not optimistic: Middle American militarism may once again prove the GOP’s lowest common denominator, but there are alternatives.

To see how this battle was fought, and lost, once before, be sure to check out “Buchanan’s Revolution” in the current TAC, as well as the book from which it comes, Timothy Stanley’s The Crusader: The Life and Tumultuous Times of Pat Buchanan .

Posted in Election, Politics.

17 Responses to Is Santorum Pat Buchanan 2.0?

Frank says:

February 8, 2012 at 11:08 am

Except that what Santorum is offering in terms of policy prescriptions is something closer to Christian Socilism than traditional conservatism.

Yes. he is a strong culture warrior, but he also favors using the power of the federal government to mandate social conservatism (something that doesn’t exist in the with the constitutional authority of the federal government), which would trample both individual and state’s rights.

He favors quasi keynesian economic policies, which would ultimately continue to favor an expanded corporatism, and

He advocates military policies that make Bush look like a pacifist.

If elected Santorum would be a disaster. However, given the odds are very long that Santorum could defeat Obama, the mandate he would leave Obama with might be just the system shock the Republican party would need to reform itself into something that could overcome its current psychosis and start creating thoughtful and consistent policy initiatives. The again maybe not.
Steve in Ohio says:

February 8, 2012 at 11:14 am

Too bad nobody out there combines economic populism with a less interventionist foreign policy. Could we draft Rod Dreher?
Jim says:

February 8, 2012 at 11:32 am

I actually live in PA and voted for Santorum in 1994. The man sounds great when running but when he actually gets power he’s a total nutcase. Plus as others have pointed out he’s a neocon warmonger. No thanks…I’ll pass.
CD File says:

February 8, 2012 at 11:38 am

More like Pat Robertson 2.0 and will fade just as quickly.
EngineerScotty says:

February 8, 2012 at 11:40 am

Several difference come to mind:

1) Buchanan has long been a skeptic of an interventionalist foreign policy, whereas Santorum seemingly can’t wait to go to war with Iran.

2) Buchanan, for all his warts, is far smarter. Nobody doubts his intelligence, whereas Santorum cultivated well-deserved reputation, during his tenure in the Senate, as the “dumbest member of Congress”. Perhaps such commentary is little more than political sniping, but I haven’t seen much in the way of policy coming from Santorum that strikes me as intellectually impressive in the least. Of course, there are many dunces in politics, so that might not be disqualifying.

That said, if by “Pat Buchanan 2.0″ you mean a prominent bigot who is a northeastern Roman Catholic instead of a southern Evangelical, you may be on to something.
Gordon says:

February 8, 2012 at 11:42 am

He is the most bellicose in favor of attacking Iran. Mitt says it too,but I think it is more for votes. Strikes me as more of a GHW Bush realist.
Santorum is also the genius who federalized Terry Schiavo.
He also opposes right to work legisaltion and is a protectionist.
He is also anti-immigrant.
David Peterson says:

February 8, 2012 at 12:06 pm

Americans are under the illusion that we have a democratic election process which helps the Wall St-Liberal establishment do their evil mischief. The primary season is a reality TV show, a popular American beauty pageant where the winner — Ms Liberty 2012 has already been chosen months ago. Had Romney stumbled another RINO would have been slotted in his place. Ironically, those scholars who once said that Soviet Russia and the USA would gradually converge have been vindicated!
Sean Scallon says:

February 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Santorum is no Buchanan but there are elements of Buchananism in his vote which could greaten his appeal if he was far shrewder in exploiting them.

Like I said before, Bachmann Country has become Santorum County (at least in the Midwest) and will likely keep him going for a while, especially in states which have significant pockets of religious Right voters which Colorado and Minnesota had. Michigan will be the next test for this. Will people feel Romney’s nomination still inevitable if he loses or barely wins Michigan? We”ll see.

You’re right Dan about the GOP establishment being so weak. Romney had all the politicians in his back pocket in Colorado and Minnesota and it availed him nothing running against motivated grassroots. Romney won both Colorado and Minnesota easily four years ago in similar caucus elections. So what happened to all those votes? That question needs to be asked because it is significant. Romney could have had a victory lap last night and the voters said no. Same thing happened in South Carolina for the very time. Something has changed in the GOP for this to have happened.
Gordon says:

February 8, 2012 at 1:03 pm

I love Pat on foreign policy.
Staunchly disagree with his stances on trade,immigration,the auto bailout etc.
JonF says:

February 8, 2012 at 4:44 pm

Dan Savage and Rick Santorum are closer on gay rights than Santorum and Pat Buchanan are on foreign policy. If I were Mr Buchanan I would be insulted by this comparison.
MattSwartz says:

February 8, 2012 at 9:02 pm

I’m bad at remembering sayings.

Is it the first or second time that history repeats itself as farce?

Because that’s what time it is, apparently.
MattSwartz says:

February 9, 2012 at 7:24 am

A militarist’s attempts at populism will always be either disingenuous or idiotic, because it is the working class who gets the short end of the stick during wartime.
John McKeown says:

February 9, 2012 at 8:34 am

Middle Americans want big pickup trucks and a big military. So it goes.
Robert says:

February 9, 2012 at 9:12 am

WIth apologies to Rick Santorum and his good intentions, he could not carry Pat’s hat on a good day. He reminds me of a young school boy who might have been hiding in the tall grass years ago when Pat was under live fire at the OK corrall. He is a nice enough man but I knew Pat Buchanan and “RIck, I am sorry to tell you but you ain’t no Pat Buchanan.”
Carlist says:

February 9, 2012 at 9:56 am

The REAL Santorum emerged in 2004!

Ask Pat Toomey!
Walsh44 says:

February 9, 2012 at 2:20 pm

For MattSwartz:
All great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.– Karl Marx, 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852)
Found on marxists.org. You’re welcome.
Thomas says:

February 11, 2012 at 7:53 pm

Frank,

As a conservative Christian Socialist (and Paul supporter), I take offence at the idea that Santorum is like me. McCarthy has it right, Santorum is basically like he is, and probably almost never dissented from his line. Crony capitalism is not socialism, and militarism is not Christian anything – not socialism, libertarianism, conservatism, etc.
McCarthy is also right that there is an element of the Buchananite formula of appealing to religious conservatives and economic populists. However, this has been the general (gradual) trend in party realignment for decades. It did not accelerate any more during the Bush years than during the Clinton years. Blue collar areas trend GOP, suburban areas with inflated house prices trend Dem. Romney appeals to the latter so he does not play into the stereotype, but Santorum continues it perfectly. Expect the latter, if he somehow wins the nomination, to write-off all the stats Bush lost twice, while Romney may put NH or OR in play, but would lose votes in parts of the South.