WASHINGTON -- No one who knows Patrick Buchanan is surprised that he has decided to make a third try at the Republican presidential nomination. When he takes a notion to do something, he is not easily dissuaded.
But no one who understands politics imagines that the conservative TV commentator and columnist has any realistic chance of winning. He is too unyielding and extreme in his positions on too many issues.
There may appear to be sound reasons for Mr. Buchanan to run again. After all, in 1992 he captured an impressive share of the vote challenging an incumbent president, George Bush, in several primaries.
Four years ago, he won in New Hampshire, defeating not only then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, but also several other well-financed challengers, including Lamar Alexander and Steve Forbes. He also won in Louisiana, ambushing Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas. But Mr. Buchanan may have drawn the wrong lesson from those results in 1992 and 1996. Although he did get zealous support from many voters, those primary results spoke volumes about the political weakness of both Mr. Bush and Mr. Dole.
Whatever Mr. Buchanan's ultimate potential, there is a place for him in the Republican competition.
For one thing, Mr. Buchanan is directing his appeal, initially at least, at the minority of Americans who are not sharing in the economic boom of the past six or seven years. In his first week as an active candidate, he has appeared with steelworkers in Weirton, W.V., who have lost their jobs because of foreign competition, and factory workers in Louisiana whose jobs went abroad.
Most of these workers are probably Democrats and there probably aren't enough of them to make Mr. Buchanan a factor in GOP primaries. It should be noted, nonetheless, that there are many people in Iowa, home of the first precinct caucuses, who are suffering because of the collapse of pork prices.
Mr. Buchanan has never been dissuaded by the fact that so many of these people are Democrats. He recalls the success Ronald Reagan enjoyed in enlisting blue-collar working people. These so-called Reagan Democrats stuck with the Republicans through Mr. Bush's election in 1988.
Imagining yourself another Ronald Reagan may seem a little extravagant for Mr. Buchanan. But people who run for president always have healthy egos, so it would not be surprising if he has visions of replicating the success of his old boss in the White House.
Mr. Buchanan also can play an important part in the 2000 campaign in quite another way. He is a blunt-spoken man who holds his views strongly and sincerely. You may think he is living on another planet, but it is impossible to believe he is faking.
He offers a sharp contrast to the many candidates who obviously are tailoring their views to the situation. Why, for example, is Mr. Forbes suddenly so interested in the social and cultural issues he disdained four years ago? Why is Mr. Alexander attacking Texas Gov. George W. Bush as not conservative enough?
Mr. Buchanan also offers a sharp contrast in style. For many, the directness of his rhetoric is a refreshing change from mostly bland politicians.
However, the Buchanan candidacy is bad news for the GOP in one respect: Throughout the primary campaign, he is going to be there in one debate after another, spelling out the hard line on the issues and thus making it more difficult for the party to present a mainstream image to the electorate.
Republican leaders have not forgotten the inflammatory speech he delivered at the national convention in Houston in 1992. It was the reason he was not invited to speak at the 1996 convention in San Diego.
But Mr. Buchanan cannot be shut out of the contest for the Republican nomination. The GOP's best hope is that it is settled quickly, sending Mr. Buchanan back to commenting from the sidelines. As a candidate, he is too hot to handle.
Jack W. Germond and Jules Witcover write from the Washington Bureau.
Pub Date: 3/08/99