After decades of commentary, Pat Buchanan officially resigned. His credentials took him from the Nixon years to the Reagan era, where conservatism fought for its identity in magazines, television interviews, and the arbiters of the movement itself.
There’s many open questions to his fanbase who read between the lines. What is a dissident supposed to do with all his books and understanding his turbulent career? If Buchanan was far more conservative than Nixon, why did he stay loyal to a president who didn’t have the will to stand up to the left? What lessons are learned in the aftermath of the Reform Party era?
One of the largest contributions from Buchanan was his legitimization of a third path in American discourse. He railed against the philosophy of neoconservatism, implicating his colleagues, and stood away from centrism where the moderates rescinded. Paleoconservatism was the label donned by his ilk, most of whom could not survive with their reputations intact. Joe Sobran and Mel Bradford lost in the court of public opinion, as did Buchanan shortly after.
The early 90’s was his peak on the national stage. New Hampshire showed voters that the commentator could do more than merely talk like Rush Limbaugh. He had potential to lead a movement to question the two party system without engaging in life ruining endeavors. There was a philosophical underpinning uniting this vanguard to new heights that had not been reached since Nixon’s Catholic and Protestant coalition.
However, the cards were stacked against him. The men he critiqued in Where The Right When Wrong were in privileged positions. Their leverage guaranteed that no matter how much grassroots support had been gained by Buchanan, his message was forbidden to be presented alongside George H.W. Bush and Jack Kemp. It was just business as usual.
The GOP had made it clear that no revolutionaries were welcome, so Pat would go his own way. The Reform Party was the last swipe against the establishment. He had been successfully gatekept from redefining the party line to include identity politics, anti-globalization, and an America First platform.
After the last campaign, Buchanan’s strong suit remained in his books. Many could discover the paradigm that kept him and his supporters from reaping the rewards hoarded by mainstream Republicans with a new canon. Without Buchanan’s testimony, the intellectual gap between the GOP and those who voted for Donald Trump would be unaccounted for. The resentment that lingered over D.C. found its champion in Pat as their lone representative in polite society.
With his retirement announced, it’s worth considering the career of a man who saw the country change rapidly and held his own for so long. The Nixon loyalist who tried to talk the president out of concessions to the left, realizing its futility. The candidate who ushered in a brigade against his own party and made future dissidents possible. And finally, the author who warned his readers about the cultural decline they would inherit in a few short years.
From a Generation Z perspective, many of these paleoconservative views have made their way into public vocabulary. During high school, Tucker Carlson was just beginning to impact the discourse and many young minds would take them for granted. The struggle between pro-amnesty Republicans and those insisting on a moratorium had already developed by the time they entered college. The Ron Paul Revolution and Tea Party sensation had already been extinguished. Ann Coulter was no longer the lone voice questioning American identity. Partisan politics became more vicious as our primitive years peaked. This made Donald Trump an easy sell to a demographic seeing the world in no uncertain terms.
An outsider’s perspective shows that all the mainstream credentials Buchanan earned did not shield him from the same labels hurled at David Duke. Conventional wisdom told voters that he could’ve won the 1992 and 1996 elections legitimately. It’s allegedly a matter of chance that flew in the face of his odds. However, those who are privy to the gatekeeping circus show of Conservative Inc. don’t buy that premise for a second. Recently, dissidents have followed the 2000 election year strategy as the model for access, despite Buchanan gaining less votes outside of the GOP. Ultraconservative nationalists like Nick Fuentes and Joel Davis have contributed wargame strategies for reactionary paths to victory. It may be a pipe dream, yet few have made a compelling case to rationalize the current state of Trumpism.
As a result, discourse accelerated in online spheres. The balance between legislative reform and revolutionary reform has been framed as the ultimate dichotomy. Yet, many forget that mainstream figures and white nationalists have a relationship together, albeit at arm's length. This dynamic was often minimized, while the implicit messages resonated with attentive readers. Each figure can play their role within the hive mind, contrasting with the far right strategy of embracing identity politics as vocal activists. Both can gain beneficial victories in their own lanes, since the dissident right effectively operates as a social movement.
Those who are older than Generation Z often graduated past Buchanan in their intellectual journey. As dissidents, it was easier to veer into other strains of thought that broke away from the conventional political compass. This often left them using Francis Parker Yockey as a model for success and isolating themselves from mainstream politics entirely. Evidently, this dissolves into an online fight club with no cultural impact to show for it. Zoomers choose a more positive vision as their frame of mind.
Many who would usually consider a role at the Leadership Institute or volunteer at Claremont were looking for alternatives. The paleoconservative platform offered the youthful vibrance that other strains of Republicanism lacked. This was a canon that embraced Russell Kirk and H.L. Mencken as opposed to Leo Strauss and Harry Jaffa. Since then, there has been a push and pull between establishment figures and dissidents to promote some ideas at the expense of others. This sequence of struggle has galvanized generations of politically curious people, especially zoomers.
As a result, Buchanan’s life will be studied as a dissident stuck in a conservative’s body. Most men don’t step out of line for public relations purposes, but he tested those boundaries set forth by his contemporaries again and again. And again. If he had stayed in the same lane as his friend Sam Francis, he may not be celebrated by Con Inc. today. Nevertheless, his advice resonated with conservatives trying to preserve their sinking Titanic and the reactionaries who jumped ship.
Which of His Books is best to start with? Cheers Ace, keep on rocking in the Technocratic NPC world!