The Axis of Drivel by Gene Callahan

David "I Coin 'the Axis of Evil' and My Wife Gets Me Canned for It" Frum has just "taken on" the antiwar right in an article called "Unpatriotic Conservatives." It is one of the most pathetic pieces of writing ever to appear in National Review, composed almost entirely of illogic and ad hominem attacks. Frum is so distraught at the thought that there is an antiwar right that the ability to form coherent sentences deserts him at times: "But here is what never could have been: Some of the leading figures in this antiwar movement call themselves 'conservatives.'"

Frum's first problem is one of labeling. The antiwar right is a broad coalition of people with divergent views. Within it are people who would call themselves conservatives, populists, paleoconservatives, libertarians, paleolibertarians, market anarchists, and probably more labels of which I haven't thought. But this is inconvenient for Frum: The bulk of his article will consist of trying to assign any view ever held by anyone on the antiwar right to everyone on the antiwar right. Therefore, he needs to treat it as a homogeneous group with a basically unified view. So, he lumps the entire antiwar right under the label "paleoconservative."

Is Robert Novak really a paleoconservative? Is the market anarchist, open-borders advocate Walter Block a paleoconservative? Are Reason Magazine writers Brian Doherty and Jesse Walker paleocons? Is the Cato Institute's Julian Sanchez? Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation? High Clearing's Jim Henley? The Independent Institute's Robert Higgs? Are the "New Age" writings of Butler Shaffer paleoconservative? I think Frum is trying to pull a fast one on us.

"But the antiwar conservatives… have made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements in this country and in Europe. They deny and excuse terror. They espouse a potentially self-fulfilling defeatism. They publicize wild conspiracy theories. And some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation's enemies."

Common cause: Frum lists several leftists to whom the antiwar right likes to link. No evidence is given that a single one of them is an Islamist or "anti-American" (rather than anti-American-foreign-policy). Doesn't National Review link to, and even publish, pro-war leftists like Christopher Hitchens? Of course they do. Everyone likes to bring in someone from the other side of the political spectrum with whom one agrees on a particular issue. First charge dismissed.

Terror denial: Here, Frum cites Robert Novak's disagreement with Condoleezza Rice about whether Hezbollah or al-Qaeda is the world's most dangerous terrorist organization. Frum is apoplectic that Novak did not mention two Hezbollah attacks on US personnel in Lebanon in claiming that Hezbollah focuses on Israel. Well, Hezbollah attacked US forces when it saw them as defending Israel's interests, so Novak's point stands. In any case, it wouldn't constitute "terror denial" even if he were wrong and Rice correct. Frum's charge is completely fatuous: Not a single person he names from the antiwar right, nor any other member of it that I know of, has ever denied that terrorists exist, and that they sometimes target the US. Second charge: rubbish.

Espousing defeatism: Frum goes after Novak once more, for claiming that bombing Afghanistan would not defeat al-Qaeda. But that is not "defeatism," that is a disagreement over tactics. Novak didn't recommend we offer bin Laden the presidency! And it's not at all clear that Novak was wrong: After all, bin Laden escaped and al-Qaeda is still in operation. In any case, the evidence presented has nothing to do with the charge. Dismissed.

Excuse-making: Here, Frum points to Pat Buchanan explaining why the US was targeted for attack on September 11^th. The notion that explaining terrorist acts is equivalent to excusing them is so stupid that it shouldn't require refutation. But since the neocons use it again and again, I suppose it does require it. I've already addressed this elsewhere, so I'll just explain again quickly: When an historian says that Hitler was moved to act against the Jews by his belief that they were responsible for Germany's defeat in World War I, he is explaining Hitler, not excusing him. Do you neocons get it yet? Charge dropped.

Conspiracy-theorizing: Frum simply describes two theories put forward by Justin Raimondo. He makes no effort to dispute either theory, despite the fact that Justin and others (such as that bastion of paleoconservatism, Fox News) have assembled a number of facts defending the theories. (I have no idea if the theories are right or not, as I haven't had the time to research them myself.) Merely adhering to a conspiracy theory is supposed to be enough to discredit someone.

Does Frum want to deny that conspiracies ever exist? Does he deny that the 9/11 attacks were the result of a conspiracy, on the part of al-Qaeda? In fact, the neocon case for attacking Iraq relies on a conspiracy theory, namely, the one that holds that Hussein has been conspiring and will continue to conspire with al-Qaeda. Does Frum mean to say that only Arabs have conspiracies, but Israelis never do?

Pointing out that a single person on the antiwar right holds some particular conspiracy theory gets Frum nowhere. The entire staff of National Review has been engaged in "conspiracy-theorizing" for months. They just like their own conspiracy theories better than Justin's. If Justin is nuts, Mr. Frum, refute his case. Otherwise: charge dismissed.

Yearning for defeat: Frum contends that Eric Margolis was "yearning for defeat" when he advised the Arab world on how to "prevent a war of aggression against Iraq." But Margolis was writing about how to prevent war, not how to beat the US in a war. I am sure he realizes that even a united Arab world could not prevent the US from taking over Iraq if it attacked. He was simply hoping to forestall the attack. So were most of the other people in the world. Once again, there is a complete mismatch between the charge and the evidence. Dropped.

Frum next delves into history. He attempts to explain away the entire antiwar right by attributing its rise to disgruntled people who couldn't get jobs they wanted due to neoconservative opposition. He then cites exactly two cases: Mel Bradford and Paul Gottfried. I know nothing about the circumstances of either of their claims. But if the claims turned out to be entirely baseless in each case, how would that be relevant to Frum's case? The antiwar right is putting forward a number of ideas about the nature of America and its proper role in the world. If two "paleos" were wrong about what happened to their careers, how would this have any bearing on "paleo" ideas? But actually engaging the ideas of the antiwar right is not something Frum plans on doing.

Finally, Frum delivers what he hopes will be the coup-de-grâce to the antiwar right: he charges it with racism and anti-Semitism, the prime bogeymen of our day and age. Now, it is no doubt true that some people on the antiwar right hold to theories that different races can be "sorted" based on intelligence as determined by their genes. As a person who puts his faith in the human spirit, I give little credence to such schemes. I believe our genes are like a car our parents bequeath to us, while how we drive it depends on our own efforts.

But in any case, so what? How is holding to a genetic theory of intelligence relevant to one's views on attacking Iraq? Didn't National Review itself defend The Bell Curve, a book that posits just such a theory, when it came out? Didn't the magazine (September 12, 1994) sympathetically review the work of Philippe Rushton, who also posits a genetic theory of intelligence? Didn't Ernest van den Haag, a regular contributor to National Review, support William Shockley's sterilization program for those with a low IQ? Doesn't John Derbyshire publish ideas similar to the ones Frum is shocked by, right in National Review Online? And hasn't the pro-war right been full of racist theories about Arabs? I bring this all up only to point out that one's views on racial issues are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Frum drags them into the discussion only to smear people with whom he is unable to argue intelligently.

Frum next turns to the "anti-Semitism" of the antiwar right: "Who was the first paleo to blame Israel for 9/11? It's a close call, but Robert Novak seems to have won the race. His column of September 13, 2001, written the very day after the terrorist attack, charged that 'the hatred toward the United States today by the terrorists is an extension of [their] hatred of Israel.'"

Again, Frum has confused – quite deliberately I would imagine – an explanation for a justification. Whether Novak is correct or not, he does not "blame" Israel. Clearly, the people who flew the planes are to blame for 9/11. Novak offers our support for Israel as an explanation for why those terrorists decided to attack. Does Frum deny the obvious fact that our support for Israel bothers many Arabs? (Of course, that doesn't decide the issue of whether that support is right or wrong.)

Frum continues: "Raimondo himself soon began work on a book that alleged that 9/11 was in the broadest sense an Israeli plot." Now Frum is just making things up. Justin's view is that Israel knew 9/11 was being plotted – by al-Qaeda – but let the plot proceed. True or not, that is very different from the view Frum ascribes to him.

Frum proceeds to his melodramatic conclusion. "And now it is time to be very frank about the paleos," he tells us. At least Frum admits he has been b-s-ing us up to this point!

He continues: "There is… a fringe attached to the conservative world that cannot overcome its despair and alienation. The resentments are too intense, the bitterness too unappeasable." Let me assure you, Mr. Frum, I ain't got no despair or alienation. My resentments aren't intense: my main one is that I mildly resent my doctor for telling me I shouldn't drink, due to a digestive ailment. And my bitterness is easily appeased: just buy me a beer, but be sure you don't tell my doctor.

I know that the neocons' day in the sun will be brief, like that of all empire builders. In the end, they will face the truth: "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." I neither rejoice in nor wish to hasten the inevitability of their fate. However, in the meantime, without hatred, without resentment, without bitterness, but merely because it is my duty, I will do what I can to control the damage that their rampaging egos will cause.

Frum closes by saying, "The paleoconservatives have chosen – and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them."

Well, now I am filled with despair! David Frum is turning his back on me? How will I ever go on?

March 19, 2003

Gene Callahan [send him mail], the author of Economics for Real People, is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a contributing columnist to LewRockwell.com.