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
First, you didn’t offend me. Second, what you’re relying on is conventional wisdom. Well, if conventional wisdom ruled the day, Donald Trump shouldn’t be where he is today. Really. ;)
I didn’t mean to say that your conventional wisdom is dead on wrong. All I’m saying is that you’re speculating. All those high rollers who speculated on the conventional wisdom that Jeb Bush would be president found out their conventional wisdom didn’t work out. I don’t know if there are any statistics, but I would bet that conventional wisdom in politics is more wrong than right. Who would’ve thought that a back bencher African-American less than one term Senator with ties to the radical left would be president? Certainly conventional wisdom would not have predicted that.
I’m sorry Bryan, I’m failing to understand your point. Doing Meth is a bad thing is common sense, not intellectualism. In fact, there is an intellectual ideology that says people should be allowed to do it, even though it is a bad thing. That’s an intellectualism that fails common sense.
I don’t think either of us would say that worked out very well. Conventional wisdom may not be perfect, but you make a radical departure from it at your own peril.
My observations about conventional wisdom here are not about who can get elected. Obviously the old saw about how any boy (or girl) can grow up to be President has some truth in it. Venal, corrupt, felons. Crazy, pornographer socialists. Crony-capitalist, proto-fascist demagogues. They’re all in the mix. What I’m talking about is the conventional wisdom about what happens next. And the most conventional of conventional wisdom is, “in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.
Perot did damage because he ran a third party. Just as we’re about to in effect if Trump wins. The damage was because we didn’t come together at the end. I don’t see any lasting damage from Buchanan. Did he bring voters? The answer to that is, did we address those concerns? We had more free trade deals and more international entanglements. So no, we did not give them a reason to come over.
Social Conservatism has in no way failed Fishtown. If you live your life by Soc Con Values, by and large, you will do well.
Fiscal Conservatism has in no way failed Fishtown. If you live you life Fiscally Conservative, you will, by and large, do well.
How has conservative thinking hurt Fishtown?
(Legalizing drugs is more libertarian than conservative by my calculations)
Samuel “Christian theology is the Grandmother of Bolshevism” Francis, and Pat Buchanan are the last two people I’d ever listen to with regards to politics. The day their backwards nationalism, and populism gains a foothold in any party is the day I leave said party.
I’m not entirely sure, but I think we agree. I certainly agree on your two points at the top and the your point in parentheses. I never said conservatism has hurt the country. All I’m saying is we don’t have a majority of the nation with us, and so we need to form a coalition with the Trump nationalist wing.
LOL their backwards nationalism and populism is about to win the Repbulican Primary – that’s kind of Mike’s point.
My point is I’ll be leaving said party and sister organization. In other words I’ll gladly be working to destroy it once it gains any kind of “legitimacy”.
Well, I’d phrase it that living your life by socially and fiscally conservative values greatly increases the odds that you’ll do better than you otherwise would have, but yes, Bryan, I agree.
It is of course a great source of human frustration that no amount of virtue, either social or fiscal, can guarantee success, for success is never guaranteed. And some people definitely find themselves in toxic situations where virtue is likely to reward them far less than the same virtue would in a healthier situation. But I’d say reality, not conservatism, is to blame for that.
For example, it’s not conservative to trap young women in subcultures where the immediate benefits of out-of-wedlock childbearing are made so great relative to abstaining (or at the very least vigilantly using contraception), but non-conservative principles have created these subcultures. And yes, a young woman trapped in such a subculture is not crazy for believing her “virtue is likely to reward her far less than the same virtue would in a healthier situation”.
The problem is, the Trump wing appears to be in the “time to erect the gallows” mindset. Seeing as mobs have a tendency to run amok, I would rather not ally myself with one. It is only a matter of time before I am hanging from a short rope, so to speak.
Gallows? Mob mindset? You’re buying into the media and Trump’s political adversary’s false narrative.
I think he is exactly right. The spirit of the French Revolution, not the American is at the heart of Trump’s momentum. The idea that the “others”, who have been oppressing the Trumpkins, are finally going to get it, is about the only unifying message they have.
Does this make conservatives who support Trump the Thomas Jefferson’s of their day?
The closer analogy would be Thomas Paine, who fought for the French Revolution, ended up in the National Convention and then was arrested and about to be executed. Paine only lived because he appealed to his former American allies, many whom he had insulted previously, who stood up for him and got him out of jail by saying he was a citizen of the Republic.
As an aside, this is just a beautifully written ‘thesis’ and I genuinely hope for the sake of young people everywhere they get the opportunity to take a class from my favorite professor!
;-)
Trump supporters will support him no matter what because he is a symbol to them. I am not buying into a false narrative. I am using my clinical training to make an expert judgement on human behavior.
I know mom mentality when I see it.
If we only did that today with citizens in other nations.
Are you serious? I have nothing to add. People have lost their minds.
Yes, they have. That is the point. But, I assure you, it is not I.
There are several people supporting Trump who no longer espouse ideals they used too. The movement appears to be one of casting aside previously held convictions to follow a charismatic leader. Those not following him maintain their previous convictions.
Now, you are implying that I have lost my mind in seeing the mob following Trump as a danger. However, I have not changed my positions they have.
Picture two men. One has a change in the way he acts, with sudden shedding of previous values. The other man does not, but he does point to the first man and expresses concern. Would you call the second man crazy for pointing out that concern?
Great summary, Mike. Excellent links too — learned quite a bit.