- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Who Killed the New Majority?

The Republican National Committee has produced an “autopsy” on what went wrong in 2012, when the party failed to win the White House and lost seats in Congress.

Yet, the crisis of the Grand Old Party goes back much further.

First, some history. The Frank Lloyd Wright of the New Majority was Richard Nixon, who picked up the pieces of the party after Goldwater’s defeat had left Republicans with just a third of the House and Senate.

In 1966, Nixon led the GOP back to a stunning victory, picking up 47 House seats. In 1968, he united the Rockefeller and Reagan wings and held off an October surge by Hubert Humphrey, which cut a 13-point Nixon lead to less than a point in four weeks.


In 1972, Nixon swept 49 states. The New Majority was born. How did he do it?

Nixon sliced off from FDR’s New Deal coalition Northern Catholics and ethnics—Irish, Italians, Poles, East Europeans—and Southern Christian conservatives. Where FDR and Woodrow Wilson had won all 11 Southern States six times, Nixon swept them all in ’72. And where Nixon won only 22 percent of the Catholic vote against JFK, he won 55 percent against George McGovern in 1972.

What killed the New Majority?

First, there was mass immigration, which brought in 40 to 50 million people, legal and illegal, poor and working class, and almost all from the Third World. The GOP agreed to the importation of a vast new constituency that is now kicking the GOP into an early grave.

When some implored the party in 1992 to secure the border and declare a “timeout” on legal immigration to assimilate the millions already here, the party establishment repudiated any such ideas.

“We are a nation of immigrants!” it huffed. Well, we sure are now.

And when amnesty is granted to the 12 million illegals, as GOP senators are preparing to do, that should advance the death of the GOP as a national party by turning Colorado, Nevada and Arizona blue, and putting even Texas in play.

Second came party acquiescence in dropping half the nation off the income tax rolls, while making half dependent on government for food assistance, income support, rent, health care and the education of their kids from Head Start through Pell Grants.

Why should the half of America that pays no taxes but survives on federal benefits vote for a party that will cut taxes they do not pay but roll back benefits upon which they do depend?

Third, to accommodate its K Street bundlers, the GOP embraced globalism, empowering Corporate America to shed its U.S. labor force, move its plants to Mexico, Asia and China, bring its foreign-made goods back to the USA free of charge and pocket the difference.

Profits, stocks, dividends soared. But the Reagan Democrats of industrial America — who paid the price in lost jobs and shuttered plants from the $10 trillion in trade deficits America has run since George H. W. Bush — have now gone home to the party of their fathers. And they are not coming back.

Fourth, rather than bringing the troops home after our Cold War triumph and telling our allies the free rides were over, Bush I and II went crusading for a “New World Order” to “end tyranny in our world.”

After three wars and half a dozen interventions, we are bankrupt at home and hated abroad. And Americans, sick of seeing their best and bravest brought home to Dover or being fitted at Walter Reed for prosthetic arms and legs, have twice voted for an anti-interventionist president.

Yet, one matter over which the GOP had no control is the triumph of the counterculture.

What might be called the old morality — that abortion is the killing of an unborn child, an abomination, that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral — has been relegated by scores of millions, especially among the young, to the dark ages of the 20th century.

Americans who adhere to this traditional morality, rooted in Christian tradition and Biblical truth, are culturally outgunned and may now be outnumbered. They may have lost America for good.

What can the GOP do about this? Nothing.

What will the GOP do? Probably what comes naturally – declare itself “tolerant” and respectful of all views, pro-life and pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-traditional marriage.

Reality must be faced. A generation has grown up rejecting the truths that its grandparents lived. And while population growth among our native born halted decades ago, scores of millions have come in from abroad to fill the empty spaces. And they are still coming. They like what Big Government has to offer, and seem uninterested in what the GOP has to sell.

In that case, you try harder to sell your product, change your product, or go out of business.

Yet, if the GOP changes its product, it may just lose its most loyal customers.

When the obituary of the party is written, the subhead will likely read “Dead of Self-inflicted Wounds.”

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? [1]” Copyright 2012 Creators.com [2].

43 Comments (Open | Close)

43 Comments To "Who Killed the New Majority?"

#1 Comment By Bill Pearlman On March 26, 2013 @ 10:13 am

There is no chance anymore. The Democratic candidate starts out with the minority vote. They don’t even need a pulse for that one. Throw in college students, liberals. Single woman who think abortion is the most important thing ever. Gays, 70% of my fellow idiot Jews. There is no chance for a Republican to win nationally anymore.

#2 Comment By LarryS On March 26, 2013 @ 10:39 am

Will it be 40 years in the wilderness or 400 years in captivity?

#3 Comment By wycoff On March 26, 2013 @ 10:47 am

Mr. Buchanan, this isn’t an obituary for the GOP- this is an obituary for the USA.

This country is going to be unrecognizable in 50 years. At best, we’re going to be the Northern Hemisphere’s version of Brazil.

#4 Comment By spite On March 26, 2013 @ 10:49 am

The GOP killed themselves, and they have only themselves to blame, when people like Buchanan was stating the obvious about what the future held, the GOP decided to ignore or insult.

National elections will become a mere formality (they already have in many ways), the true politics will be among the various factions in the Democratic party. This can actually be a good thing as it could lead to many more people becoming more independent and self reliant from a government that means nothing for them.

#5 Comment By Timothy Denney On March 26, 2013 @ 10:57 am

At first glance this article seems fact-based, but it soon turns into a charade. Half of the country pays no taxes? Call it whatever you want: payroll taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, etc. The actual truth is that the vast majority of Americans DO pay taxes.

According to the Tax Policy Center, 2/3 of the 47% who paid no federal income tax in 2011 paid payroll taxes. Furthermore, this article doesn’t take into consideration state and local taxes/fees, as well as fuel and utilities (e.g. car insurance). While I myself paid no federal income tax, I still lose ~50% of my income every year to other federal taxes, state and local taxes/fees, and utilities… while working full-time while going to college full-time too. I also know many people personally who are in a similar situation.

This bizarre, nonsensical thinking of Republicans is why they’re destined to be a minority party for the next 20/30 years. It’s amazing what the Republicans of today are like compared to what they stood for up until Nixon: a minimum wage, unionization, a four-day workweek, universal health insurance, student loans, etc. Matter of fact, it was a Republican (Eisenhower) who signed the Department of Education into law and started student loans to give Americans a hand-up to higher education. The first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, advocated universal education! Lincoln did a lot for education! He signed the Morrill Land-Grant Acts into law, which has benefited every state in the union via the formation of public universities.

This is one of the chief reasons why I no longer vote Republican. The party ceased to be the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower from Nixon onwards.

#6 Comment By EliteCommInc. On March 26, 2013 @ 10:57 am

Mr. Buchanan

I am not so sure there will not be some form of backlash.

Though I am surprised you did not mention that the conservatives abandoned the halls of education leaving but a liberal and ultra liberal voices to form and influence young minds.

But I think it is too early to toss in the towel.

#7 Comment By dj peterson On March 26, 2013 @ 11:20 am

A new relevant GOP is starting to emerge as if by spontaneous generation. Most of the outdated morals and virtues of old will be discarded in the quest for relevance. This is the direction where the party was heading when reliable ‘conservatives’ like George Bush I and Bob Dole became the successors to spearhead the Reagan Revolution. Nonetheless, the Gospel tells us that the Lord has decreed there shall be only two U.S. political parties. Thus a GOP revival is coming shortly. As soon as people have lost faith in the party of lust, the Democrats, they will return to the party of greed. Let us all rejoice.

#8 Comment By Adam On March 26, 2013 @ 11:30 am

“Third, to accommodate its K Street bundlers, the GOP embraced globalism, empowering Corporate America to shed its U.S. labor force, move its plants to Mexico, Asia and China, bring its foreign-made goods back to the USA free of charge and pocket the difference.”

I think this is where the Party can make a stand. It’s probably the only place actually that will make some of the disenfranchised take notice. The Financialization of America.

#9 Comment By Michael Moore On March 26, 2013 @ 11:34 am

When people feel financially secure they vote Republican.
That group of Americans has been shrinking since circa 1973. Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips was right then and he continues to be right about US political economics. Read him and learn, Republicans!

#10 Comment By Nicholas Needlefoot On March 26, 2013 @ 11:41 am

I know this is supposed to focus on the GOP, but it really glosses over how the Cold War wrecked the United States. If it had just been the military spending, we could have handled it. But we had to prop up all these non-communist counties, especially West Germany, Japan, S. Korea, etc for decades, letting them have access to our markets while they protected their own internal markets. It hollowed out our industrial base and wrecked our communities.

#11 Comment By Jim Evans On March 26, 2013 @ 11:46 am

Conservatism Inc. has put the Republican Party over a barrel because Conservatism Inc. (inside the Beltway, Washington, D. C.) has been serving too many masters.

And none of these “masters” live on Main Street, America.

In the grass-roots of the Republican Party are the seeds of revival.

But the key is to drop the perpetual war rhetoric & actions and have a policy which encourages manufacturing (productive capacity) in America and not bad-mouthing working class folks and coming across as the “cheap-labor” party. That will never win a national election.

By-and-large, Patrick Buchanan’s policy suggestions were on target, but Conservatism Inc. has no use for policies which favor the American nation & People.

Conservatism Inc. is actually Globalist in attitude & sympathy. Conserving the American culture & national sovereignty is only paid lip-service.

That’s the problem, a lot of fake conservatives (at the top), who actually serve the Globalist Agenda and not the American Agenda.

#12 Comment By Tom Piatak On March 26, 2013 @ 11:53 am

An excellent column. No one can say that Pat Buchanan did not warn us about what was coming.

#13 Comment By Red Phillips On March 26, 2013 @ 11:56 am

Finally, amidst all this Republican talk of amnesty and increased legal immigration, we have a Republican who can count. I am convinced that all these Republican immigration supporters don’t understand simple math.

#14 Comment By Ampersand On March 26, 2013 @ 1:49 pm

If you try to go after the corporate wing of the GOP, there won’t be anyone to pay to win elections.

If you try to go after the social wing of the GOP, there won’t be anyone to vote to win elections.

If you try to go after the anti-immigration wing of the GOP…well, that actually works, because they don’t have money or (much) voting manpower.

If you try to go after the defense wing of the GOP…that works to a degree, if a Democratic President is in office and doing war-stuff.

As a result, it’s more feasible to be pro-immigration and back-and-forth on defense, while enshrining financialization and extreme social values. It’s those last two that are the biggest drags on the party, but they’re also the most necessary…

#15 Comment By New Flowers On March 26, 2013 @ 1:56 pm

As a former Repulican, I can honestly say that my complete rejection of the Republican party, in national elections then in local ones, was first a reaction to the GOP’s rejection of me and later a rejection of its own foundational beliefs and policies that were to the benefit of this country and its citizens. The continual duplicity and outright hyprocrisy on issues such as:

* immigration ( sure, let them all in, to oops they all have to go, to the current, hey let them stay as long as we can get them to vote for us),
*welfare (bad for people but excellent and please expand for corporations, and let’s make them people too),
*taxes (let us continually whine about those who “don’t pay taxes” and suck at the government teat but let us fight to the death to keep loopholes and exemptions and corporate subsidies for others which includes promote austerity here in this country while still sending billions to support others),
*the value and protection of American workers and manufacturing productivity (which really means let our wealthy supporters ship jobs overseas killing American jobs as long as the stock prices rise, and we get our cut),
*fiscal responsibility (which means run up the deficit when it’s convenient or us and then cry foul; let’s cut, cut, cut but never come close to rational realization that we cannot shield our pet constituents and projects),
*and, finally, the biggest laugh of all, smaller government (which actually means complain about Dems opposing our pets but let us stay deeply entrenched in the need to approve of what those “others” may or may not do in their bedrooms and with their bodies).
*And let us not even mention the loony toons who have usurped the GOP. This list could get even longer…

As a result of what I see as the duplicitous and hypocritical rejection of many Americans, Buchanan is mostly correct. The only objection I have to his argument is that those of us who have left, or more correctly were pushed out, of the Republican party will never return. I do not vote Democratic because I believe it is the better party; I vote Democratic because it is the lesser of two evils. I am not the only former Republican with that belief. The possibility of returning to the GOP ranks seems more a distant echo of a dream rather than a reality – possible but highly improbable.

With all of the current conversation about “remaking” and “rebranding” the GOP, I hear nothing about the GOP returning to its foundational concern and support for the country as a whole. Unfortunately, I do not see sanity and reason returning to the Republican party any time soon.

#16 Comment By Uncle Vanya On March 26, 2013 @ 2:49 pm

Gentlemen, be careful. Having the temerity to tell the truth will now get you labeled as a racist/sexist/classist/ageist homophobe.

#17 Comment By OldVet On March 26, 2013 @ 4:00 pm

The GOP is up the creek because the party failed to live up to its own principles. If Republicans had simply adhered to our own traditional credo, we would still enjoy a powerful national constituency. Here’s the recipe, since so many seem to have forgotten:

~ Responsible fiscal management

~ Restraint in foreign affairs

~ Keeping big government out of our personal lives

~ Wise stewardship of our natural resource base

The modern GOP has forsaken every one of those values and has chosen instead to become nothing more than a pimp for predatory business interests.

#18 Comment By Hooly On March 26, 2013 @ 5:24 pm


A hilarious article as always … Third World immigrants destroyed the Republican Party? What a joke of an analysis. You wanna know who destroyed the Republicans?, the group that declared war on that party of Lincoln of course, in other words I say Southern Whites destroyed the Republican Party! The moment they abandoned their traditional loyalty to the Democrats, … and infiltrated, undermined, warped, brainwashed, and yes, like termites undermining the foundations of a house, … eventually destroyed and brought down the once proud party of Abraham Lincoln. Maybe this is the South’s final revenge upon the Republican Party??

#19 Comment By ksatifka On March 26, 2013 @ 5:38 pm

All of Mr Buchanan’s points are right on the money. All were mentioned in greater detail in his largely ignored (by our criminal MSM anyway) masterpiece “Death of a Superpower.” Telling the truth led to Buchanan being fired by uber liberal MSNBC. The powers-that-be can conspire to marginalize and keep Pat’s America-first views off the airways, but they will not be able to ignore the coming collapse of the US that they are helping to cause. Empires only have a certain shelflife, and ours will expire like all previous ones. It’s only a question of time.

#20 Comment By ksatifka On March 26, 2013 @ 5:57 pm

@ Timothy Denney – In your comment, you fail to consider the impact of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). A lower wage working person or family with a child can often receive thousands, which can be far in excess of the FICA/state/local taxes that they otherwise pay. Without a child, a low wage individual would still pay some taxes (though not federal), as the EITC is very small, or nonexistent, for that person. It goes without saying that items like fuel/utilities/car insurance are high for everyone, although they are not taxes.

#21 Comment By Burzghash On March 26, 2013 @ 7:31 pm

You are correct that the GOP’s downfall is their own doing.

You’re not correct on the reasons why.

You paint the underclass as a bunch of parasites dependent upon government assistance, utterly failing to cite the fact that it’s no one’s fault but the GOP’s for forcing more and more Americans beneath the poverty line. At every turn, the GOP has fought against labor rights and laws. They’ve fought for corporations and the rich. They’ve fought to ease the exploitation of workers, such that corporate and CEO profits have skyrocketed, and indeed the stock market is doing exceptionally well, while worker wages have stagnated. If minimum wage had actually kept pace with inflation and worker productivity, it’d be $22 an hour. But your inept party even fought against a raise to $10. Why? Because they are ill-educated and informed; they would shoot themselves in the foot, appeasing corporations in the short-term, but failing to realize the unsustainability of a system which leaves those corporations’ customers, the middle and lower class, impoverished and unable to purchase their goods and services. It has been a conscientious effort to rob the bottom 90% of Americans for the benefit of an increasingly smaller and smaller number of hands. Wealth inequality in this country now rivals that of 3rd world developing nations. If people were generally aware of JUST HOW BADLY they are getting screwed economically in this country, they’d likely revolt tomorrow.


It’s ironic. You’re surprised that there’s so many people utilizing benefits? You shouldn’t be. You made them. Your party’s policy’s pushed them beneath the poverty line via an ever-expanding agenda of corporatism, privatization, and de-regulation. It’s why our internet service in this country is worse than most of the rest of the developed world, yet costs more. It’s the reason why our medical system provides the same or worse service than most of the developed world, yet we pay several thousand % higher costs for the same basic medicine, equipment and procedures. Your party has decided that corporate profits and the pursuit of the almighty dollar is the highest calling, and have shaped their policy as such.

It also doesn’t help that the GOP is now firmly entrenched as The Party of Stupid. There’s a reason why scientists hate the GOP – with 55% of scientists identifying as Democrats, and only SIX PERCENT identifying as Republicans. It’s because one side encourages and fosters good science, where the other fights against it if it means it goes against corporate interests.


From the article:
“Both journalist Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, and historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, who together wrote Merchants of Doubt, have done extensive research that shows the faults in Sarewitz’s argument. In Merchants of Doubt, Oreskes and Conway laid out how the fields of environmental science and public health, not the social sciences, turned Republicans into anti-science warriors. They explain that it was during the debates over tobacco’s carcinogenic properties that conservatives began their assault on science, claiming a controversy where there was none in hopes of delaying government interventions that would depress the tobacco industry’s profits. After that, the strategy was set. If scientists made proclamations that could undermine industry, conservative politicians claimed the research was more controversial than it was, offered up well-paid but unethical experts who claimed to have doubts, and introduced shoddy research with divergent findings. The strategy has been employed to resist and delay government regulation to combat acid rain, global warming, and the hole in the ozone.

At some point, the conservative movement began to realize that since these fights were going to come up over and over, it wasn’t enough to simply cast doubts on individual scientific claims. They had to sow suspicion of the field of science itself. Oreskes and Conway highlight how this was used recently in attacks on the long-dead Rachel Carson, the environmental author of The Silent Spring, a book that led to the ban of DDT in 1972.

Let’s be clear. Republicans don’t attack scientists because they want to punish them for supporting Democrats. If all scientists agreed tomorrow to stop donating to parties, expressing political opinions in public, or even voting, Republicans would not gratefully start agreeing with scientific consensus around global warming or embrace public health recommendations to reduce unplanned pregnancy and STDs. They wouldn’t even come around on the now 154-year-old theory of evolution. They oppose these ideas because they come in conflict with Republican ideological concerns. In a larger sense, conservatives aren’t going to abandon their discomfort with empiricism, because it’s so destabilizing to their political authority.

Since scientists have no ability to stop Republicans from attacking science, their only real option is to take power away from Republicans by supporting Democrats. Scientists, like most people trying to do good work in this world, would far prefer to have the support of all policy-makers. Since that’s not an option, it does no good to scold them for looking out for their own interests.”

So yes, the GOP has earned its inevitable death by irrelevance. But as they have demonstrated, repeatedly now, they will probably never figure out why it happened to them, and will go on blaming “Dem illegulz and dem lazy welfare queens wit der obummerphones!1!”

Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night conservatives. After all, we all know reality has a well known liberal bias.

#22 Comment By Wesley On March 26, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

“Second came party acquiescence in dropping half the nation off the income tax rolls,”

Timothy Denney and New Flowers: There are a lot of things that Republicans should worry about, but the fact that half of Americans don’t pay income taxes isn’t one of them. As Timothy said, most of those pay the payroll tax, which is really just a second income tax that doesn’t just fund entitlements but also funds general government services. New Flowers, the Republicans should work to oppose all special interest tax loopholes. Unlike what Grover Norquist may think, these loopholes are government-granted privileges, not human rights with their origins in natural law.

Adam , you wrote: “I think this is where the Party can make a stand. It’s probably the only place actually that will make some of the disenfranchised take notice. The Financialization of America.”

Republicans should condemn the financialization of the American economy and support policies that undo this financialization. They should quote former Fed Chairman Paul Volker when he said that the only financial innovation of the last 30 years that really was helpful to the economy was the invention of the ATM Machine. Unfortunately, there has been a bipartisan push to deregulate derivatives, incredibly including greater taxpayer support for derivatives.



#23 Comment By New Flowers On March 26, 2013 @ 8:17 pm

@OldVet – when that GOP returns, I am ready and willing to change my voting on the spot!

#24 Comment By Chris in Appalachia On March 26, 2013 @ 8:49 pm

Every word of this article is true. And I really appreciate PJB for it, because I know how upsetting it must have been for him to have written it. But, no matter how unpleasant, we must face reality. Pat, now that we know we must flee the sinking ship, we know we must all climb into the lifeboats, we know that we will be adrift – Pat, where will you lead us now?

#25 Comment By koyaanisqatsi On March 26, 2013 @ 8:56 pm

The GOP is on the wrong side of every important issue of today. They believe what they believe. Why should they change? They have access to the same information as I, but still are narrow-minded, misogynist, war-mongering, greedy, amoral bigots. You can’t just put some cosmetics on the GOP and try to sell them anymore. The GOP must change their opinions and positions on issues, which means they need new and more thoughtful leaders…because, if they truly believe what they claim to believe, they really should not and cannot change.

#26 Comment By MikeS On March 26, 2013 @ 11:04 pm

I agree with Hooly above. In an irony, the Party of Lincoln is now the Party of the Confederacy. The confederates lost back then, and they are losing now. The Repubs need to excise the deadweight of the South and once again be the party of rational, business oriented people who are not socially reactionary.

#27 Comment By Timothy Denney On March 26, 2013 @ 11:19 pm

@ ksatifka – I am well-aware of the EITC. The EITC is credited for lifting millions out of poverty, as well as keeping people off the welfare rolls.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, During the 2010 tax year, the average EITC was $2,805 for a family with children and $262 for a family without children. Research indicates that families mostly use the EITC to pay for necessities, repair homes, maintain vehicles that are needed to commute to work, and in some cases, obtain additional education or training to boost their employability and earning power.

But no policy is without its downside. According to organizations such as the Tax Policy Center, about a quarter of EITC claims are made in error the TPC sites a result of the tax credit’s complexity. The EITC also penalizes marriage under certain conditions. Furthermore, it isn’t just working families that benefit from the EITC, so do employers.

Arguably the biggest downside of the EITC is that it is based on pre-tax income (as many programs are). Because the EITC subsides poverty, employers have an extra incentive to keep wages artificially low. Wages have been stagnant for decades. News organizations such as CNN have done graphs ranging from 1917 to 2008 that show that the average American’s income has not changed much. Since the 2008 meltdown, wages have taken a major hit. What most people don’t realize is just how badly wages have been hit, however. According to a report done by the United Nations, the 2008 financial crash slashed global wage growth by half!

The importance of addressing stagnating wages becomes paramount when you factor in additional factors such as the increasing costs of fuel/utilities/car insurance/etc. Technically-speaking, these items are not taxes/fees, but you’d be hard-pressed to argue to people that they should be treated any differently. According to Gallup and the US Census, about 9 out of 10 workers commute to work via driving. As fuel prices continue to rise, so does other commodities such as food. And this isn’t considering additional factors such as health insurance – the USA has the worst healthcare system in the industrialized world – and spiraling college costs – the price of textbooks for the past 30 years has outpaced the rising cost of healthcare!

Adjusting the EITC will probably prove insufficient. I recall articles written here on this site have shown meticulous work that other actions must be taken, such as raising the minimum wage.

But you cannot count on Republican support. Right now there is still talk within the party of abolishing programs such as the EITC… which they founded. I have to agree with figures such as Bill Maher and Bruce Barnett that Republicans live in an alternative universe and that Democrats are now the new Republicans.

#28 Comment By Austin Rebreh On March 26, 2013 @ 11:35 pm

Not for a second do I entertain the idea of a dying G.O.P. As Mr. Buchanan often points out, during the New Majority era, Republicans won the oval office a plurality of the time. By the logic of many alarmists, that should have been the death of the Democrats.

It seems the G.O.P is on a similar route that the Democrats began in the 1990s. Due to the defeats, they will continue to nominate centrists candidates for the oval office until they rebuild up a majority. Bill Clinton was a centrist Democrat and so is Obama. I suspect the Democratic party to become more liberal in the time to come much as Reagan was more conservative than Ike.

#29 Comment By Fran Macadam On March 27, 2013 @ 12:43 am

Now we have credible evidence that Nixon arranged his own “October Surprise” with Hanoi, scuttling a possible end to the war, to prevent the LBJ/Humphrey administration from claiming credit and winning election. This shows that devious partisan power seeking trumping the common good is not a recent development. Nixon extended the war to the end of his administration, despite the canard of running on end-the-war promises.

Let me address Pat’s third and fourth points, since the roots of the consequences of his first and second points flow from those – and from Richard Nixon’s own policies. I haven’t forgotten how Nixon vastly expanded the bureaucracy with all those new federal departments, nor how he imposed wage and price controls in a ham handed attempt to control war and government created inflation. I suppose that is part of what drives an imperial Presidency – famously, now Barack Obama is the latest accolyte of the “if the President does it, then it’s legal” Nixonian theory of Presidential power.

“Third, to accommodate its K Street bundlers, the GOP embraced globalism, empowering Corporate America to shed its U.S. labor force, move its plants to Mexico, Asia and China, bring its foreign-made goods back to the USA free of charge and pocket the difference”

– and make Americans try to compete on wages alone with the most desperate, lowest-cost overseas workforce, reducing apparent price inflation by means of wage deflation, an impossibility even more remote while the cost of living in America goes up. This also further cossets overseas “American Interests” that drive foreign policy and imperialism, with all the attendant military costs, paid for by the public purse but to protect only the 1% who benefit by socializing this business expense.

No wonder the Reagan Democrats have gone back to the party that had abandoned Reagan – the modern Republican Party has left Reagan, too. Our duopoly system leaves them nowhere else to go – even though the failed policies are almost identical, if not the rhetoric.

“Fourth, rather than bringing the troops home after our Cold War triumph and telling our allies the free rides were over, Bush I and II went crusading for a ‘New World Order’ to ‘end tyranny in our world.'”

Again, part of the policy that is bad for 99% of us, duping us with phoney patriotic American exceptionalist propaganda that disguised the real reasons for military expansion, as above. But the allies weren’t ever getting a free ride to travel wherever they wished: American military expenditures were the purchase of allies’ acquiescence in and conformance of their foreign policy to primarily American objectives rather than the ones they would have chosen on their own for their own people. Americans’ tax money has been the purchase price of this submission. If Americans stop paying, our elites will no longer be calling the Yankee Doodle tune. If you’re not for us, you’re against us, so we have to pay for their divided loyalty. The allies weren’t born yesterday or on the Fourth of July and the propaganda useful for domestic consumption isn’t useful currency “over there.”

“Second came party acquiescence in dropping half the nation off the income tax rolls, while making half dependent on government for food assistance, income support, rent, health care and the education of their kids from Head Start through Pell Grants.”

Largely a consequence of the third and fourth largely duopoly policies dictated by elites, such a drastic toll on a large swathe of our population necessitates social control measures to avoid untenable civil stress. This includes these social welfare measures, partly paid by regressive employment taxes on those recipients who can least afford them, which is more amenable to the elites than increasing their near-zero de facto taxes to sustainable fifties-prosperity levels on themselves. Other measures meant to keep order and suppress discontent are through the thoroughly authoritarian and unAmerican “Homeland Security” and “Patriot Act” domestic spying and control systems. One reason communist societies couldn’t compete with a very different America was that they squandered much of their human and other capital on just such invasive authoritarian surveillance, while even during the Viet Nam era of COINTELPRO, our societies remained much more open and less draconian than today.

We would have more real security for every American if there were an adequate number of jobs that could pay for a basic standard of living for anyone who wanted a job. That does not exist today, because that’s not how the 1% want it – it could mean empowering labor and having to pay them a fair share of the profits they generate – and employing more of them.

Whatever happened to Ronald Reagan’s own philosophy, expressed during his run for the governorship? “The businessmen of California realize they have an obligation to provide good-paying jobs for those in the community so employees can take care of their families and afford health insurance.” Today’s businessmen feel no such obligation to any of their neighbors whatsoever. Indeed, the party has fled Reagan.

As for immigration, the policy since 1492 has been immigration, which wasn’t exactly fair by any stretch of the imagination to those already here. Half a millenium later, the case against immigration has less traction than against the gimcrack novelty of gay “marriage.” Ironically, what continues to draw immigrants, especially of the Emma Lazarus “give me your huddled masses, yearning to be free” variety, is the successful propaganda extolling duping them that America is the exceptional nation we wish it were. We couldn’t ask for a group more committed to the old American Dream, nor a group far more traditional in religious belief than our coastal elites. Those who are least likely to believe in America are rather the culturally proficient money managers brought in legally and immediately under special dispensation by corporate elite cutouts in immigration law.

Ironically, if the GOP weren’t now so ready to jettison its social conservatism, it would find natural allies in these socially conservative immigrants, if it hadn’t poisoned its own well so badly in demonizing them. Instead, as any threatened population will, it has gone over to those offering protection – and in the process, had to make common political cause with many whose social values they despised. That is an alliance that didn’t need to happen. But the elites really couldn’t care less about immigrants apart from the utility of harvesting them as cheap union-busting labor. Nor do they care at all about the concerns of social conservatives, except in the most self-serving ways.

This is indeed the GOP’s self-inflicted wound, if it had wanted to actually represent the interests of some majority of citizens, which it clearly does not.

#30 Comment By Michael Kaiser On March 27, 2013 @ 2:18 am

“Yet, the crisis of the Grand Old Party goes back much further.”

Get a grip. Got any more ammunition you want to feed the masses?

#31 Comment By AZ Joe On March 27, 2013 @ 3:17 am

I remember when the Republican party first “died” in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson won by promising he “was not about to send American boys to fight a war in Vietnam that the Vietnamese needed to fight for themselves.” Or maybe the first time was when FDR and the New Deal got started in 1932.

I also remember when the Democratic party first “died” in 1980 when Reagan bought into (and sold to the rest of us) the idea that if we cut taxes on the wealthy the rest of us will somehow get a larger slice of the economic pie. Or maybe it was in 1860 when Lincoln was elected and the next Democrat was not elected until 1884 (Andrew Johnson was a Unionist Democrat who succeeded Lincoln but was not only never elected he missed being kicked out of office by one vote in the Senate).

The point is the parties will always, for good or ill, reinvent themselves until they see what it takes to create a majority that will win elections most of the time.

Personally, I would like to see a party that:

1) Opposes almost all abortions and supports traditional marriage.

2) Is non-interventionist in foreign affairs.

3) Realizes that the free enterprise system has some rough edges, is not the answer to all our problems, and that the government has a role to play in lifting some boats that the supply-side tide failed to float (I know, I’ve lost almost all of you on this one).

#32 Comment By Wesley On March 27, 2013 @ 4:50 am

AZ Joe: I’d like a party that has your #1 and #3, but not your #2. I do believe that the United States should be relatively interventionist in foreign affairs or at the very least engaged on the world stage as a major player.

#33 Comment By wycoff On March 27, 2013 @ 10:05 am


Did you even read the article before you posted your cut-and-paste, knee jerk screed? Buchanan rails against the GOP’s economic position, blaming it for the decline of the American working class (and does so more effectively than you do). He doesn’t touch on the science postion one way or another in the article, but I suspect that he agrees with you on it more than with the Tea Party. The GOP used to support science, especially NASA. It’s a shame that it no longer does so.

The American Conservative is not necessarily a GOP-friendly publication. Most people who follow it have serious grievances aginst the GOP, usually from either a right-wing populist / nationalist perspective (like Mr. Buchanan) or from a libertarian perspective. Think about that before you waste everyone’s time with another inane post.

#34 Comment By Sean Scallon On March 27, 2013 @ 11:08 am

Nixon’s New Majority (really Buchanan’s if you think about it) came about because postwar prosperity pushed millions working class, white ethnic Americans into the middle class away from the big city machine and the old ethnic neighborhood (family like the Buchanans) and made them more receptive to the party of the broad, white middle class: the Republicans. With new immigration, that cycle has played itself out and Dems now enjoy the spot they had at the beginning of the New Deal. The only way the GOP comes is if the cycle repeats itself. But it will be with a very different electorate and very different party by the mid-21st Century like it or not. The Old New Majority is gone and ain’t coming back in spite Tea Party nostalgia,

#35 Comment By cdugga On March 27, 2013 @ 12:44 pm

Nope, no reason to pile on here. One chicken or egg question though. Like, which really came first, all those dependent victims or global corporate offshoring? Honesty enables policy initiatives while dishonesty encourages ever more dishonesty simply to justify itself. The majority still exists, they are just not as easily led around by angst and fear as the white minority. The majority, whatever their race, ethnicity or sexual orientation has already gone around the recalcitrance of denial, hypocrisy and moral posturing. Build taller and thicker walls. Works everytime, right? The right again.

#36 Comment By Mr. Patrick On March 27, 2013 @ 2:49 pm

Mr. Buchanan revisits this topic frequently, but never gets to the heart of the matter. Who are “white ethnics”? They are, I believe, mainly Celtic or continental Catholic Europeans. The Church maintains its pro-immigration position, whether one believes it to be cynically self-serving or wrong-headed but soft-hearted. The alchemy of the New Majority has always required balancing on the razor’s edge, separating anti-immigration politics from its traditional American companion, anti-Catholic bigotry. The question can’t be completely settled as long as the Traditional Values cohort attends mass, or the Church changes its position on immigration. The Traditional Values cohort can’t stay cohesive without regular mass-going, and to hear them demand change from the Church because “things are different now” is just plain out of their character.

Even if we accept that immigration is the chief cause of Republican electoral difficulties, it’s not surprising that the party of the New Majority has spoken with two hearts and two minds on immigration, even before addressing the wants of the GOP’s Chamber-of-Commerce Wing for docile, cheap labor. This isn’t a self-inflicted wound, it’s a birth defect.

#37 Comment By AZ Joe On March 27, 2013 @ 2:57 pm


By saying non-interventionist I don’t mean isolationist. I do believe we should be engaged with the world on many levels. If I were the decider (if not the dictator) America’s wars would be defensive, not preventive. The attitude of “I will take you out because I really and truly ‘think’ you mean to do me harm” was one of the major causes for the mistaken invasion of Iraq.

Our example as a “superpower” republic is of greater value than our willingness and sometimes eagerness to fight all villains abroad.

Best Regards,

#38 Comment By Richard Wagner On March 27, 2013 @ 6:38 pm

Though there’s much truth in your grim synopsis, Mr. Buchanan, I think you’ve made one mistake, and missed one important opportunity. First, the mistake. On abortion, the population actually seems to be shifting pro-life over the last decade, and some states are testing tighter restrictions on abortion (to see what the current Supreme Court will decide).

Next, the GOP’s prospects aren’t as grim as you think. If they continue to cling to war, they will lose. However, if the ideas of limited government are closely tied to civil liberties (something valued by the youth, influenced by the counterculture) they might have a package they can sell to many young voters. The GOP needs to re-brand and rethink it’s priorities, but they can make a come back.

#39 Comment By Ben in SoCal On March 28, 2013 @ 1:57 am

Conservatives should get wise about the link between mass immigration and urban sprawl. Look at how it altered previously conservative regions, from San Jose to Northern Virginia (NoVa), into liberal bastions.

If we can halt the latter, then we can deny the continuation of the former. Embrace the historic traditiona of the conservation ethic within the conservative philosophy. Small towns within the radius of urban centers should establish “green walls” of conservation land- open space, farmland, and forests- to prevent the further spread of cities, which are major incubators of liberalism.

Sir Edmund Burke, in his treatise against the French Revolution, said conservatives should defend “the little platoons of society.” Not a bad ideal in this globalized day and age.

#40 Comment By Annek On March 28, 2013 @ 3:54 pm

Timothy Denney says:

“Half of the country pays no taxes? Call it whatever you want: payroll taxes, income taxes, estate taxes, etc. The actual truth is that the vast majority of Americans DO pay taxes.”

They don’t pay federal taxes but vote on how federal dollars will be spent – all while having no dog in the fight. That’s the problem.

#41 Comment By Annek On March 28, 2013 @ 3:55 pm

@Timothy Denney:

Having skin in the game encourages voters to vote more responsibly on how tax dollars should be spent and/or how much federal tax rates should be increased.

#42 Comment By Annek On March 28, 2013 @ 4:22 pm

Crony capitalism and corporate welfare do seem to be huge problems in our country. Someone (I’m not sure who off the top of my head) said something along the lines that for capitalism to be successul, you need a moral society. As religion has receded in our society and moral relativism has been embraced, our people seem to have fewer clear-cut guidelines on how to behave – in terms of pursuing personal success, while keeping tabs on how their actions affect society as a whole.

Many people seem to lack a strong sense that their individual behaviors have a ripple effect throughout society. They seem to act primarily out of self-interest. Religion (Christianity) can teach people to pursue personal advancement not by any means, but only if it can be achieved in a manner pleasing to God. This means acting in a moral and fair way that is not harmful to others.

#43 Comment By Rossbach On March 31, 2013 @ 8:56 pm

The end of the Republican Party could clear the way for a new nationalist party that could unite former main street Republicans and former “Reagan Democrats” in a revolt against the coalition of Stalinists and crony capitalists who comprise the current power elite.