What I suggest is that seeming contradictions in Buchanan's record exist. At the very least, Buchanan's oft-quoted statements reveal poor judgment. That alone is a significant strike against him.

To go further and argue that Buchanan is unquestionably an anti-Semite and a racist is problematic, however. As Michael E. Kinsley '72 pointed out about Buchanan recently, such labels carry such great moral weight that they should not be cheapened by arbitrary use--especially when clear proof of the label is lacking.

THE BUCHANAN CANDIDACY, in many ways, is the last gasp of a once-proud movement. Buchanan, by most definitions, represents what political observers call paleoconservatism, a movement otherwise in remission for four decades. Protectionism and isolationism were the hallmarks of this Old Right--tenets that are rejected by most Americans today. This is the movement for which Pat Buchanan is today's standard bearer.

Unfortunately for Buchanan, paleocon-servatism was dispatched by the rank-and-file of the Republican party 40 years ago. In 1952, Sen. Robert A. Taft, "Mr. Republican," met defeat at the hands of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ike, of course, had spent the primary season in Europe as Supreme Allied Commander.

Discomfort with Taft's paleoconservatism, seen as discredited by the failure of high tariffs, the global implications of World War II and the formation of the Soviet Bloc, was strong enough to carry Ike to the nomination and eventual victory. While it is not true that this was the final defeat of paleoconservatives, Taft's failed candidacy was the closest such activists ever came to capturing the big prize in the postwar era.

While a superficial analysis could equate the Eisenhower "Eastern Establishment" coalition of 1952 to the Bush supporters of 1988/92, there is more to the story. Part of the Eisenhower coalition included a group that grew dissatisfied during the early 1960s, then openly revolted against anti-Vietnam sentiment and the Great Society.

Though this is an oversimplification, it was this movement of which Ronald Reagan became the champion and which carried Reagan to near-victory in 1976 and solid wins throughout the '80s. Bush retained enough of this constituency to win in '88 because he ran on the Right.

Now, however, it is this group that is disenchanted with the tax-raising, bigspending and rudderless administration it elected. Buchanan, of course, must capture this disgruntled group, these neoconservatives, if he hopes to score electoral victories against Bush. But he cannot for the simple fact that he is not one of them. Remember, Buchanan is a Old Right adherent.

Bush's apostasy separates him from this group as well. Still, Bush's incumbency, combined with the lack of a realistic alternative, will attract this support in the final analysis. Thus, while a hole for a conservative does exist, only a neoconservative, such as Housing Secretary Jack F. Kemp or former Education Secretary and Drug Czar William Bennett, could capitalize on the opportunity Bush's backsliding has created.

WHILE BUCHANAN cannot be expected to succeed electorally, this seeming failure must be qualified, for if success is measured by the triumph of ideas, rather than individuals, Buchanan will indeed win his battle with Bush. (Likewise, the real winner of the '92 election, at least as far as economic policy, will be Ronald Reagan.)

In 1972, conservative Republican Rep. John Ashbrook challenged Richard M. Nixon in the primaries. Ashbrook captured a measly 9.7 percent in New Hampshire, after which he dropped out of the race. But Ashbrook did not leave the race because of his poor showing--he left because Nixon agreed, explicitly or implicitly, to adopt the fundamental complaints Ashbrook had against the administration.

Buchanan will easily surpass Ashbrook's showing (the most recent Boston Globe polls give him approximately 29 percent). While no one should or could expect Bush to adopt a protectionist trade policy, Bush will be forced to the Right to recapture some of his lost support.

In the end, Buchanan will lose. By Super Tuesday at the latest, his candidacy will crash and burn. He will, however, succeed in pressuring the president back to the position from which he began and won the 1988 campaign--squarely on the (neocon-servative) Right.