Pat Buchanan’s GOP must tackle racism, not deny it

Longtime political columnist Patrick Buchanan recently retired. You can be forgiven if you missed it. In recent years, Buchanan’s once ubiquitous presence on the political scene has significantly diminished, even as the modern Republican Party is still guided by his impact.

Buchanan, a veteran of the Nixon White House, dominated the punditry class across the media landscape of the 1980s and ’90s, co-hosting “Crossfire” on CNN, appearing regularly on “The McLaughlin Group” and “Capital Gang,” and writing a widely syndicated newspaper column preaching his brand of conservative gospel.

Buchanan took media sabbaticals to serve as President Ronald Reagan’s communications director from 1985 to 1987, as well as to enter the 1992 and 1996 GOP presidential primaries. After I mentioned in my last column that I voted for Buchanan in those primaries, it was suggested to me that supporting such “racists” as Buchanan and Donald Trump seemed at odds with my support for reparations for descendants of enslaved people and my backing of certain aspects of critical race theory.

Maybe. I thought both Buchanan’s and Trump’s attitudes on race were often insensitive, but I considered neither to be racist. On most issues, I liked their direct and plain-spoken approach, and thought they offered a clearer, bolder direction for a timid and rudderless post-Reagan party.

Charges of antisemitism and racism have long followed Buchanan. In a fairly famous essay when Buchanan entered the 1992 presidential campaign, fellow conservative William F. Buckley Jr. revisited Buchanan’s commentary that criticized by name four high-profile Jewish Americans for being in Israel’s “amen corner.” Buckley concluded, “I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said ... amounted to anti-Semitism.”

On race, Buchanan routinely warned, as in a 2012 column, about immigration policies threatening the GOP’s White base, leading to “the importation of a new electorate that may provide the decisive votes to send the party to the ash heap of history.”

And yet, in a 1990 profile in The Post, New Republic writer Fred Barnes — a frequent Buchanan TV co-panelist — concluded that while Buchanan’s positions on Israel might suggest antisemitism, “If your definition is someone who is personally bigoted against Jews, doesn’t want them in the country club, I don’t think Pat is that.”

When Buchanan was fired in 2012 from MSNBC after penning a book that was criticized as racist and antisemitic, among other offenses, “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski issued a joint statement opposing his dismissal. While emphasizing that they disagreed with the book’s contents, they said, “Everyone at ‘Morning Joe’ considers Pat Buchanan to be a friend and a member of the family.” Buchanan called his firing “an undeniable victory for the blacklisters.”

Is Buchanan a racist or otherwise bigoted? Is Trump? Are most Republicans racists, as some suggest? The difficulty lies in how Americans individually define the term, a distinction that helps explain why those who judge Buchanan through personal experience generally absolve him of racism, while those who know him primarily through his columns and TV appearances — which will serve as his legacy — often disagree.

Many — especially those of us on the right, I think — consider racism a matter of the heart. We chafe at being called racists when we feel no antagonism toward anyone based on race. By contrast, those on the left, generally speaking, see racism reflected in policies that oppress minorities to preserve a “White-centric” structure. They insist that people who support such policies are patently racist. Fair or not, the latter definition is winning, and ignoring that reality is politically perilous.

Many have noted how Trump channeled Buchanan’s views on border security, foreign policy, antipathy toward the news media and other topics. Those issues resonate with millions of voters and can succeed in the hands of the right candidate. But the GOP needs to expand its reach. Minority voters are guardedly moving toward Republicans, but dramatically reshaping the party’s message on race is crucial to achieving a meaningful shift.

Personally rejecting racist feelings is not enough. Demonstrating a commitment to addressing institutional racism — not just verbally, but by supporting legislation on equity and inclusion — is imperative to the future success of the Republican Party. To be sure, more progress has been made toward racial equality than many on the left concede. But Republicans must admit that disparities are real and there’s more work to do.

Buchanan, 84, belongs in the pantheon of influential conservative thinkers with Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and the still vigorous George F. Will. Those voices have often diverged on foreign policy, trade, the culture wars and other areas. Buchanan’s conservative populism is preeminent in today’s GOP and, in most policy areas, his vision will long guide the party.

But on race, Republicans must diverge from the Buchanan-Trump playbook, acknowledge racial inequality and embrace effective remedies. It would be both politically advantageous and the right thing to do.

Many — especially those of us on the right, I think — consider racism a matter of the heart. We chafe at being called racists when we feel no antagonism toward anyone based on race. By contrast, those on the left, generally speaking, see racism reflected in policies that oppress minorities to preserve a “White-centric” structure.