The Unmaking of Conservatism

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030424.shtml ^

[Captiva]

"Their government"??

Is this guy here on a visa or something? Which government is his?

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Sobran is a good guy and good thinker, but this rant is too typical of too many "conservatives" who let the "good" be the enemy of the "great". Unfortunately, conservatives like George W. Bush and R. W. Reagan have to contend with troublesome things like Congress, controlled by the Dems (at least the House) during Reagan's time and equally divided for W.

And Conservatives like Sobran, I guess, are supportive of liberty and freedom for America but rather indifferent about helping to spread liberty to other countries. That may have been fine during the time of the Founders, but in the modern world, spreading liberty throughout the globe should be a priority for "Conservatives" of all stripes in this country (and not just the so-called "Neo-Cons).

[David Isaac]

How does a neo-conservative differ from a moderate Republican, seriously?

[William McKinley]

I can't go along with the idea he is a good guy and a good thinker, since he seems entirely too comfortable with Holocaust deniers and can't think clearly enough to realize what a crock they are peddling.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=sobran+ihr

[Continental Op]

they don't. they both believe that women should serve in the army in combat roles, "moderate guncontrol" (if Bush suggests it its a good thing), supporting the rhino candidate in a primary if they believe that the rhino has a better chance to beat the rat running for office against the republicans than the conservative. oh yeah they don't like Michael Savage

[Continental Op]

Free Speech: Shot Down in Beirut

Joseph Sobran

The Institute for Historical Review is the intellectual organ of Holocaust revisionism or, as its enemies call it, Holocaust "denial." It produces a scholarly bi-monthly magazine, The Journal of Historical Review, which deals not only with the Holocaust but with a range of other historical topics. It runs long and fascinating articles on such subjects as Lincoln's real views about race.

Charges that the IHR is anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi are belied by the Journal's calm and reasonable tone, in contrast to the shrillness and violence of its enemies. And I do mean enemies, not merely critics. A few years ago arsonists destroyed the IHR's offices and warehouse. Leading revisionists such as Robert Faurisson have been attacked in the streets and severely beaten by Jewish thugs. Jewish groups, especially Zionist organizations, are forever reviling the IHR and trying to interfere with its activities. They often succeed, and they have just scored another victory -- not only over the IHR, but over free speech itself.

The IHR holds conferences featuring speakers who challenge conventional liberal history. One favorite is the brilliant, controversial British historian David Irving. Other recent speakers include the historian John Toland, the former congressman Pete McCloskey, and the journalist John Sack. Sack, himself Jewish, wrote a semi-complimentary article on the IHR for Esquire, expressing his surprise that the revisionists were "affable, open-minded, intelligent, intellectual. Their eyes weren't fires of unapproachable certitude and their lips weren't lemon twists of astringent hate. Nazis and neo-Nazis they didn't seem to be. Nor did they seem anti-Semites." Sack also acknowledged that the revisionists have poked holes in the official Holocaust story and forced the accredited experts to discard some of the myths, though not, of course, the chief point of contention: whether Nazi Germany deliberately exterminated six million Jews. (Most revisionists think fewer than a million Jews perished of various causes -- chiefly disease -- during World War II.)

This year the IHR decided to co-sponsor a conference in Beirut. But just before it was to begin in late March, when all preparations had been made and the attendees had bought plane tickets and reserved hotel rooms, the Lebanese government suddenly banned the meeting. The Lebanese reportedly did this under American pressure, and the United States Government, it is not far-fetched to suspect, had in turn been pressured by the usual suspects: Jewish-Zionist organizations.

So the U.S. Government acted, underhandedly, to ban a meeting that would have been entirely legal and constitutionally protected in the U.S. Ah, the Land of the Free, spreading the blessings of liberty around the world!

But it isn't just our own government that is, as one Israeli journalist has put it, "in our hands." As Sack notes, Holocaust revisionism is now an imprisonable offense in (and beyond) most of what used to be called Christendom: "in Germany,... Holland, Belgium, France, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Poland, and Israel, where denying the Holocaust can get you five years, while denying God can get you just one." (Maybe they should inscribe "In the Holocaust we trust" on the shekel.) Irving has been fined $18,000 in Germany for arguing that an Auschwitz cyanide chamber was a mere replica. He was correct, but he had to pay anyway. (Irving is now denied access to many of the German wartime documents he himself discovered!)

The Holocaust controversy is so bitter that it can't even be called a debate. One side refuses to debate, denying that there is anything to debate, rather like the Shakespeare "experts" who insist that there is absolutely, positively no room for doubt that a modestly educated man could write Hamlet. But I will say this for the Shakespeare scholars with whom I've tangled: they've never tried to beat me up, throw me in jail, or ruin my livelihood.

But what are we to think of people who uphold their position with violence, repression, smears, ostracism, and intimidation, while professing to believe that there are no rational grounds for disagreeing with them? Do they -- can they -- really believe in their own position? If so, why not appeal to sweet reason, rather than fear? They behave as if they think that position is so fragile that doubts about it must be immediately squelched by any means, lest those doubts become a fiery contagion.

Deborah Lipstadt, the scourge of Holocaust revisionism who defeated Irving in a sensational libel suit in England last year, makes the extraordinary argument that as Holocaust survivors die off, there will be more and more doubts that the Holocaust ever occurred. Well, the last Civil War veteran was planted quite a while ago, but nobody doubts that the Civil War happened. Mrs. Lipstadt's notion that history depends on living witnesses is startlingly naive, especially considering how many Holocaust "witnesses" have been discredited. (Don't worry: no government will put you in prison for falsely claiming to have been a prisoner at Auschwitz, even though that might seem to sow doubts about the Holocaust.)

I've stayed aloof from the Holocaust controversy; I always tune out when people get into the fine points of how gas chambers are constructed. But I do know that telling the truth is hard work, because even speaking precisely takes a special mental effort. Reconstructing the past is even harder work. You need a long time to acquaint yourself with the evidence. Then you have to learn to evaluate it, sorting out the reliable, the central, the trivial, the misleading. Then you also have to learn to set aside the assumptions and prejudices you didn't realize were shaping and coloring your mind while you were gathering evidence in the first place. Finally you may wind up possessing a precious fragment of the truth, along with the rueful recognition of how much you still don't know. The whole process involves a lot more quiet reflection than shouting.

Freedom of speech means much more than legal protection, though that is a necessary condition. It ultimately means an atmosphere hospitable to calm reason.

Obviously, something disastrous happened to the Jews during World War II; even the revisionists don't deny that. But does the word "Holocaust" accurately sum up the Jewish misfortune? Maybe so; maybe the secular Jewish-Zionist thugs and pressure groups are essentially right. But that's a conclusion I'd want to reach as a free man, not because a different conclusion might result in my kneecaps being broken. And in this controversy, I know which side is appealing to my mind, and which is going for my kneecaps.

so anyone who questions the holacaust is an anti-semite?
The holacaust is similar to slavery in the U.S. it happend 145 years ago it isn't going to happen again. We should forget about. I'm not a holacaust denier or a holacaust enhancer.
I don't think Sobran is either.

P. McKinley was a dishonest rhino.

[Cincinatus]

How does a neo-conservative differ from a moderate Republican, seriously?

Seriously? Anti-communism. Neoconservatism emerged largely because of the leftward drift of the Democrat party in 1972, when the McGovernites took over. People like Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) were strong Cold Warriors and supported efforts to fight communism globally.

"Moderate" Republicans, for example Rockefeller, were always (and largely still are) accomodators and appeasers. They strongly supported the Nixonian-Kissengerian policy of Detente, while both old-line conservatives and the "neocons" still fought communism and desried to confront it tooth and nail.

Also, neocons do not share the faith in government social programs that "moderate" Republicans do, whose position on most government social engineering can be described as "Liberal Lite."

[William McKinley]

McKinley was a dishonest Rino

McKinley was a conservative before there were conservatives.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

You're right on that score -- I forgot about Sobran's looney writings on that subject.

[William McKinley]

One of the things that has to be understood is that a totally isolationist mindset was understandable in a world where we were isolated from most of the world by two oceans and the only mode of travel across them were slow moving ships.

It is a different world now. We can't ignore the rest of the world, because we are too in reach of the rest of the world.

[MEG33]

Piffle

[The Duke]

The article is right on target - unfortunately, however, it is written in a language that Americans can no longer
recognize.

[rdb3]

And the beat goes on. There's a "neo-con" under every bed in America. And those Jooooooos! Can't abide those Jooooooos and Israel, you know.

I swear, you people are insufferable. However, you do provide much needed comic relief. Watching reactionary, bitter, ne'er-do-well twerps is funny.

What a way to start the day!

Doing bad things to bad people...

[rdb3]

Bull. It's not on target. It's merely the same crap from the same circus.

Doing bad things to bad people...

[CWOJackson]

Another 1950's conservative angry at the world.

Good!

[Jacvin]

"How does a neo-conservative differ from a moderate Republican, seriously?"

I consider myself a NeoCon and I'm anti-big government, pro-life, want the NEA abolished, the Original intent of the constitution respected, a strong military, support a flat tax, oppose any redefinition of the Traditional family, oppose affirmative action of any kind, and want more freedom. Oh and I also support Israel and I'm not Jewish but Catholic.

I've backed up my principles with my money and my time for twenty five years as a Conservative Republican activist. I have waged pitched battles within the Republican Party against moderates.

I have known many Paleos in that time and as near as I can tell the real difference is that Neocons don't hate Jews or other minorities and won't hide under the bed quivering from the rest of the world like Paleos.

My conservatism and that of most Neocons is an active ideology that moves ahead while retaining core principles. I'm getting extremely tired of these pathetic Paleos thinking that they have some lock on the definition of Conservatism. They don't. They have generally hurt the cause more than helped it.

I don't see Conservatism as the ideology of bitter old white men. (yes, I'm white also.) It is shame that the Paleos have chosen to define themselves that way. Many are very bright and have much to offer but are bitter because the movement has passed them by.

Neocons actually get things done in an imperfect world. Paleos would rather get nothing done and remain mired in utopianism and hostility.

[ModernDayCato]

Nicely put. So, then, solve this one for me....why is it better to have a LIBERAL RINO be-atch like Olympia Snowe in the Senate than a Democrat?

And better yet, how are you going to support all of the fine principles you espouse by aiding and abetting people within your party that do not align themselves with those values?

[Continental Op]

Hey I don't believe in paying millions of dollars of taxpayer money to give Israel and a dozen other countries aid. It's not just the joooooooooos its also the araaaaaabs and the koreeaans.Judgeing by the intelligence of most neo-cons I wouldn't be surprised if they slept under beds instead of on them.

[rdb3]

I don't see Conservatism as the ideology of bitter old white men.

I totally agree. As I've also said before, 99.9% of the so-called "paleos" are not my friends. They want nothing to do with someone like me, political or otherwise.

But they needn't worry. The feeling is mutual.

Doing bad things to bad people...