-Caveat Lector-
>From www.polyconomics.com
{{<Begin>}}
Memo on the Margin
October 26, 1999
Springtime for Hitler
Memo To: Pat Buchanan
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: You and Mel Brooks
Sorry to say this, Pat, but it doesn’t matter what you or anyone else says
about you in your defense: You are an anti-Semitic "Hitler lover," now that
Donald Trump says so, an indictment on Meet the Press immediately followed by
Norman Podhoretz declaring "case closed," in Monday’s WSJournal, "Buchanan and
Anti-Semitism." Anyone seen reading your book, A Republic, Not an Empire, will
now go on a "list," and God (Allah) only knows what will happen to them once
Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League gets finished sharpening his ax.
Norman Podhoretz will be safe, though, as it is clear from his condemnation of
your book that he did not read it. I understand that Norman, who was a grouchy
old man when he was in his teens, is really something else now that he is
pushing 80. He recently wrote several thousand words condemning Edmund Morris’s
biography of the Gipper, without ever seeing a copy. I guess it wouldn’t matter
anyway. John Judis of the New Republic, normally a good guy, reviewed your book
for the Sunday NYTimes Book Review earlier this month, and he saw in it what he
wanted to see in it. I was happy to see the Times run a letter defending Pat
last Sunday, especially since the fellow doing the defending was Benjamin
Schwarz of Santa Monica (who now surely goes on the "list").
October 24, 1999
New York Times Book Review
Letters
To the Editor:
In his review of Patrick J. Buchanan's book ''A Republic, Not an Empire'' (Oct.
3), John B. Judis implies that ''isolationism'' was a doctrine of the far right
and suggests that an isolationist position during World War II and anti-
Semitism were necessarily linked. But surely Judis wouldn't argue that such
progressives as Norman Thomas, John L. Lewis, Oswald Garrison Villard, Charles
Beard, Frank Lloyd Wright and Dwight Macdonald were ''right-wing cranks'' and
anti-Semites because they were isolationists.
Judis criticizes Buchanan for praising the America First committee ''without
acknowledging the anti-Semitism of its most famous spokesman, Charles
Lindbergh.'' True, Lindbergh was a prominent member of America First -- as were
the liberals Robert La Follette Jr., Robert Hutchins, Chester Bowles, Sinclair
Lewis, E. E. Cummings, John T. Flynn and Sidney Hertzberg. And yes, Lindbergh
did write some comments in his unpublished diaries that we would now consider
anti-Semitic. But Lindbergh's ''genteel'' anti-Semitism was unrelated to his
isolationism.
No less products of their era and class than was Lindbergh, a great many pro-
interventionists -- among them Eleanor Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson, George
Kennan and even Walter Lippmann -- also wrote anti-Semitic statements (which,
by the way, were far less genteel than Lindbergh's). Would Judis argue that in
praising the pro-interventionist position, an author must also acknowledge the
anti-Semitism of some of its major proponents?
Benjamin Schwarz
Santa Monica, Calif.
* * * * *
I also send along an exchange with a fellow named Lewis Fein, who comes into my
website TalkShop now and then, to take potshots at me and generally livens up
the discussion. He complains about my defense of your book, on this site,
October 19 and headlined his memo: "Springtime for Hitler."
Jude Wanniski's defense of Pat Buchanan's new book is both regrettably
predictable and predictably regrettable, for Buchanan perpetuates a brand of
revisionist history that, although technically correct, is almost always
stylistically wrong. Unlike many others, I have taken the time to read
Buchanan's book, and my opinion of his work has neither changed nor improved.
Buchanan still remains a relatively minor political figure, with a proclivity
toward romanticizing his past - especially the presumably structured
environment of 1950s segregationist Washington
(see his memoir "Right from the Beginning").
Buchanan's attack on hyphenated Americans, for example, is a well argued
statement that, like other populist claims, loses its appeal when juxtaposed
against the more ridiculous claims of its adherents. This is similar to Louis
Farrakhan's reasoned arguments against welfare and dependency, whereupon Mr.
Farrakhan or his surrogates suddenly - and deliberately - begins attacks
against Jewish citizens.
Buchanan eschews the marriage between morality and foreign policy, but he makes
certain demands - like Israel's removal from the Golan Heights and West Bank -
that can only be construed as selective moral judgments. Thus, Israel does not
deserve American assistance for two reasons: first, it upsets the normal
balance of power between the United States and its potential allies in the
Middle East; and second, Israel mistreats its Palestinian occupants. In effect,
Mr. Buchanan says, "It's not that Israel, or any other democratic ally, does
not need American foreign aid, it simply doesn't deserve it." How else to
explain Buchanan's passionate defense of accused Nazi war criminal John
Demjanjuk, while other wrongfully imprisoned convicts do not enjoy the power of
Buchanan's pen?
As for Buchanan's condemnation of Winston Churchill, I cannot think of a more
ridiculously argued chapter. Winston Churchill is the Man of the Century for
obvious reasons: he did not accept Adolf Hitler's word. Hitler was a rapacious
tyrant; he was not Bismark redux. Bismark consolidated German power, whereas
the Kaiser (and thereafter Hitler) led Germany into two world wars. That
Buchanan cannot understand the logic of Churchill's pleas for action is
disturbing.
Jule Herbert: I don't particularly want to carry a brief for Buchanan, but I
too have read the book and in the page and a half he devotes to Israel he does
not make the points Lewis says he does, and he does not come off as anti-
Israel. If one is going to advocate a noninterventionist foreign policy, one
must present a plan to disengage from our commitments to others. Having done
so, Buchanan arguments should be countered by pro-interventionist arguments not
name-calling. There is even less excuse for the name of this string,
"Springtime for Hitler."
Peter Signorelli: Oh for goodness sake, Lewis, the views regarding Israel you
say Buchanan espouses in his book happen to be views that are openly expressed
WITHIN Israel by sections of the Israeli population: Israeli withdrawal from
the Golan and West Bank. Are those self-hating Jews, Lewis, who advocate that
move? And how silly to attack Buchanan for "his passionate defense of accused
Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk...instead of other wrongfully imprisoned
convicts." The fact that ONLY Buchanan came to that man's defense, despite all
the venom and slander spewed against Pat, speaks to a strength in him that is
lacking in so many other champions of those who suffer injustice. To be so
upset by this, Lewis, suggests that the biases lie with you, not Buchanan.
Lewis Fein: Buchanan's defense of Demjanjuk is peculiar for a number of
reasons. First, Buchanan is admittedly tough on crime (who isn't?), and he
enthusiastically supports the death penalty. These are not controversial
positions; indeed, they are logical positions. Thus, it is fair to judge
Buchanan by his own moral calculus. By way of brief example, a mass murderer -
no, any murderer - would not necessarily elicit skepticism from Buchanan.
Buchanan would condemn the crime, to be sure, but he would most likely
simultaneously ignore the suspect's alibi. Buchanan is a columnist, not a
criminal defense attorney. He would do one of two things: a) demur any impulses
to write about the story, or b) he would vehemently condemn the criminal act,
thereby penning 750 words of condemnation. Instead, Buchanan rushed to
Demjanjuk's defense. (Full disclosure: I do not contest Demjanjuk's guilt, only
Buchanan's conscience.) This is especially strange, because Demjanjuk was a
villain direct from central casting. There was something inherently disturbing
about his very person. This is fundamentally different from arbitrarily
removing African-American citizens from select walks of life, as some law
enforcement officers are wont to do. The Israeli government methodically
researched their suspect; they did not construct a racist profile.
But Buchanan has always seemed less concerned about the crime than the accused
criminal. This is similar to disbelieving the word of rape victims, because
they "wanted it," or preventing the counter-factual testimony of black citizens
during Jim Crow. It is truly sad how far Buchanan has fallen.
Jude Wanniski: Pat Buchanan and I almost never defend people who are being
defended by others. It would be superfluous. We always wind up defending people
who nobody else will defend. Often it is because they will be accused of being
anti-Semitic. When you get on the blacklist of Abe Foxman, head of the Jewish
Inquisition at the Anti-Defamation League, anyone who defends you goes on the
same list. And Pat shows that it doesn't even matter if you defend a man
against charges of being a Nazi war criminal and the supreme court of Israel
agrees with you. Lewis Fein says that it is sufficient to defend such a man in
order to be anti-Semitic.
Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary, in [Monday's] WSJournal is given
almost the entire page to "prove" Buchanan is anti-Semitic. He ridicules
Buchanan's defense of Demjanjuk, even though Israel judged him innocent and it
was a case of mistaken identity, on the grounds that Demjanjuk certainly must
have worked at some other prison camp where he committed war crimes!! The
hatred of Podhoretz of anyone suspected of being German has its only parallel
in Hitler's hatred of Jews. It is very hard for a man in a lynch mob, infused
with hatred for the suspected villain, to realize he has become evil. It is
especially horrifying to see Podhoretz engulfed with hatred for Buchanan, when
he even admits they marched shoulder to should as friends and allies during the
Cold War -- and that Pat was a friend of Israel. It is not enough, says
Podhoretz, that Pat insists he is not anti-Semitic, or for his friends,
including Jewish friends, to insist he is not anti-Semitic. Podhoretz can TELL
that a demon has possessed Buchanan! The demon, I'm afraid, has possessed
Podhoretz... and Lewis Fein.
* * * * *
P.S. In beating you up, Podhoretz quoted a fraction of a quote from your days
writing editorials for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. Here is more of the quote:
"Those of us in childhood during the war years were introduced to Hitler only
as a caricature…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 in the Great War, a leader
steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could
awe even those who despised him. But Hitler’s success was not based on his
extraordinary gifts alone. His 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." Aug. 25, 1977
P.P.S. I thought your speech announcing your departure from the GOP to run for
the Reform Party nomination was not very good. You won’t get any further with
the politics of resentment in the Reform Party than you did in the GOP. But as
they say in Austin, Vaya con Dios, amigo.
{{<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
