Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Samuel Francis and Middle American Radicalism
In the March 1996 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, the late Samuel Francis (1947-2005) published an essay titled “From Household to Nation: The Middle American Populism of Pat Buchanan.” Francis wrote about Buchanan’s then-ongoing campaign for the 1996 Republican presidential nomination, framing it within the larger historical context of American conservatism and populism. He noted that the campaign had proved, up to that point, more viable and enduring than many political prognosticators expected. Francis observed:
… the courtiers and professional partisans miss the larger victory the Buchanan campaign is on the eve of winning. If Buchanan loses the nomination, it will be because his time has not yet come, but the social and political forces on which both his campaigns [1992 and 1996] have been based will not disappear, and even if he does lose, he will have won a place in history as an architect of the victory those forces will eventually build.
Francis saw Buchanan and his quixotic campaigns as the vanguard of a larger, emerging sociopolitical movement:
The reason Buchanan has not been submerged is that the torch he carries illuminates new social forces that only now are forming a common political consciousness. What is important about these forces is not that a campaign centered on them does not now win major elections (indeed, it would be a fatal error if they succeeded in winning prematurely) but that the Buchanan campaign for the first time in recent history offers them an organized mode of expression that will allow them to develop and mature their consciousness and their power.
Francis continued:
Those forces consist, of course, of the broad social and cultural spectrum of Middle America. Middle American groups are more and more coming to perceive their exploitation at the hands of the dominant elites. The exploitation works on several fronts—economically, by hypertaxation and the design of a globalized economy dependent on exports and services in place of manufacturing; culturally, by the managed destruction of Middle American norms and institutions; and politically, by the regimentation of Middle Americans under the federal leviathan.
Francis was taking note of the emergence of what, in other writings, he referred to as “Middle American radicalism,” borrowing and popularizing a term first coined by the late sociologist Donald Warren (1935-1997).
Are we now, in 2016, witnessing the maturation of this movement that Francis saw emerging two decades ago? That may indeed be the case. Like Pat Buchanan’s 1992 and 1996 campaigns, the Donald Trump campaign of 2016 defies easy categorization along the traditional left-right spectrum. But Trump seems to have struck a nerve that Buchanan either did not or could not. Francis believed that Buchanan himself was too closely wedded to the mainstream conservative movement, a belief borne out by Buchanan’s past association with Richard Nixon and his later (and still ongoing) career as a conservative journalist and commentator. Buchanan was either unable or unwilling to move out from under the conservative umbrella. Toward the end of his essay, Francis related this story from the very early days of Buchanan’s first campaign:
I recall in late 1991, in the aftermath of a wall-to-wall gathering at his home to discuss his coming campaign, I told him privately that he would be better off without all the hangers-on, direct-mail artists, fund-raising whiz kids, marketing and PR czars, and the rest of the crew that today constitutes the backbone of all that remains of the famous “Conservative Movement” and who never fail to show up on the campaign doorstep to guzzle someone else’s liquor and pocket other people’s money. “These people are defunct,” I told him. “You don’t need them, and you’re better off without them. Go to New Hampshire and call yourself a patriot, a nationalist, an America Firster, but don’t even use the word ‘conservative.’ It doesn’t mean anything any more.”
Needless to say, Buchanan did not take Francis’ advice. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, it would appear that Donald Trump has. Interesting times lie ahead.
Published in General
True indeed. Terrific post and thank you for the historical background.
I dispute the characterization of Trump and his supporters as “nutcases.” That characterization seems in line with Kevin Williamson’s recent article for National Review. A great number of white, working class Americans are suffering, and they are not racists, bigots, rubes, or bad people. Both political parties have ignored their concerns for far too long. That Trump is addressing those concerns explains why he has done so well thus far in the primaries.
Thanks, Liz!
Thanks. Yes, the shift away from moral values is troubling. I think a big part of that shift can be explained by the federal government subsidizing single motherhood, and by doing so, essentially discouraging marriage. It is quite shocking how quickly the institution of marriage has collapsed among the working class.
Yes, it is. I think the conservative movement itself is, in part, responsible for the fact that more and more people are shifting toward populism and nationalism.
Yes, and it’s entirely conceivable that some of Sanders’ supporters might shift their allegiance to Trump if/when Sanders ultimately drops out of the race.
Couldn’t agree more. Illegitimacy is at the core of most poverty and criminal behavior.
Thanks, and yes, I think you are absolutely right about that. The Republican Party has become too tone-deaf on many major issues of concern.
Thanks, Kay!
Yes, the whole Middle East nation-building process has to stop. After a quarter-century it is clear that the whole project is one of high risks and low rewards. Time for a new strategy.
Another past political figure that Trump reminds me of is Dwight D. Eisenhower. When Trump first used the term “common sense conservatism,” I immediately thought of Eisenhower’s “modern Republicanism.” Trump’s agenda seems to be an amalgamation of populism, nationalism, and Eisenhower’s 1950s domestic policies. And let’s not forget that Eisenhower was very much a hardliner on illegal immigration from Mexico.
Thanks, and yes, it is far too easy to resort to scapegoating when looking at the effects of such globalist/free trade policies as NAFTA more than two decades after its enactment. I think the basic intent behind NAFTA was positive and laudable, but in reality it has had far more negative consequences than initially anticipated, and some of the expected benefits (such as reducing illegal immigration by making Mexico more prosperous) did not come to fruition.
I agree, and find it troubling that so many people are quick to assume bad faith on the part of those they disagree with, be it on the desire for more immigration restrictions or the belief that the federal government should not mandate gay marriage legalization. Shouting “racist” or comparing every controversial figure to the leader of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party is rude and unhelpful.
Well said. The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of the most execrable organizations around. Their sole function seems to be to convince gullible people to cough up money by scaring them with fairy tales about how the next incarnation of the Klan or the Nazis is imminent but for their “brave” exposes.
Samuel Francis held many controversial views, all of which I am completely aware of. And much of what he wrote toward the very end of his life (such as about miscegenation) was simply inexcusable.
But there is indeed an “anti-white” element on the left, and not just from fringe groups like the Black Panthers or pro-Aztlan radical Hispanic groups like MEChA. If you are a graduate student studying such fields as history, you will be exposed to such nonsense as The Wages of Whiteness or “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” which posit whiteness as an unearned privilege that all white people (however defined) benefit from to the detriment of various oppressed minorities. It is absolutely poisonous and destructive nonsense.
Thanks, TempTime!
You’re welcome, Tigerlily. See my comment above about the similarity I’ve noticed between Trump and Eisenhower. While Trump’s strong personality does explain a good part of his appeal, I believe his pragmatic, no-nonsense, business-like approach is also attracting support.
Thanks again for all the comments. I’m sure there will be some replies to my own comments here. I’ll try and reply to them as time permits tomorrow.
I fully agree that people are hurting. What makes them nutcases is their belief that Trump has the qualifications or the ideas to do anything about their issues. I did not call Trump or his supporters racists or bigots, and the only people who I have noticed being called “rubes” around here are Rubio supporters. But I do call Trump a snake oil salesman for selling three word answers to complicated questions.
Yes, there are people who buy miracle beauty treatments off of late night infomercials because they beleive the treatment will make them look like Cindy Crawford. Sorry, but those people are nuts. Same with Trump.
And by the way, Kevin Williamson is a smart guy. As are all the #nevertrump writers who contributed to the NR issue.
I haven’t heard the name of Samuel Francis and Chronicles in years. Yes, Mike I have to agree with you. This sort of nationalism was very much a part of the conservative coalition up through the 1970s, and it seems to be resurrecting with Trump. Even Ronald Reagan had what were called Reagan Democrats, though in my opinion they weren’t that strongly Democrats. Somehow the Neoconservatives (of which I might consider myself part of) and Libertarians pushed these nationalists from our coalition, probably because they both considered them too low brow, and the nationalists had a subtle suggestion of racism. The racism was for the most part not deliberate, but there were elements that were.
We lost the nationalists to our detriment. We have never been able to reconstitute the Reagan winning coalition. We don’t have a national majority without them. We need to bring them back in and form a new four legged conservative stool: economics, military, religious, and nationalists.
It”s not just the “upper-class people.” In fact it’s not so much them, but the intellectual elites. Look Conservatism has drifted too far into intellectualism and excluded the common folk. Neoconservatives (of which I might consider to be part of) and Libertarians (of which I’m definitely not part of) have pretty much taken over the term “conservatism” over the last thirty years. Both are intellectual based ideologies that have a disconnect with the daily lives of people who don’t engage in the world of ideas. And though we say our ideas are best for all, yet, they don’t seem to agree. And frankly I don’t blame them.
I doubt I’ll be voting for him in the primary when it gets to my state, but there’s a part of me that wants to see Trump win to poke a finger in the faces of all the pointy-headed (Richard Nixon’s term) intellectuals that think they know better, including me!
Manny, Nationalism is a bit of a two-sided coin. Some nationalist policies, like a strong military, are a good thing. And I cheer American exceptionalism. I am disgusted by Obama running around the world apologizing for us.
But in addition to all that, I think we have to be suspicious of politicians who make a big show of their nationalism. As you say, sometimes nationalism can carry an implied taint of bigotry. As done by Trump, it is more a matter of scapegoating than bigotry, but Trump’s propensity for blaming Mexico and China for all of America’s problems is still dangerous. Also, if carried too far, nationalism can become jingoism, which also clouds clear judgment and gets in the way of implementing solutions that would actually do some good.
I don’t think Trump has found the perfect formula for integrating nationalism (which I admit requires definition, and I’m not prepared to give one) but nonetheless conservatism has to stop being intellectually elitist if it wants a national majority. My hunch is that most conservatives want to wallow in their fixed ideologies rather than form a majority coalition.
One other thing: you’re using nationalism as a verb – a process to unite through semi demagogic means – and I’m using it as a noun to describe Trump’s supporters. They are a group of the American electorate who have the sneaky suspicion that what the intellectual elites promulgate as good policy only helps the intellectuals and not the common working folk. These people don’t need demagoguery to be activated. They really feel the negative effects of free trade and military excursions to “fix the world” while they bear the brunt of the negative side. As I said above, I’m a neoconservative who supports free trade and American policing in the world.
Manny, I’m all for big tents and winning coalitions and all that, but there are three problems here.
First, a celebrity candidate like Trump might bring people in for one election, but he won’t help to build a lasting coalition. We saw this in California where Republican Arnold won the Governor’s race. As soon as Arnold left office, the voters went right back to electing all Dems, all the time.
Second, while you want a majority coalition, you also want that coalition to have some kind of common policies and governing philosophy. I want to draw people into the Party by persuading them that our philosophy is good and right; not by surrendering the Party to leftist philosophy. (And no, the GOPe has not “already done that.” That’s demonstrably false, no matter how many people say it.)
Third, while you’re building a coalition you also have to govern. Trump is manifestly unqualified to govern. He lacks the knowledge, the temperament, and the skills to be President. He is, simply put, a buffoon, and you don’t build a Party or a coalition by electing buffoons.
Anyway, all of this is hypothetical. Trump will lose to Hillary. He may be the only guy in America (besides Bernie) who could lose to Hillary, but he will lose.
You don’t know that. That’s your speculation, and if you go back to the Perot and Buchanon campaigns, this sort of nationalism has been there for a coalition all this while.
So all we need is better communication. I’ve heard that losing strategy since I was a child. You’re not listening to the people.
I would say he might just be very good at governing. He’s got the right skill set. And I don’t believe you build a billion dollar empire with a poor temperament. Rudy Guilliani, who had a very similar temperament, did a great job as mayor of NYC.
I’ve heard that before too.
One more thing on that last point. Obviously if Conservatives refuse to support Trump, then yes we will lose. What you’re seeing in the polls is conservative pull back, the “never trump” crowd. If conservatives don’t support Trump if he happens to win and Hillary gets elected, then they deserve everything she will bring.
I’m not voting for him in the primary but I for one will support Trump if he wins. This “never Trump” thing by conservatives is childish.
Manny, All that stuff you’ve “heard before,” there’s a reason you’ve heard it – because it’s true. That doesn’t mean that we win every election, and it doesn’t mean (for most of us) that we give up when we lose an election and reject all accumulated wisdom (which is not a very conservative thing to do). And as far as Perot and Buchanan go, you prove my point. Both of them did lasting damage to the Party. Neither of them brought in any voters. And Perot handed the White House to Clinton. Just as Trump is handing the White House to another Clinton.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I think I have to say something. Sorry, Manny, if you find it offensive. Offending you is not my goal. But this is a simple fact. I have been practicing law for 35 years. I think I have heard every silly response to an argument that that a human being (or even a lawyer) can concoct. But I have never heard a sillier “refutation” to an argument than saying “I’ve heard that before.”
Really.
It is intellectualism to say that doing Meth is a bad thing?
This gets back to Fishtown. Fishtown stinks mostly because the people there are failing at the basics of being human beings.