In reading this column, some might conclude that I favor blind loyalty. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My discussion of loyalty today focuses on the candidacy of Pat Buchanan for president of the United States. Let me say at the outset that I have known Buchanan for over 30 years. It was some three months after I left Richard Nixon's office in 1965 that Buchanan, then a newspaper reporter for the mid-west, took my place. Richard Nixon opened the door to national politics for Pat. My wish is that he would reflect on those early days with Nixon and come to his senses in terms of loyalty to the Republican Party.

Buchanan's challenge to George Bush, the incumbent president back in 1992, was one of the factors leading to the defeat of the president by Bill Clinton. Buchanan can take little pride in that conclusion.

Why does he do it? Some will say it is his deep belief in issues. Others will say it's his arrogance and self-righteous attitude. In reality, it is probably a little or a lot of both. Buchanan has strong convictions but has never had to manage anything. In the White House, he was a lone player, albeit, an important player. But, he did not ever have to supervise large numbers of people or even execute major decisions. Pat's personality causes him to be a fighter ¬ not a team member. Rather than working to change policies in the Bush administration, an effort requiring patience, Pat chose to strike out as a rebel. He forgot his roots.

The subject of Buchanan leads me to the broader question of loyalty in politics. And it is a double edged sword. Trying to change the direction of a party can take a great deal of time. That can be frustrating with many would-be reformers losing patience and dropping out of the process. Some looking for change follow the approach of Pat Buchanan. When your views are quieted or shunted aside, it is time to pick up the marbles and go somewhere else. For that reason, most rebels or bomb-throwers do not last in politics. Look at Ross Perot as a current best example.

It is my hope that Pat Buchanan will put aside his personal ambitions and reach out for some degree of loyalty. If not, he could well become the most important asset for Al Gore or Bill Bradley. And if having a voice on issues is really that important to Buchanan, he would have a greater impact going back on CNN's Cross Fire than as a defeated presidential candidate ¬ unless his intent is to dump on another Bush for President campaign. The next few weeks should spell it out.