"The Yes, the In 1980 But Anderson It would Weicker The 2000 Anderson
John Anderson?" Buchanan asked.
caller said, confirming he was indeed the last Republican presidential candidate
who bolted from the party to run as a non-Republican. He then blasted Buchanan’s
anti-internationalist foreign policy views.
Anderson, a liberal/moderate Republican congressman from Illinois, left the
GOP in the middle of the primaries when it became obvious that the party was
going to crown conservative champion Ronald Reagan as its nominee. His followers
waged petition campaigns across the country and placed Anderson on the presidential
ballot in every state. He participated in the debates with President Carter
and Reagan and collected seven percent of the vote. In the years since then,
he’s been an elder statesman among those aiming to break up the national
doesn’t see Buchanan as the hammer to smash that system. These days–when
he is not teaching at Nova Southeastern Law School in Fort Lauderdale and fulfilling
his duties as president of the World Federalist Association–Anderson is
working to steer the Reform Party away from Buchanan. "As much as I want
to see the present power structure challenged," he tells me, "it can’t
be with Buchanan with his absolutely misbegotten views." (Anderson is an
advocate of an international rule of law; Buchanan’s most chilling nightmare
is world government that impinges upon American prerogatives.) Since the Buchanan
flurry began, Anderson has repeatedly spoken with Lowell Weicker, the former
Republican senator and former independent governor of Connecticut, urging Weicker
to try for the Reform Party presidential slot. "You can’t stop Buchanan
with nothing," Anderson says. He reports that Weicker would like to have
the nomination but isn’t yet committed to putting in the time, energy and
be an arduous task for Weicker, or any other Buchanan foe. The Reform Party
will only automatically qualify for the presidential ballot line in 21 states.
The nominee must do the work necessary to make the ballot in the other states.
"It’s a little bit daunting," says Anderson. "You have to
have someone in each state to coordinate a petition drive effort. It takes a
lot of sweat-equity. You can pay for that. But it would be pretty expensive."
can’t match Buchanan in this organizational regard. How many troops does
he have? Anderson acknowledges this: "Weicker’s base is Connecticut,
and that’s a small state." And he’s not all that popular there.
Moreover, Weicker’s name recognition is high only among the most insomniac
C-SPAN junkies. Surely, the stop-Pat movement needs someone with more firepower.
What about Jesse Ventura’s effort to recruit Donald Trump for a thwart-Pat
candidacy? "I see them faltering and going down this ridiculous path of
putting out the Trump trial balloon," Anderson says. And regarding a Trump
candidacy, Anderson won’t jump on that circus train: "Trump is obviously
a man bent only on self-aggrandizement," he says. "I don’t know
if he ever said a word that has embraced the principles that a new party should
have. And I’m also concerned about the growing inequality between the bottom
quintile [of Americans] and the top one percent and I don’t know if that
has ever occupied his thoughts. As for foreign policy, outside of planning his
trips to Paris on the Concorde, I don’t know if he’s given that much
election presents "a golden opportunity for a third party to emerge and
be credible and give the Democrats and Republicans some competition," notes
Anderson. Yet the Buchanan raid on the Reform Party–and the Trump talk–threatens
to trivialize or marginalize the third-party movement. It’s time for the
Reform Party to shove Ross Perot off the stage and, in a sense, grow up. Buchanan
and Trump do not represent political maturity.
is a wishful thinker, something of a yesterday-politician, but a noble one.
He has no clout within the Reform Party, just respect in certain of its quarters.
Yet his wish to stop Pat is shared by a portion of Reform Party members (but
not the Perot wing) and by nonmembers who would like to see more political choices,
but not the choice represented by Buchanan. All their opposition will mean nothing
if they cannot find a brawny Buchanan-buster. Anderson realizes that Weicker
is not well equipped to slay Pat the Nativist Dragon. But Anderson (like the
other anti-Buchananites) can’t think of any other serious contender to
send into battle: "I don’t know who that person could be," he
notes with a sigh. "If there’s someone out there, I wish they’d
let me know."
Bradley Fakes Left?
liberals falling for Bill Bradley? Friends of the Earth endorsed Bradley, who
as a senator often fought lonely environmental battles against water and mining
interests. (The group spurned Al Gore, who wrote a bestselling enviro book and
whose greenness earned the tag "Ozone Man" from George W. Bush’s
father.) The National Association for Socially Responsible Organizations, a
do-good liberal outfit, also came out for the former New Jersey senator. Over
at my home base, The Nation, an editorial (in which I did not participate) drooled
over the potential of Bradley the Progressive.
On the campaign
trail, Bradley has, in his abstract and laconic manner, talked up the issues
that juice up progressives: childhood poverty, racism, the need for universal
health care. His gun control stand has been stronger than Gore’s. He’s
not shy in assailing the institutional corruption that pervades Washington,
advocating campaign finance reform. (His halfway-there proposal for partial
public funding of congressional elections only covers general elections, not
primary contests.) Bradley’s against mandatory minimum sentencing and has
called for ending the disparity in sentencing for those busted for powder-cocaine
offenses (mainly white people) and those arrested for crack-cocaine offenses
(mainly black people). He’s a cheerleader of global capitalism and an ardent
free trader enamored of the corporate-friendly World Trade Organization and
NAFTA-like trading accords, yet has remained friendly to union stiffs, urging
changes in labor law that would render it easier to organize. All in all, not
an inconsequential collection of liberal stands.
is, where was this Bradley during his 18 years in the Senate? He’s not
pulling a total reverse-course–he was an ally of enviros when he was in
Washington, and he did decry the sleazy campaign finance system–but he
also voted for Reagan’s budget cuts and opposed a move to make income tax
rates more progressive. He voted to aid the thuggish Contra rebels fighting
the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. When Hillary Rodham Clinton was peddling
her Rube Goldberg health care plan, Bradley fiddled around with moderate Republicans
to concoct a bipartisan plan, which never fully materialized. He was not known
as a champion of the poor. He did give a few speeches on the Senate floor warning
that racism was an untreated sore on American society; but he offered little
leadership in doing anything about it.
interpretation is that Bradley realizes what the most junior political analyst
knows: You can’t beat Al Gore among Democratic primary voters by running
to the Vice President’s right. And Bradley needs to have some policy differences
with Gore, otherwise he’s only left with his I’m-a-better-and-more-decent-guy-who-didn’t-grow-up-in-Washington
argument. When politicians break with their past, there’s reason to be
suspicious, to wonder whether opportunism or principle is in the driver’s
seat. (See Pat Buchanan.) Maybe Bradley has "grown." He’s promised
to start releasing policy proposals that will make good on his liberal–not
his word!–rhetoric. The specifics of his health care plan will be telling.
Still, even if it’s a solid proposal that insures all at a reasonable cost,
there’s still cause to inquire: Senator, why now? Why did you not pitch
this when you had the power? Should his policy details actually match his progressive-sounding
pronouncements, liberals might be right to team up with Bradley, but they should
do so warily.