Are Too Many Cooks Stirring the Republican Party Pot?
William Rusher's Aug. 26 commentary ("Reform Party lure for Buchanan?") virtually begs the paleoconservative commentator who, almost single-handedly, revived paleoconservatism from the post-Cold War milieu, to stay in the Republican Party. Mr. Rusher fears a Pat Buchanan Reform Party candidacy could pull enough votes from the GOP nominee to cost the Republicans the election.
These fears are unfounded: Many blue-collar and labor Democrats at the rank-and-file level would vote for Mr. Buchanan and might be more likely to vote for him on the Reform Party ticket than on the Republican ticket. Reform Party candidate Ross Perot ran stronger among union households in 1996 than among the general electorate, and Mr. Buchanan would do likewise.
Mr. Rusher points out that Mr. Buchanan sought the Republican nomination twice before and promptly endorsed the winner. What I believe and what Mr. Rusher fails to understand is that Mr. Buchanan will work within a baseball three-strike rule. As far as Mr. Buchanan is concerned, this third party try is strike three, after which the Republican Party will have struck out.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich exhorted the 104th Congress to read the "Federalist." But Federalist No. 10 describes the conundrum Mr. Buchanan and the Republican Party face: When a faction grows large enough to be powerful, it will split, thereby preserving pluralistic government. …