Patrick Buchanan’s has been sealed in the race for the Republican Party candidacy. It is a good time for pro-life people to stop and consider just what his experience means for the pro-life movement.

The height of Buchanan hysteria occurred the night that he won the New Hampshire primary. In the first big test among presidential contenders, Buchanan emerged as the leader. The reaction was instantaneous. The press was filled with stories that the Republican party leadership was united in their commitment to ensure that Buchanan did not take the nomination.

Well dumb old me, I thought the primary race was intended to choose the Republican Party leadership. Turns out that regardless of who the Republican membership may vote for, the party has its own leadership. These leaders apparently determine who may win the supposedly democratic race for the nomination.

Ah, the party leaders, whoever those cats may be, I can picture now smoking cigars—though most assuredly not the Havana variety. They were in nothing less than a panic at the prospect of a Buchanan nomination. Word came down that the leaders “would not tolerate” a Buchanan victory.

Why this fierce opposition? Certainly Buchanan was outspokenly pro-life and he made lots of enemies by being so.

It would be nice to think that abortion is such a hot issue among Americans that political career live and die by the issue. But it just ain’t so.

Buchanan created the strong opposition that he did among the party leadership because of his stand on what counts to them—economics. Buchanan called for nothing less than a revision of the economic order to the United States. He demanded measures that would stop large corporations from laying off thousands of workers at the same time as they make billion dollar profits. Even more radically, he called for an end to free trade, especially with low wage countries such as Mexico.

These stands made Buchanan public enemy number one among the Republican establishment. The party leadership is fundamentally tied to the economic order which allows the holders of capital, the corporate and investment sectors, to dictate to the countries around the world what their economic policies must be. Buchanan wanted to turn this upside down so that citizens of the United States would be able to tell corporations and investors how they should operate.

The question which then emerges is: can pro-life people justify supporting the Republican Party? The price of admission to the party is support for a vicious economic order in which those who control capital gain ever richer returns while poverty grows. Add to this the experience of the last sixteen years. The Republican Party repeatedly proclaims itself pro-life, but when in power it’s leaders do nothing significant to stop abortion on demand. I think the answer is clear.

This month, as a one-time only special, I’m willing to admit I could be wrong! Perhaps the Republican Party leadership, found Buchanan unacceptable not because of economic agenda but because of his pro-life stand. But then the indictment of the Republican Party becomes even stronger.

One thing was certainly clear about Buchanan: make that boy President and he would actually do something about abortion! If that is what made Buchanan unacceptable to the Republican party, then the Republicans have themselves to be shamefully hypocritical.

For years the party platform has called for a constitutional amendment to protect every unborn child from abortion. If Buchanan was unacceptable because of his abortion views, then the is guilty of adopting pro-life people into supporting it. In other words, candidates can take a pro-life stand as long as they never do actually substantial to end abortion.

Either way you look at it, the Republican Party is not a fit home for pro-life people. The continued involvement and support of the party will not only fail to protect the unborn, it serves to bring the movement itself into disrepute. Isn’t it time to bring this to a halt?