The Anti-Buchanan Hysteria

by Burton S. Blumert

When Patrick J. Buchanan finally decides he's had enough of presidential campaigning, he will surely be primed for a career as a master of public relations.

Since the release of his new book, A Republic, Not An Empire, Buchanan has had more exposure on cable TV than Lanny Davis, Arianna Huffington and Alan Dershowitz put together. For Pat, every tv appearance was like walking through an oft-visited minefield, but he always emerged unscathed and one wag noted that Buchanan has no reverse gear.

Typical was an appearance on the Geraldo Rivera show. Pat and Dershowitz had equal time, separately, to present their case. Dershowitz, on first, predictably, spewed a stream of invective. The charges were familiar: Buchanan is an anti-Semite, a Hitler apologist, and a Holocaust denier. The always-venomous Dershowitz became especially agitated and shrill when he spoke of Buchanan’s book and WWII revisionism.

"Moderator" Rivera could hardly conceal his blackjack when it was Pat’s turn before the camera. The small group in my living room dug in awaiting Buchanan’s retaliation – it never came. Suppressing a smile, Pat expressed wonder at the professor’s apoplectic hate. He proceeded to control the balance of the show, answering those questions he chose to, deflecting the transparent barbs, making all his points, and only occasionally finding it necessary to defang Geraldo.

Even veteran Buchanan watchers, however, are surprised by the width and breadth of the present assault upon him. The cast of characters was much the same in 1990-91. Their hate campaign was ignited by Pat’s passionate opposition to U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf. They lobbied CNN to dump Pat. They also exerted pressure to get newspapers to drop his syndicated column. Pat fought back, and although he had few public figures as allies, he survived.

Another anti-Buchanan skirmish occurred a year later when Pat challenged an incumbent Republican president. A mythology evolved over Buchanan’s speech at the Republican convention in Houston. In addition to the usual charges, Pat was portrayed as a scowling and angry man. But he prevailed again, in 1996 scaring the hell out of the establishment by winning the New Hampshire primary. For a few days their worst nightmare was the possibility that Pat could beat Dole and win the presidency.

Now his charm and wit are grudgingly acknowledged. But they charge that he uses these skills to devious ends, seducing colleagues and concealing his anti-Semitism.

In 1990-91, the campaign against Buchanan was a coordinated effort by the ADL, and I am convinced that a similar orchestration exists today. All the usual suspects get regular press packets and memos, but they really aren't necessary. Each player knows the party line, and his obligation to advance it.

Aside from the usual villains – the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the TV networks – the hitmen now launch their missiles from such Internet sites as Salon and Slate.

Editorial piles on editorial, and feature columnists, including the alleged conservatives, vilify Pat. "He’s soft on Hitler," is the central theme, except for those who call him a second Hitler.

It isn’t important to actually read Pat’s book. You only have to read your instructions and repeat the lies.

In a huge op-ed in the Oct. 25 Wall Street Journal, Norman Podhoretz made what was supposed to be the definitive attack on Pat. Podhoretz, editor-at-large, of Commentary magazine, a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, and godfather of the neocon wing of the warfare-welfare party, makes the same tired old charges against Pat, adding the specious accusations drawn from Pat’s book (which he apparently did not read).

But Podhoretz’s piece is important because it provides a clue to the strategy Pat’s enemies will employ in the days ahead. First, however, I want to expose some of Podhoretz’s most glaring distortions:

To support his position that Pat is soft on Hitler, Podhoretz extracts a quote from an old column of Pat’s describing the "Fuhrer as an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War". Grudgingly, Podhoretz quotes Pat’s following statement that Hitler was also "a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide."

There you have it. The evidence that Pat is soft on Hitler. (Here, by the way, is more of the quote, from 1977: "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.")

Podhoretz’s hit piece then moves on to the case of John Demjanjuk. Pat almost single-handedly held that it was a case of mistaken identity, and that Demjanjuk was not "Ivan the Terrible" from the Treblinka death camp. Finally, the Israeli Supreme Court exonerated this working-class Catholic grandfather, and Pat was proven right in pursuing a noble cause.

But Podhoretz had a different view. He says, "But it turned out that if Mr. Demjanjuk had not been a guard at Treblinka, he had served in the same capacity at Sobibor, another death camp."

Sure he did, Poddy, but this smear couldn't be proven in court either.

Finally, Mr. Podhoretz cites John Muravchik, a contributor to Commentary magazine, and one of the pack-dogs constantly snipping at Buchanan. Muravchik wonders if "Buchanan was a dove on the Gulf Crisis just because of his animus against Israel."

Knowing Pat’s fervent dislike of foreign wars renders Muravchik’s musings ridiculous.

The bulk of Podhoretz’s piece is a rambling tirade accusing Buchanan of anti-Semitism. I will not use this space to refute him, but respectfully refer readers to "Pat Buchanan and the Menace of Anti-Anti-Semitism" by Murray N. Rothbard (Rothbard-Rockwell Report, Volume 1, No. 8, Dec. 1990).

Now, to the party line according to Norm: most Republican Party hacks recognize that Pat Buchanan on the Reform Party ticket spells almost certain doom for George W. Bush. That’s not the way Norm sees it. With some help from William Kristol they submit the following wisdom: "Mr. Buchanan’s defection may help Mr. Bush.... Without the Buchanan albatross around his neck, Mr. Bush will be protected against the Democratic accusation that he is a moderate fronting for the worst elements of the radical Right."

The word is out, and I predict they will be selling this mantra using the usual suspects as their pitchmen (the wholly owned Rush Limbaugh claimed this on his radio show on Oct. 26).

These neocons are smart. The ugly campaign they orchestrate against Pat simply reveals how much they fear him. But that is no excuse. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Pat Buchanan, but the scurrilous charges against him should not go unchallenged.

November 1, 1999

Burton S. Blumert is president of the Center for Libertarian Studies in Burlingame, CA.