Last week, MSNBC fired Pat Buchanan following a four-month suspension. The proximate cause of his dismissal was the publishing of his latest book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? That tome, which included chapters like “The End of White America” and “The Death of Christian America,” crystallized the central themes of Buchanan’s four-decade oeuvre as a political commentator, namely, lamentation over the fact that America is becoming less white and less Christian.
“The ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC,” network president Phil Griffin said last October. And indeed, the ideas espoused by the former Richard Nixon speechwriter and two-time independent presidential candidate—which, at their most extreme, have drifted into nostalgia and outright support for fascism—have no place at an ostensibly mainstream television network, never mind one which recently adopted the slogan “Lean Forward.” In a blog post for The American Conservative, the paleo-conservative magazine he helped found in 2002, Buchanan blamed his firing on an array of American minority groups—racial, religious, and sexual—the very people he has long demonized in his writing.
The best that can be said about Buchanan is that he was consistent in his extremism; he never wavered in his belief that America’s racial stock was being diluted by non-whites, that gays were “immoral,” or that Jews were exercising a pernicious grip on American politics. Nor did he ever try to obfuscate these views. Which is why the real scandal here is not that Pat Buchanan wrote a book replete with racist, anti-Semitic drivel. What else would he write? The scandal is that a major cable news channel—indeed, the go-to source of news and information for progressives—ever hired him in the first place.
Buchanan claims that it was “an incessant clamor from the left” which led to his firing from MSNBC. While it’s true that the website which led the charge against Buchanan—colorofchange.com—is on the left, it is only recently that any appreciable effort was made by liberals to question Buchanan’s place at the network. That’s because the very same “left” which Buchanan decries today as unwilling to hear his voice was more than happy to lap up his commentary in one crucial realm: foreign policy.
While Buchanan was a hardened Cold Warrior willing to support any Third-world leader, no matter how repugnant, claiming anti-communist bona fides, he reverted to isolationism immediately after the twilight struggle came to an end. This predilection manifested itself immediately with the first international conflict to emerge after the break-up of the Soviet Union: the Gulf War. But Buchanan didn’t merely oppose the American-led effort to repel Saddam Hussein’s absorption of Kuwait; he implied that those who supported the war were doing so at the behest of a foreign power.
“There are only two groups that are beating the drums … for war in the Middle East,” Buchanan said at the time on the McLaughlin Group, “the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.” Buchanan was playing on the trope—deployed by anti-Semites around the world from the Crusaders to Mel Gibson—that Jews are the cause of the world’s problems. Lest there be any doubt about to whom he was referring, days later he wrote a column naming four people from that “amen corner,” then-New York Times columnist A.M. Rosenthal; former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle; columnist Charles Krauthammer; and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. All, needless to say, Jews. And then, in case the point still wasn’t clear, he followed up with a column specifying just who would be doing the fighting and dying in the amen corner’s war: “Kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown.” Buchanan was unfazed by the outcry. “I don’t retract a single word,” he told Time. “The reaction was simply hysterical and is localized to New York.” Not Washington or Los Angeles or Peoria. New York.
- 1
- 2
Typical liberal, neocon drivel. Kirchick takes quotes out of context and makes ad-hominem attacks against Pat Buchanan, a great American patriot and leader. I stand, proudly, with Pat Buchanan and against those spineless and sneaky name-callers.
#1 Posted by Al, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 02:55 PM
Phil the vulture griffin of MSNBC and weird James Kirckick lined up against the likes of Ron Paul's integrity and Patrick Buchanan's encyclopedia brain. Boy! I'd like to see that debate! But alas! Snipers like Kirchick and Griffen are too cowardly and recognize their own fragile mental facilities.
#2 Posted by Bob D, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 03:10 PM
You appear to be under the impression that anti-Semites like Buchanan should be unwelcome at MSNBC because of the “progressive” nature of the network, its anchors and its audience but this debate speaks to the heart of what progressivism is all about : being a good progressive means never having to say you are sorry.
Al Sharpton has been a fixture on MSNBC for quite some time now despite his incitement of a mob at Freddy’s Fashion mart back in 1991 where he vowed to drive those nasty white Jewish interlopers out of Harlem and during one of his protests outside the store Roland J. Smith Jr, one of those inspired by Sharpton’s rhetoric, went on a killing spree inside the store taking the lives of himself and seven others. Or how about the good Rev’s eulogy at Gavin Cato’s funeral where he railed against Crown Heights diamond merchants and their nefarious ties to Tel Aviv Israel? I could certainly go on about Al Sharpton and several other MSNBC personalities but the point is that as a “good progressive” Sharpton doesn’t have to apologize for what he said and the way he acted and few will challenge him on it.
Presumably, if enough of the station’s viewers had a problem with Buchanan, they would have voiced their concerns long ago and the network would have done something about it. But Buchanan’s decade-long presence on MSNBC served two paradoxical purposes for the network’s liberal viewers. Buchanan was the perfect foil for a cable news outlet devoted to characterizing the American right as old, white, and out of touch. He reassured liberals of their own cosmopolitanism and tolerance.
Buchanan was welcomed with open arms because as a conservative his attacks on US foreign policy and Bush in particular gave a particular cache that progressives love: the turncoat. His anti-Semitism wasn’t seen as a flaw because when cloaked in “anit-zionism” its actually a feature for progressive types. But as Buchanan had a new target with the Obama administration that cache was no longer needed.
The recent controversy over the term “Israel-firster,” a noxious attempt to impute dual loyalties to American Jews, used by employees of the Center for American Progress and Media Matters, is the culmination of right-wing rhetoric finding a home on the mainstream left.
Right wing rhetoric “finding” a place on the mainstream left Bwahhaaahhaahaaa!!! That’s a good one!
August Bebel didn’t write that “anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools” 130 years ago because he was afraid that right wing rhetoric was finding its way into leftist circles he understood that his own political comrades were just as guilty of falling prey to the noxious stereotypes of Jew. In more modern times, you have to look no further then the demented ravings of OWS brain child Kalle Lasn wondering why we can’t draw attention to the large number of Jews in the neoconservative movement and then proceeding to put little stars by all their names on his master list of neoconservatives, to the more deranged writings of longtime Nation Magazine contributor Alexander Cockburn and Norman Finklestien.
#3 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 04:26 PM
Seems like the new Leftist McCarthyism and Leftist book-burning to me. I read the book. Didn't agree with much of it, but it made me think about things and challenged my thinking. And, that, I guess, for the author of this opinion-piece is Verboten?
#4 Posted by Rusty, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 05:01 PM
Anyone who disagrees with the Left is a fascist or anti Semitic. Why don't you evaluate the content of his book instead of quoting it out of context. His book presents statistics that point to a mathematical fait de complet. Is simply saying that white, Christian America is going to disappear an act of racism? It's a statement of a fact. If you're white and christian it's bad news, if you hate white Christians I guess it's good news. Buchanan is right, America is screwed and greedy Republicans and liberal dreamers like you are to blame.
#5 Posted by Bill Karleskind, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 06:27 PM
Next, Kirchck is going to call out Marty Peretz for his anti-Arab bigotry. Right? Any day now.
#6 Posted by nglaer, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 09:50 PM
OMG.
Are you kidding?
The left/liberal viewers did not lap up anything from Pat Buchanan, nor were voices on MSNBC all that happy about his being around (watch 4 minutes in, if you like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6fUKAZZ8aA).
Did you do a google search? Custom range it from 2006 to 2010 (to avoid the he got fired links) and tell me if the left lapped it up and was silent.
http://www.google.com/webhp?rls=ig#q=pat+buchanan+msnbc&hl=en&safe=off&rls=ig&prmd=imvns&sa=X&ei=7OpGT-7aI8jWiAK7wbnbDQ&ved=0CBAQpwUoBw&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A2006%2Ccd_max%3A2010&tbm=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c244306206549aee&biw=1217&bih=679
The guy was on the network because
a) he was a conservative and provided balance to the liberals. "Look, we have Joe Scarbrough and Pat Buchanan! We're not totally liberal!"
b) he was a Nixonland conservative. He was really good for making 'racy' conservative arguments which liberals tuned in to ogle at. MSNBC doesn't get that many conservative watchers and Bill O'Reilly isn't available to do the old man "White Christian Power Structure" quotes on their network, so Pat existed to play 'the heel', to borrow a pro-wrestling term, to get the crowd rooting for the liberal faces.
They had him on their network so liberals would shout at their screens to take him off.
But then he writes a screeds about 'emo-Hitler and the cruel rest of the world' and 'the coloring of the white man's America' and increasingly he becomes less of an attraction and more of a distraction.
Liberals are comfortable watching drama. They aren't comfortable watching racists and nazi-sympathizers. Pat was becoming a reason to turn the channel, not to shout at it.
So they took him off.
This anti-semitic audience angle you're pushing is crazy. There is a big difference between objecting to Zionism, as it relates to the occupied population in Israel and the cost of Israel's preferential treatment to America (about 2 billion in military aid per year since 1997 in monetary costs alone), and hatred for the jewish race.
The neo-cons weren't evil because they were jewish, they were evil because they advocated lying to the population to achieve a goal they couldn't get popular support for any other way.
And their goal was to use military might as a means to remake the world, particularly the Islamic side, in their own 'democratic' image. And to hell with international consensus or 'america hating' critics.
This resulted in us ignoring threats which were real so we could focus on threats which were useful. Neo-cons prefered populations thought less and reacted more. There's no secret rites of rabbis, chalices of babies blood, or global semitic banking conspiracies. The closest you get to anti-semitic language on the left to describe the neo-cons is Lawrence Wilkerson's 'cabal', which included Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice.
Yeah, try and use the google and find out what you are talking about before you pen another misinformed article, thanks.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 10:00 PM
OMG. You're from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies?
BWHAHAHA! All that neo-con stuff I wrote must have cut to the bone. Sorry about that. BWHAHAHAHAH!
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 10:24 PM
Dang. I need a towel to wipe all this drool from my monitor.
#9 Posted by Eddie Bennel, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 10:48 PM
This anti-semitic audience angle you're pushing is crazy. There is a big difference between objecting to Zionism, as it relates to the occupied population in Israel and the cost of Israel's preferential treatment to America (about 2 billion in military aid per year since 1997 in monetary costs alone), and hatred for the jewish race.
With the left there has always been the "good Jew" and the "bad Jew". The "good Jew" is progressive and votes democrat. The "bad Jew" may be just as progressive and democrat leaning as the "good Jew", but realizes there is a distinct moral difference in both deed and intent when it comes to the Arab Israeli conflict.
Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it’s been used cheaply. He’s the product of a series of actions. It’s cause and effect.” The second - “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, there is a greater focus on the Holocaust than on Russian suffering because of the Jewish domination of the media
- Oliver Stone
Large and extremely influential Jewish donor groups are the ones agitating for a U.S. war against Iran, and that is the case because those groups are devoted to promoting Israel’s interests - Glen Greenwald
I realized then he was not planning to become an 'assimilated American,' to use the old-fashioned terminology, but rather, his first loyalty would always be to Israel. Like most of our Israeli fifth columnists, Midge isn`t much interested in what the goyim were up to before Ellis Island - Gore Vidal commenting on the Podhoretzes in none other than the Nation magazine.
Intersting side note, when Nation editor Victor Navasky was lambasted over his decision to publish Vidal's essay by Christpher Hitchen, Navasky replied, “Well, Gore is Gore”.
Yes, he certainly is and a most respected elder statesman of the left.
Want more, because I can find hundreds.
#10 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 10:52 PM
Slick, learn something about religion other than Judaism. The "amen corner" refers to Christian evangelicals who believe that the Temple is going to be rebuilt or that Israel holds some key to future prophecy and that we must act to protect it. I was an adult back then and remember that statement. You were still in diapers.
#11 Posted by Woody, CJR on Thu 23 Feb 2012 at 11:26 PM
"With the left there has always been the "good Jew" and the "bad Jew". The "good Jew" is progressive and votes democrat. The "bad Jew" may be just as progressive and democrat leaning as the "good Jew", but realizes there is a distinct moral difference in both deed and intent when it comes to the Arab Israeli conflict."
Dude, it has nothing to do with JEW and everything to do with policy. Your simple minded beliefs may divide your politicians into GOOD JEW, BAD JEW but we try to evaluate our politicians on a variety of metrics.
Joe Biden is somewhat progressive and is really pro-Israel. I guess that might make him a 'bad jew' in your construction, except he's not jewish.
And somehow liberals helped make him vice president.
"Oliver Stone.."
Oh Good. We're going to cherry pick people's words and make them representative of all liberals who watch MSNBC.
You see, I wanted to do that to conservatives with Pat Robertson but I thought that would be unfair.
PS. Could you put sources with your hundreds of quotes? It would help with context, like in Greenwald's case where the quote is mangled.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 24 Feb 2012 at 12:03 AM
Next up: Al Sharpton ("If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house") and his Enablers.
#13 Posted by newspaperman, CJR on Mon 27 Feb 2012 at 04:10 PM
If Al Sharpton supports an attack on Iran, this guy will not have an unkind word to say against him.
He's not writing against anti-semitism, he's writing against non-interventionism. His other big target was Ron Paul.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html
What's this? The weekly standard?
He's not a lib, he's a keyboard bearing Rambo.
Kind of embarrassing stuff to put on CJR, if you ask me.
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 28 Feb 2012 at 06:37 PM