PLAYING
THE GAME
The
neocons
want to stay as far away from the issues – foreign intervention,
globalism, immigration, the power of the lobbyists –
as they can. Instead, they prefer to make their antagonists
the issue. This is what happened to Pat Buchanan, when he
started to question the bipartisan internationalist consensus
during the Gulf War – the War Party unleashed such a
torrent
of vituperation that for a few weeks Buchanan, and not
the war, became the issue. They couldn't answer Buchanan's
arguments – to even acknowledge the issues he raises
would be a significant defeat. Instead, the War Party simply
ignored them, and called him a lot of names. Between Bill
Bennett, Chip
Berlet, Commentary,
and the New Republic, the Hate Buchanan Brigade have
constructed a case "proving" Pat is the reincarnated soul
of Francisco
Franco and the Rev.
Charles E. Coughlin all rolled
into one. They then quote each other in validating their
smears. In Bill Clinton's America, anyone to the right of
Bill Kristol is suspect, and could be smeared as a right-wing
"extremist" if not a walking hate crime at any time. The neocons
are expert at playing this sort of game, and for a novice
Goldberg ain't bad. He quickly glides past any substantive
issues: we are "oddballs" here at Antiwar.com, in Goldberg's
considered opinion, and certainly "cranks" for questioning
the propriety of his proposed African safari. He lets us know
that anything we have to say is certainly not worth debating,
"and
so I will make this very brief and stick to his personal silliness
(my columns on Africa can speak for themselves). Besides,
considering his animosity against the ideas of nearly every
prominent conservative in America, I'll simply bask in the
company."
A
LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND
It
depends on what you mean by "prominent." In my book, Bill
Kristol is a legend in his own mind, in the minds of the
tiny group of people who swear by the Weekly
Standard – and, most importantly, in the collective
mind of the liberal media, who, in their newfound interventionist
mode, have grown fond of his warlike brand of "national greatness"
faux-conservatism. Kristol
may command Murdoch's
millions, but men like Buchanan, Alan Keyes, and Congressman
Ron Paul – and my one of my own favorites, Tom "The Hammer"
DeLay – command the respect and allegiance of conservatives
outside the Beltway. I would much rather bask in their company
than in the company of John McCain, whose "manly nationalism"
thrilled
Goldberg because it reminded him of that other
blowhard, Teddy Roosevelt:
"Roosevelt
was an unapologetic and manly nationalist. He often spoke
of the morally uplifting power of war: 'No triumph of peace
is quite so great as the supreme triumphs of war.' The Roosevelt
Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine stated that America has not
only the right to keep foreign powers out of this hemisphere,
but the right to intervene in the internal affairs of other
nations to "prevent flagrant … wrongdoing or impotence." What
a fitting description, for this global age, of our adventure
in Kosovo. 'No national life is worth having if the nation
is not willing … to stake everything on the supreme arbitrament
of war.'"
A
SICKENING SYNDROME
This
sickening paean to the "uplifting power" of mass murder would
be grotesque in any era: in the age of nuclear weapons, terrorism,
and biological warfare it is downright grotesque. And what
about our little Kosovo "adventure"? Now there's an interesting
choice of words: think of it as an adventure, you know, something
fun. It wasn't a shameless act of bullying or an outright
act of conquest in which thousands of Yugoslavs lost their
lives and many others were maimed – it was, instead,
a lark. Here is someone who has never known the horror of
war, either as a combatant or a civilian, writing odes to
its "uplifting" power. Such a performance gives new meaning
to the term "laptop bombardier." In response to my previous
columns on this evolving controversy, I had several letters
from readers who suggested that if Goldberg's attitude is
prevalent among the "Gen X" types, then this makes a good
argument for the return of the draft – as a corrective
to the Laptop Bombardier Syndrome. While I could never endorse
conscription in any form, I must admit that my corespondents
have a point – that really would put a serious
crimp in juvenile warmongering, now wouldn't it?
OSMOSIS
Stick
to the personal – that is the modus operandi of
the Clintonized conservative movement. This is a crowd that
has been so fixated for so long on the evil face of this administration
that they have begun to resemble, by a kind of osmosis, their
hated antagonists. Without any real principles – Goldberg
jumped ship on Bush, and was swept off his feet during the
McCain-neocon love-fest – these career conservatives,
who are in it for the prestige, the power, and the money,
are sensitive to any challenge to their bonafides. This is
why, out of a three thousand-word column debunking Goldberg's
proposed African invasion, he zeroed in on only the most trivial
details:.
"He
suggests that perhaps
I have hang-ups with how I got my 'place at the conservative
table,' i.e. that I'm embarrassed about being my
mother's son and defending her honor and by extension Linda
Tripp's actions.. Well, if there is a single topic I've bared
my soul on more in this space I do not know what it is. I've
got nothing to apologize for, nor have I concealed anything,
save perhaps the full extent of my exhaustion with the topic."
ONE
FELL SWOOP
I
don't and didn't suggest that he has any hang-ups with
having gone from Lewinsky-ologist
to conservative foreign policy analyst in one fell swoop –
he, naturally, sees nothing wrong or even unusual in this.
From Linda Tripp
to Sierra Leone – in the dumbed-down world of Pop Conservatism,
it's all grist for the mill of the constantly chattering classes
One minute you're talking about what
Linda heard from Monica about what happened under the
desk in the Oval Office, and the next thing you know you're
pontificating at National Review Online about the pressing
need to launch a military operation that would rival any previous
one undertaken by the US. In one paragraph you're citing the
authority of the Pope for your grand interventions, and in
the next you're discussing the sex life of Justin Raimondo.
Yes, I somewhat reluctantly have to report that the Goldbergian
obsession with the, uh, personal lives of perceived enemies
has turned its Medusa gaze, for a moment, on me. Yikes!
After conceding that "the exposure [from l'affaire Lewinsky]
helped," and pleading "guilty as charged" – to what crime
I don't know – he writes:
"Still,
I find it amusing that Mr. Raimondo finds media catapults
so interesting, considering that a cursory Nexis search reveals
that he vaulted into what prominence he has due to the fact
that he was Pat Buchanan's chief – if not sole – gay cheerleader
in 1996. Now, that is a dog bites man story if I ever heard
one."
"GAYS"
ARE WIMPS
To
begin with, it isn't at all clear if I'm being berated by
a fellow homosexual who considers me a "gay" Benedict Arnold,
or a heterosexual conservative who considers me an unrepentant
sinner. Secondly, I must reject the "gay" label as completely
inaccurate and even insulting – I insist on the old-fashioned
Latin, homosexual, so much more direct and accurate.
It isn't for nothing that kids today use the word "gay" as
a synonym not for homosexuals but for wimps, regardless of
their sexuality. "Oh, that's so gay!" The word "gay"
denotes a political movement of which I am not a member, and
which I actively oppose – and the details of my private
life have nothing to do with it. As I put it in the March
2000 issue of The
American Enterprise – an issue of the magazine
to which Goldberg
also contributed
–
"It's
time to challenge the fiction that the 'gay rights' movement
speaks for all or even most gay people. It does not. Gay rights
legislation violates the principles of authentic liberalism,
and homosexuals should speak out against it – to distance
themselves from the excesses of a militantly destructive movement,
to help avert societal damage, and to right some grave wrongs.
Those wrongs are the political assault being waged on the
heterosexual family by the theoreticians of the gay rights
revolution; the endless ridicule of religion that suffuses
the gay press; and the limitless contempt for all tradition
and 'bourgeois values' that permeates the gay subculture.
…
"To
expect approval or official sanction for so personal a behavior
as sexuality is a sign of weak character. To unblushingly
ask (nay, demand) such approval in the form of some act of
government is an act of unparalleled bad taste. It is also
a confession of such a devastating lack of self-esteem, of
inner emptiness, that its public expression is hard to fathom.
Self-esteem is not a quality to be sought from others, nor
can it be legislated into existence."
DON'T
ASK, DON'T TELL
You
see, I'm a libertarian: I think the Boy Scouts should remain
a private organization, unregulated by the government, and
that everyone has the right to discriminate – that is,
to hire, fire, embrace or disdain anyone for any reason, including
sexual orientation. I wish Act-Up would fold up, and I kind
of like Dr. Laura – that is, I want to like Dr.
Laura on account of all the terribly sensitive would-be
censors who hate her. I also think that increasing US military
intervention abroad is the greatest danger to our liberties
at home, and the main obstacle to rolling back Big Government
– which is why I urged Buchanan to run in 1991, and why
I'm glad he took me up on it. We don't ask in the Buchanan
Brigades, and we don't tell – unless, of course, some
reporter asks. . . .
OUTED?
In
1996, I received a phone call from a local newspaper reporter
who asked if I was the Justin Raimondo connected with the
Buchanan campaign. I told him I had no official connection
to the campaign, that Buchanan was (and is) a friend who shared
my opposition to foreign intervention: I explained that he
had written the Introduction
to one of my books, and that I agreed with him on foreign
policy questions and, on the strength of this, supported his
candidacy, though not, I emphasized, in any official capacity.
The reporter then asked me: "Is it true that you're gay?"
I wasn't surprised at the question: I had written
on the subject: an early work, In Praise of Outlaws:
Rebuilding Gay Liberation (Students for a Libertarian
Society, 1979) dealt with the topic, and I had spoken on the
subject of homosexuality and the gay movement at a National
Review conference in the summer of 1993. I told the reporter
what I told CNN, AP, and Bill Maher and the gang: that Buchanan's
views on the morality or immorality of homosexual behavior
were completely irrelevant, and that I supported him on the
basis of his foreign policy views. President Buchanan wouldn't
go to war in the Persian Gulf, and we would be out of the
Balkans by the first month of his first term – and that
is good enough for me.
AFFAIRS
– FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC
Goldberg
the cyber-maven did a Lexis-Nexis search? How Old Media
can you get? It might behoove him to save National Review
the expense: Google
is not only free, but it also gives much better results. Lexis-Nexis
will tell you next to nothing about somebody unless they're
Elian Gonzalez or, better yet, Donato Dalrymple. Google would
have turned up not only my columns, but also discussions of
my book, Reclaiming
the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement,
as well as numerous articles in other publications, including
The Free
Market, Chronicles,
etc. But naturally such trivia does not interest the "investigative"
journalists of the Pop Conservative school: they are far more
interested in sexual affairs than foreign affairs.
GETTING
OUT THE KNIVES
As
if the sexual angle weren't enough, there's more – and
much worse. While I was wondering when I was going to be "outed"
again – the Anti-Buchanan Brigades, as we know, never
sleep – I didn't take the prospect too seriously. This
is, after all, the year 2000, and no one really cares, least
of all me. But there is, it turns out, a sinister underside
to Goldberg's frivolity. As he goes on for paragraphs about
how he hasn't lived on the Upper West Side for more than a
decade, he suddenly slips in the knife:
"Normally
it would be a trivial error, save for the fact that it seems
so central to his whole schtick. It seems clear he's got problems
with what used to be called rootless cosmopolitanism, but
that doesn't mean all of us live there."
CODE
WORD
Us?
And who, precisely, is Us? The reference to "rootless cosmopolitanism"
is unmistakable – the classic Nazi code word for Jews.
Clearly, Goldberg is accusing me of anti-Semitism: there is
no other way to interpret such a rhetorical flourish. What
is the evidence? Why, it seems I have attacked the entire
Upper West Side of Manhattan: "So zesty is his dislike for
the most famous Jewish neighborhood in America," writes Goldberg,
"that he assumes anyone who disagrees with him lives there
too." In reality, as any New Yorker – or ex-New Yorker
such as myself – knows, the Upper West Side is only slightly
more Jewish than any one of a number of other neighborhoods
on the isle of Manhattan. It would seem to me that Crown Heights
is far more famous for its Jewishness than the Upper
West Side; historically, the Bronx and Brooklyn were where
the Jewish immigrant community first settled in the New York
area. As Sarah Waxman puts it in her online
"History of the Upper West Side":
"The
Upper West Side has often been perceived as a heavily Jewish
neighborhood, but despite this reputation the influx of southern
blacks, Russians, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Haitians, and
Ukrainians in the forties and fifties, and Cubans, Dominicans,
and Puerto Ricans in the fifties and sixties has kept the
area diverse and demographically unpredictable."
METAPHORS
Rather
than a metaphor for Jewishness, the Upper West Side was a
metaphor, in my column, for intellectuals disconnected from
and disdainful of the conservative grassroots they pretend
to lead. The problem is not "rootless" cosmopolitanism, but
brainless cosmopolitanism. The average grassroots conservative
would no more go in for invading Africa – or the Balkans,
or the oil fields of the Caucasus – than they would vote
for John McCain (another enthusiasm of Goldberg's). Yet self-proclaimed
conservative "leaders" such as Bill Kristol embrace Mad John
McCain, all the while proclaiming the era of "national greatness"
through "benevolent global hegemony," and self-promoting opportunists
like Goldberg go along for the ride. And if you don't like
it, well then you're an anti-Semite – right?
NEOCON
VICTIMOLOGY
I
for one am sick unto death of the victimological whining of
a some Jewish neoconservatives, for whom every criticism of
their opinions, doctrines, and personal idiosyncrasies is
a manifestation of anti-Semitism. When blacks pull the same
number, they are invariably called on it by precisely those
people who scream "anti-Semitism!" at the drop of a hat. But
no one calls Goldberg, or Norman Podhoretz, or Bill Kristol,
or any other charter member of the Smear Brigade to order
when they assume a victimological stance. At the height of
the Gulf War debate, Buchanan was accused of anti-Semitism
on the basis of his naming four of the biggest war-hawks –
Kristol, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, and William Safire
– all of whom happened to be Jewish. But if this is "anti-Semitism,"
then the concept has been radically redefined to mean, not
a special animus toward Jews, but a refusal to apply a different
standard to them than one would to, say, Al Sharpton or Jesse
Jackson. Sharpton and Jackson see themselves not just as individuals
but as representatives of an entire race, and any critique
of their position is said to have racial overtones. In practice,
this amounts to an interdict prohibiting all criticism of
blacks except by members of their own race. A similar sort
of identity politics operates in some conservative circles,
as Buchanan found out, and the principle works like this:
to criticize one particular Goldberg is a hate crime
against all Goldbergs. Because of this kind of conservative
political correctness, Goldberg can get away with smearing
me as the moral equivalent of a Nazi in the pages of National
Review – on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
EVIL
NEVER SLEEPS.
Indeed,
the evidence is all to contrary. For it would be next to impossible
for any anti-Semite – that is, someone who holds that
Jews are evil, and/or advocates legal sanctions against them
– to count himself a libertarian, not least of all since
the three patron saints of the movement – Ludwig
von Mises, Ayn
Rand, and Murray
N. Rothbard
– were
all of them Jewish. While the tepidity of saying "some of
my best friends are Jewish" is not the best defense, in my
own particular case anti-Semitism would be especially inconvenient,
as Burt Blumert, the President of this website's sponsoring
organization, the Center
for Libertarian Studies, is Jewish – and so is our
Webmaster, Eric Garris. The irony of Goldberg's smear is that,
just the other day, on the phone with Blumert, I sighed when
he asked me what I thought about his
most recent article on LewRockwell.com, a disquisition
on how groups like the liberal Anti-Defamation League use
phony
charges of anti-Semitism to discredit anyone they don't
like. While saying that I agreed with the theme his piece,
and averring that he had done an estimable job of making his
point, I questioned whether it was "really necessary to go
into that topic." Why not let sleeping dogs lie? The problem
with that view, apparently, is that some dogs never
sleep.
THE
LAST REACTIONARY
We
know that all sorts of standards, both moral and journalistic,
have been lowered in the Clinton Era. But does this have to
apply to the conservative movement, and specifically the conservative
press as well? Sadly, the answer is yes. National
Review, a magazine that once gave a forum to such conservative
heroes as Frank
S. Meyer and Russell
Kirk is now the playground of the bottom-feeder Jonah
Goldberg, who
bills himself as "Generation X's answer to P. J. O'Rourke."
I'll let O'Rourke
defend his own honor, but clearly, if Goldberg is the answer
to anything, then one can only wonder – what was the
question? Well, I have a question for the editors of National
Review: are you guys going to publish a retraction? For
the demonstrably false charge of anti-Semitism is a potentially
deadly one: the career and standing of any writer can easily
be ruined by it, as Goldberg well realizes. In my case, a
libel suit is out of the question, since libertarians oppose
libel laws as an intolerable infringement on the right of
free speech: you obviously don't own your reputation, since
it is nothing more than a vague impression imprinted on other's
people's memories. My only recourse, then, is to appeal to
the editors' conscience, such as it is, and ask for equal
time, at the very least – short of an outright retraction
and a public apology. In the meantime, I'm going to go back
and look over some of the bound volumes of the old National
Review (the earliest ones, to be sure), and fondly recapture
the ambiance of a better time and a much better magazine
– but I guess that's what it means to be a reactionary
in the year 2000.
|
