The Black Republican

The American Conservative is a magazine from conservatism's dark side. It peddles crackpot theories, nativism, and bigotry on a regular basis. But occasionally its founder and editor, Pat Buchanan, makes a modicum of sense.

On the dust jacket of his book, Richard Perle appends a Washington Post depiction of himself as the "intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy."

The guru’s reputation, however, does not survive a reading. Indeed, on putting down Perle’s new book the thought recurs: the neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality.

An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror opens on a note of hysteria. In the War on Terror, writes Perle, "There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust." "What is new since 9/11 is the chilling realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained" now menaces "our survival as a nation."

But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11? Are we really in imminent peril of a holocaust like that visited upon the Jews of Poland?

"[A] radical strain within Islam," says Perle, "... seeks to overthrow our civilization and remake the nations of the West into Islamic societies, imposing on the whole world its religion and laws."

Well, yes. Militant Islam has preached that since the 7th century. But what are the odds the Boys of Tora Bora are going to "overthrow our civilization" and coerce us all to start praying to Mecca five times a day?

As much a supporter of the war as I am, I'm hard-pressed not to agree that Pearle goes a bit over the top with his rhetoric. In fact, that kind of description can be repeated throughout Buchanan's piece. Through artful use of quotes and a heavy dollop of sarcasm, he makes a moderately persuasive case. Unfortunately for him, so many of his past comments have crossed the line into paranoia and racism, it's hard to tell where the sarcasm ends. And as many times as he says this isn't a screed against Jews, why do I finish reading it thinking it is?

I've tested my ideological leanings a hundred times, and I'm neither "paleo" nor "neo". Neoconservatism is not the cure-all it suggests itself to be, and buys into way too many of liberal claptrap that got us where we are. But I can't help but think most neoconservatives don't necessarily buy into that either, that theirs is a long-term strategy, and they are just using rhetoric that will permit the survival of conservative ideals.

Perhaps this is what disturbs the paleos like Mr. Buchanan so much. Because this attitude of long-term "survival" sounds like the very strategy that Jews have used to maintain their culture amid thousands of years of oppression by religious bigots bent on their distruction. Inspired by the confluence of a Jewish-like attitude coming from a political movement with several prominent Jews, the paranoid and prejudiced can jump to some very natural conclusions. Yet it is equally true that while this strategy has permitted the continued existance of the Jews, it most certainly didn't allow it much chance to grow and prosper. And conservatives like Mr. Buchanan don't want simple "survival" - they want their ideas to thrive and their influence to increase.

Only a balance of political offense and defense will permit conservatism to gain sway with the American electorate, and this same ying-and-yang must be played out in the diplomatic circles for the survival of the American Ideal. As much as I disagree with so much of what President Bush does in this regard domestically, I can't help but trust that his is a long-term strategy that will ensure victory, not just survival - over both our foreign and our domestic enemies.