GOP Litmus Test: Can the Party Stand Pat?

The candidates for Congress had finished their five-minute spiels. Now it was time for the audience to ask questions.

Steve Miller had one. The West Valley Republican Club had invited the 68-year-old insurance man from Woodland Hills to attend this candidate forum at the Platt Branch Library in West Hills. On the evening of the “Junior Tuesday” primaries, every seat was filled and a few people were left standing.

What I want to know, Miller told the candidates, is your opinion of two men.

One was Pat Buchanan.

The other wasn’t Bob Dole or Steve Forbes. It was Louis Farrakhan.

An excellent question, one that divided the candidates and this audience the way it has divided the entire Grand Old Party. Of course the candidates agreed that Farrakhan is despicable. What mattered was what they think of their old buddy Pat.

He used to be the party’s favorite firebrand. He still is to some, decidedly not to others.

Rich Sybert was the first to respond. Sybert, a business executive who lives in Calabasas, may qualify as the Establishment candidate, the odds-on choice to win the March 26 primary. The former director of Gov. Wilson’s Office of Planning and Research, Sybert was the Republican nominee in 1994 and nearly beat longtime incumbent Rep. Anthony Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills). The strength of Sybert’s challenge is thought to be one reason Beilenson decided against seeking reelection this time around.

Sybert credited Buchanan for raising important issues. But Buchanan’s solutions, Sybert declared, are wrong, and Republicans can’t allow Buchanan’s extremism to define the GOP.

The good news, Sybert declared, was that Republicans are in the process of rejecting Buchanan. Had the audience heard that Bob Dole won all eight primaries that day? Buchanan didn’t come close.

About half the audience, maybe more, applauded Sybert’s answer. Some of it was polite, some enthusiastic.

Next to answer was Stephen Brecht, an estate planner from Woodland Hills. He told the audience that he was “a victim” of both downsizing and affirmative action. He touted the fact that he had never worked in government. And he boasted that he is proudly, unapologetically a conservative--and, indeed, is a Pat Buchanan man.

Brecht told the crowd he was tired of Republicans settling for lesser-of-two-evils candidates like George Bush. Buchanan, at least, has the courage of his convictions--and, to Brecht, the right convictions, with nothing watered down.

Was he going to vote for Buchanan on March 26? Absolutely.

Brecht’s defense of Buchanan was applauded too--by different people, with no less enthusiasm. My mental applause-o-meter had this room split: Dole was victorious, but Buchanan had some delegates here too.

Then it was Paul Jhin’s turn. A small businessman and longtime Republican activist who lives in Malibu, Jhin is an immigrant whose first encounter with Americans was as an interpreter during the Korean War.

Unfortunately for Jhin, Sybert and Brecht had pretty well spelled out the differences. Jhin spoke of the need for the GOP to be a “big tent.”

*

There were other candidates for other offices, but Steve Miller had heard enough.

It wasn’t surprising to learn he is Jewish. Miller, who is active in the Anti-Defamation League, said nobody in America scares him more than Farrakhan and Buchanan.

Miller has long been aware of Buchanan’s dark side. Buchanan has been accused of anti-Semitic rhetoric for years; defenders would say he’s just politically incorrect. But now that Buchananism is splitting the party, more of his conservative brethren feel compelled to repudiate him. Consider this from George F. Will, in a recent Newsweek column titled “Conservatism Gets Soiled”:

Buchanan has some interesting supporters. Asked recently, with reference to a neo-Nazi newspaper’s raptures, “What have you done to generate such enthusiasm among the Nazis?” Buchanan replied: “I have done nothing.” Oh?

He repeatedly has expressed impatience with prosecutions of accused Nazi war criminals. When the United States apologized to France for having sheltered Klaus Barbie, the “butcher of Lyons,” Buchanan was contemptuous of “all this wallowing in the atrocities of a dead regime.” . . .

Regarding the use of diesel engine exhaust to asphyxiate Jews at the Treblinka concentration camp where 850,000 died, in 1990 Buchanan wrote: “Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody.” How did he know? “In 1988, 97 kids trapped . . . in a Washington, D.C. tunnel while two locomotives spewed diesel exhaust . . . emerged unharmed after 45 minutes.” The source of this anecdote? “Somebody sent it to me.” It had already appeared in a publication specializing in Holocaust denial.

Will goes on to point out that diesel exhaust is plenty lethal in small chambers crammed with people. And in that Washington tunnel, though both ends were open, some children were sickened. By saying diesel exhaust cannot kill, Will notes: “Buchanan abets the principal neo-Nazi obsession--Holocaust denial.”

There are other reasons Buchanan scares people, but this should be plenty. Little wonder that Steve Miller sees Buchanan as just a lighter shade of Farrakhan. Miller notes that, just as many liberals and African Americans are reluctant to repudiate Farrakhan, saying he raises some important issues, many conservatives and Republican Americans are reluctant to condemn Buchanan. After all, he raises important issues too.

So it’s good news indeed, Miller says, that Bob Dole is now doing so well. If Dole, almost 73, picks a good, youthful running mate, Miller thinks he might well beat Clinton.

And even if Dole loses, Miller says, he at least won’t take other Republicans down with him.

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to Harris at the Times Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth 91311. Please include a phone number.

Little wonder that Steve Miller sees Buchanan as just a lighter shade of Farrakhan.