blargblog

Buchanan Revisited

In my previous post, I entertained the possibility that, under extreme circumstances and for only a brief time, I would consider joining Pat Buchanan's army against alien occupiers. That's outer space aliens. Who invade the U.S. and take it over. Tentacles, intergalactic slave-traders, that sort of thing. Like I said, extreme circumstances.

Upon further consideration, however, I ought to clarify this position; I want to distance myself from what I see as an alarming trend among my fellow leftoids. Since Buchanan began publishing The American Conservative a year ago, he has drawn favorable attention from liberal and left critics of the war who find a certain "left-right alliance" sympathy in Buchanan's consistent and angry denunciations of the Bush administration and the invasion in Iraq. When Buchanan denounces BushAdmin intentions as "imperialist" and cites oil as the main reason for the invasion, he kinda sounds like us. My memory is long enough to remember noting the similarity between Buchanan's rhetoric and that of my comrades during the first Gulf War. It came as a pleasant shock then. "Wow, even this raging conservative sees how awful this war is!"

The more recent embrace by the left for Buchanan's criticism of the Iraq war follows a similar (il)logic: If even so hard a right figure as Pat Buchanan finds this war to be wrong, then we on the left must be, er, right...correct, yes, correct (!) in our analysis. When Air America debuted last week, talk-show host Randi Rhodes (after pissing off Ralph Nader) introduced her interview with Buchanan by pointing out that, though she is "180 degrees" opposed to him on most things, she's "100%" in agreement with him on this one.

Really? That much? Let's consult Buchanan's positions, shall we? I think a fair example is Buchanan's March, 2003 cover article, Whose War?, sporting the provocative tagline, "A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest." I, too, am in "100%" agreement with this statement. After all, what lefty doesn't like a little neocon-bashing? In this regard, Buchanan has become for the Left what Christopher Hitchens has become for the Right, a curmudgeon in the other camp whose willing to disown certain factions on his side to the delight of the other camp. Interestingly, Iraq is the main dividing line for both columnists.

But back to Buchanan. He begins his article by quoting a lengthy list of neocon pundits who charge Buchanan with anti-semitism, which they claim underlies his contention that the invasion of Iraq serves Israel's interests more than America's. Anti-semitism rears its ugly head even in the use of the term, "neocon." Buchanan rejoins:

Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.

I have sympathy for Buchanan here, too. Anyone who has ever criticized Israeli foreign policy and America's political support of it inevitably faces the charge of anti-semitism. It's frustrating. It's a real pain-in-the-ass. And it's a cynical dodge. Of course there are anti-semitic critics of Israel on the left and the right—and they have a nasty habit of coopting legitimate criticisms by those of us "semitic-friendly" folk, thus making our jobs harder. And what job is that? Opposing: Likudist expansionist policies, the extremist paramilitaries formed by Israeli settlers to attack innocent Palestinians, that stupid wall; supporting: a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, establishing a self-sufficient Palestinian democratic state, protecting Israel from hostile arab nations.

To these ends, Pat Buchanan is a hindrance, not a help. Sure, he is smart enough, careful enough and articulate enough to advance legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy and the Israeli-American relationship. But it doesn't matter—because he is an anti-semite! Take another look at his argument against war in Iraq:

We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.

"Cabal"? Sorry, the rest of that paragraph dissolves after that word. A "cabal" he finds "colluding with Israel"—after that, who's listening?

Ah, but an ill-choice of words shouldn't condemn the argument, one might say. After all, the BushAdmin has alienated the rest of the world with its "arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity," threatening our security and interests. But "cabal" is a telling slip. Buchanan's views on race and the Holocaust brim with cranky dismissiveness, insensitivity, apologia for the oppressor class and, as regards the Holocaust itself, outright denial. As the folks at realchange.com record in his "skeleton closet", "there is Buchanan's defense of Nazis, his praise for Hitler, and his Holocaust revisionism." (Well-worth the read, by the way.)

With a friend like this...? When Rhodes and other liberals treat Buchanan with kid gloves to elicit the thrills of his anti-neocon ragings or his Bush-bashing, they open themselves up to being tarnished with the "guilt by association" brush. It's not fair, but political discourse in this country long ago abandoned fairness. Left-right alliances against the war and the Bush doctrine are possible among principled liberals and principled conservatives. But affiliations with Buchanan invite the sort of conflations of left-right anti-semitism we find in such hackwork by conservo-pundit Ben Shapiro:

Buchanan, not the neocons, is the useful idiot of the liberal establishment. He and others like him (notables include [Taki] Theodoracopulos) are used as straw men by the left. They make it much easier to characterize conservatives as racist and isolationist old white men. If conservatives wish to reach out to new constituencies, they must jettison the Buchananites.

Buchanan's brand of "conservatism" is closer now to the far left than it is to the mainstream right, as shown by socialist and black nationalist Lenora Fulani's ardent support for his Reform Party campaign in 2000. Buchanan's wisdom and patriotism must be questioned when the former co-chair of his 2000 campaign is such an enemy of America.

Why should we on the left, "far" or otherwise, care what a yutz like Shapiro thinks? Because we have a legitimate argument to make. We can't afford the distractions posed by allying ourselves with raving, albeit high-functioning lunatics like Pat Buchanan. So, yes, "jettison" the shmuck.

Posted by kevinmoore at April 8, 2004 08:37 AM | TrackBack