Patrick Buchanan and the Politics of Denial (article)

The year 2000 marks the third consecutive Presidential election in which Patrick Buchanan has run for President. In the 1996 election, he ran as a “populist,” confusing many political pundits who thought that his themes were typically those of liberal Democrats. If one is aware, however, of the influence that childhood experiences exert on political beliefs and behavior, and the power of denial, his political positions become manifestly clear and understandable.

First, one needs to identify the emotions that Buchanan uses and attempts to evoke in his supporters: anger, fear, and insecurity. These emotions are at the heart of his appeal. While some analysts suggest that his economic message has been liberal in nature, it depends on scapegoating and fear for its attraction. In his view of the world, affirmative action, illegal immigrants, and unfair competition from Japan are responsible for stealing

Page 61

jobs (from white Americans). Fear of outsiders, such as gays and blacks — these are essential parts of his message. Buchanan’s recent choice of a black conservative running mate named Ezola Foster may deflect some charges of racism, but it does not change his essential message.

Where do these emotions in Buchanan originate? Much is now known of his authoritarian upbringing. He grew up in Washington, DC, with a father who stressed toughness and violence. His father, “Pop” Buchanan, was proud of his Confederate Mississippi heritage, and was himself the son of an alcoholic, abusive father. He was given to angry outbursts and did not hesitate to use his belt on Pat and his brothers. Pop Buchanan also wanted his sons to be able to use their fists. If Buchanan or his brothers missed their required daily practice on the punching bag, their father would beat them. This training in violence had negative consequences in Buchanan’s adult life. In college, he lost his scholarship and was expelled from Georgetown University after he assaulted two police officers who had stopped him for speeding. As Buchanan reported, he kicked one of the officers where he “thought it might do some good” (C. Lane, “Daddy’s Boy,” New Republic, January 22, 1996, pp. 15-25).

It is also clear from Buchanan’s memoir, Right from the Beginning (1988), that the denial of emotion was a central element of his childhood: “To show emotion and feeling was considered an unmanly thing to do; we were to be stoic about pain. Take your punishment. Don’t let anyone see you cry” (p. 75). This childhood restriction of emotion shaped Buchanan’s adult attitudes. He writes, “Whenever I read in today’s press about some individual, especially some man, ‘revealing himself,’ (e.g., bleeding and bleating in print about his ‘feeling’ and ‘hurt’) I always feel a profound sense of embarrassment” (p. 75).

An additional story from his childhood, reported in a sympathetic article in the Charlotte Observer (“Running on Religion,” March 3, 1996, p. 1C), did not receive any national press attention, but it is most revealing. Buchanan’s father, a Roman Catholic who prided himself on being very religious, used to hold his children’s hands over a lighted match “to impress them with the pain of eternal damnation.” Very few people today would fail to identify the sum of Buchanan’s father’s actions as abusive. We would also argue that it is quite clear where Patrick Buchanan’s anger, his political opinions, and his political support originate.

Our research (with S.D. Conrad and F. Sala, “Childhood Punishment, Denial, and Political Attitudes,” Political Psychology, 1995, vol. 16, pp. 447-478, and The Politics of Denial, 1996) has empirically demonstrated that experiences of harsh punishment in childhood, particularly for males with no experience with psychotherapy, are significant predictors of individuals’ support in adulthood for punitive public policies ,such as the death penalty, the use of military force to protect U.S. interests, and opposition to abortion. Buchanan’s experiences and opinions reflect the process for which we have found empirical evidence: that negative emotions from childhood can be displaced onto punitive political attitudes in adulthood.

Our argument that Buchanan’s appeal results from punitive emotions rather than economic concerns (the issue that confused many political analysts in the 1996 election) is confirmed by Gallup poll results. A national poll in February, 1996, reported that 59 percent of Buchanan supporters believed “moral” problems were the most important issues, with only 38 percent seeing economic issues as most important. Buchanan supporters were dramatically different from both Bob Dole supporters (57 percent economic versus 39 percent moral) and Lamar Alexander supporters (54 percent economic versus 41 percent moral).

To the extent that political attitudes are based on unidentified and unresolved issues from childhood experiences, they make a poor basis for public policy. For example, Buchanan argued during one of the Republican primary debates in Iowa in 1996, without any evidence, that violence in the U.S. results from the killing of unborn (aborted) children. Political candidates who display such a high level of denial can exert a very destructive influence on U.S. political culture.

Page 62