-Caveat Lector-
>From AntiWar.CoM
{{<Begin>}}
Pat & The Pod
by George Szamuely
New York Press
11/2/99
"Is Patrick Buchanan an anti-Semite?" Thus the opening sentence of Norman
Podhoretz’s page-long screed in Oct. 25’s Wall Street Journal. The answer,
about 1000 words later, is no surprise. Yes, Buchanan has indeed "become an
anti-Semite."
One wonders why Podhoretz even bothered writing the article. That "Buchanan is
an anti-Semite" is by now a cliche. For this, we largely have Podhoretz to
thank. Back in January 1991, Commentary – the magazine Podhoretz edited for 35
years – published an article, "Patrick J. Buchanan and the Jews," by Joshua
Muravchik. It was here that for the first time a case was made against Buchanan
accusing him of "anti-Semitism." Though it seemed extraordinary that for more
than 25 years – until Muravchik came along, in fact – a man as outspoken as
Buchanan could have succeeded in concealing from the rest of the world his
rabid "anti-Semitism," in no time at all the Commentary insights became
conventional wisdom: Buchanan was an "anti-Semite."
The charge of "anti-Semitism" is an extremely serious one. Webster’s defines
"anti-Semitism" as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a
religious, ethnic, or racial group." Has Pat Buchanan demonstrated "hostility
toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group"?
His many Jewish friends say no. This cuts no ice with Podhoretz. He dismisses
the "some of his best friends [are] Jews" claims as the "traditional…apology"
for anti-Semites.
However, Podhoretz fails to name any anti-Semite whose best friends really were
Jews. One would have thought Buchanan’s Jewish friends are in the best position
to know whether his friendship is genuine or not.
This is how the anti-Buchanan method works. Surmise, suggestion and insinuation
take the place of facts. Where are the clear statements by Buchanan that are
readily identifiable as "anti-Semitic"? Where is guff about the Protocols of
the Elders of Zion, the Jewish World Conspiracy, rootless cosmopolitans? What
we get instead are snippets of sentences pulled from his voluminous writings
and innumerable tv appearances. Taken out of context, their meaning distorted,
they are then all mixed up together in the hope that the resulting stew will be
sufficiently toxic.
In his Journal article Podhoretz offered a number of examples of the method. I
will cite only two. Like many others before him, Podhoretz refers to a past
column in which Buchanan is supposed to have lavished praise on Hitler.
Buchanan describes Hitler as "an individual of great courage, a soldier’s
soldier in the Great War…[a] genius." However, what Buchanan really said in
this 1977 column was, "Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the
core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was
also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier…" etc. Significantly,
the word "genius" appears somewhat later and in a different context. Buchanan
says, "[Hitler’s] genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character
flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the
statesmen who stood in his path."
Buchanan wrote this column to attack the policy of "appeasement." Indeed,
throughout the column he sounds a lot like Podhoretz: "Men like Chamberlain and
Daladier needed a moral justification for their acts of weakness and betrayal…
Almost alone among European statesmen, Churchill saw that – under the guise of
restoring Germany to her rightful place among nations – Hitler was marching
along the road toward a New Order where Western civilization would not survive.
The vision lacking in the statesmen of ’37 appears lacking as well in the men
of ’77."
Now, one could say that Buchanan has changed his view of Chamberlain. However,
by no stretch of the imagination could the piece be described as "soft on
Hitler." Yet how many people will take the trouble to dig up a column from more
than 20 years ago and see for themselves what Buchanan actually said?
Podhoretz makes another familiar charge against Buchanan. Writing about the
Gulf War, he describes the time that Buchanan allegedly listed "four prominent
Jews who thought war might be necessary. Almost immediately…he counterpoised
them with ‘kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales and Leroy Brown,’
who would actually do the fighting if these Jews had their way." According to
Podhoretz, this "juxtaposition of the prominent Jewish figures who favored the
war with the non-Jewish ‘kids’ who would be sent to die in the Persian Gulf"
was a "traditional anti-Semitic canard."
"When it came to digging up anti-Semitic filth from the foul swamps where it
was buried," Podhoretz concludes, "Mr. Buchanan was deterred neither by facts
nor by the stench arising out of his exhumations." Them’s strong words! They
would have greater force if Buchanan had actually said what he is supposed to
have said.
In the first place, Buchanan never counterpoised "four prominent Jews" with
kids "who would actually do the fighting." Buchanan’s comments come from two
different columns. It is the editors of the British magazine The Economist that
he contrasts with the "kids." Here is what Buchanan actually said: "‘The
civilized world must win this fight,’ the editors [of The Economist] thunder.
But, if it comes to war, it will not be the ‘civilized world’ humping up that
bloody road to Baghdad; it will be American kids with names like McAllister,
Murphy, Gonzales and Leroy Brown." It is obvious from the context that Buchanan
is having a go at the Brits, not the Jews.
As for the other column, the one in which he upbraided A.M. Rosenthal, Charles
Krauthammer, Richard Perle and Henry Kissinger – the "four prominent Jews," to
use Podhoretz’s phraseology – for their enthusiasm for war on Iraq, nowhere did
Buchanan suggest that their advocacy had something to do with their being
Jewish. Podhoretz fails to mention, moreover, that one of the culprits Buchanan
listed was The Wall Street Journal.
Quoting approvingly from the 1991 Commentary article, Podhoretz then suggests
that Buchanan was a dove during the Gulf War only because of "his animus
against Israel." For the last 10 years, Buchanan has been a "dove" during every
single U.S. engagement abroad. Podhoretz knows this well. So how can he
continue to stand by this judgment?
How can he claim that Buchanan defended John Demjanjuk out of eagerness to
champion "the cause of almost anyone accused of participating actively in
Hitler’s genocidal campaign against the Jews"? Where is the evidence? Buchanan
was not defending the man’s alleged actions. He was defending him from the
charge that he was the Treblinka guard Ivan the Terrible – a stance that the
Israeli Supreme Court eventually vindicated.
Podhoretz alleges that Buchanan "lent his weight to some of the preposterous
claims of…those who believe either that the Holocaust never occurred or that
‘the Jews’ have wildly exaggerated the number of lives it claimed." But he is
unable to quote a single sentence by Buchanan that expresses any skepticism
about the Holocaust.
Our system of justice is based on the principle that the more serious the
charge, the higher should be the standard of proof. Yet people toss around
words like "anti-Semitic" and "racist" with cheerful abandon. Proffering
evidence is unnecessary. Every hack simply quotes every other hack. Besides,
once we know a man is "anti-Semitic," whatever he says or does will always
manifest his "anti-Semitism." The effect is to rule certain people and certain
positions out of serious consideration.
Worse, the poison and bitterness that such words carry increasingly ensure that
just about every issue is now off the table. The former editor of Commentary is
normally, and rightly, among the loudest to denounce the promiscuous deployment
of the "racist" barb. It is a shame that he is not as vigilant when it comes to
the toxic "anti-Semitic" slur.
{{<End>}}
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
