THE FITZGERALD GRIFFIN FOUNDATION E-PACKAGE
The Ornery Observer
November 6, 2007
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
By Paul Gottfried
As an adolescent attending middle school, I was
familiar with two types of bullies. Seeing that I had the
misfortune of being both fat and short at the time, this
knowledge came in handy. The first type of bully towered
over his victim, and unless you immediately surrendered
your candy or change, he would not hesitate to push you
around. Occasionally in this Hobbesian world, another
gigantic bully would come along and beat up your
oppressor, but then instead of ending the extortions, the
victorious tough would proceed to shake down those who
had already been exploited. It was truly an example of
the circularity of history that the ancient Greeks wrote
about.
But there was also a second type of bully, whom my
friend Taki mocks to perfection. It was the puny,
insecure kid who tried to act tough as long as his bigger
buds, who were usually in hearing range, could rush to
his aid. All that the bluffer had to do for protection
would be to shout for the big bruisers to rescue him.
Once the incident was dealt with, the faux bully would be
able to go back to "talking big."
For those who might not have guessed, I consider the
neoconservatives, and particularly their minicon
offspring and hangers-on, to exemplify the second type of
bully. By themselves they are quite ineffective and, like
the upstart editors of NATIONAL REVIEW, they are
something less than genuinely tough guys. What allows
them to push around dissenters on the American Right is
that they have useful "connections." Among their helpers
are the stooges who go after anyone who presumes to
question the present "moderate" leadership of the
"movement."
More important, the neocons have friends in the
establishment liberal press who have no desire to see
political debate drift toward the right. They therefore
help the neocons to marginalize their right-wing critics
by trashing them as "anti-Semites" and extremists. It is
surely a plus to have stiffs like Rush Limbaugh, who
insist that those who use the term "neoconservative" in a
noncomplimentary way or who are small-government critics
of the invasion of Iraq are really baiting Jews.
One also learns from reading this month's British
NEW STATESMAN that Republican presidential candidate Ron
Paul was engaging in an anti-Jewish outburst when he
asserted that the "neoconservatives wanted this war." And
I won't even go into the diatribe against the late
Russell Kirk done by Alan Wolfe in THE NEW REPUBLIC in
June, since I responded to this rant at some length on
another website. But it would not be overspeculative to
assume that Wolf's invective might have been published as
a way of punishing those reactionary "anti-Semites," who,
like Kirk, had not always treated THE NEW REPUBLIC's
preferred opposition with appropriate respect.
At one time, back in the 1980s and 1990s, the mock
bullies were allowed to get away with their intimidation;
and I noticed how effectively they blackened the
reputations of Mel Bradford, Joe Sobran, and Sam Francis.
What has happened since then, however, is that the
bullies have gone from being feared to being despised,
and the result has been to change the rules of
engagement. Before that juncture those whom the neocons
disgraced, such as the hapless Professor Bradford,
withdrew from the battle or else, like my departed, very
close friend Sam, struggled on with diminished resources.
Perhaps the fact that Pat Buchanan did not cave in
before the onslaughts of his neoconservative-liberal
enemies somehow affected the way the war would take shape
afterward. What Pat called the "branding iron of anti-
Semitism" no longer necessarily achieved its effect by
reducing its victim to a cowed or thoroughly ruined
object of obloquy. Of course, Pat also had his own big
guns to pull out in that struggle, but the important
thing is that he gave even better than he got and is
still an author and TV personality with a huge following.
Now the neocons themselves are being turned into
punching bags, whether or not they publicly acknowledge
what is going on. They are being knocked from pillar to
post on websites that attract millions of readers; all
they do in response, save for an occasional, soporific
reference to "anti-Semites," is try to ignore their
attackers, while making sure they have closed all their
resources to their critics on the right.
But these responses are no longer adequate. The
attacks continue to come. Personally I hope the
devastation never stops until we have humiliated the
cowardly bullies, who have marginalized so many of us
professionally. Special rules of engagement exist for
such a struggle, in which one finds oneself dealing with
a less-than-honorable adversary. These are the rules that
applied when a phony bully at our school, perhaps someone
who looked like David Frum, was no longer seen as
invulnerable. We would be happy to rumble with their
lefty protectors, once we have finished with the
blowhards on the playground.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/fgf/gottfried/2007/pg071106.shtml".
Copyright (c) 2007 by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation,
All rights reserved.
Paul Gottfried, Ph.D., is Raffensperger professor of
Humanities at Elizabethtown College (PA) and a Guggenheim
recipient. He is an adjunct scholar of the Mises
Institute and the author of numerous articles and eight
books including CONSERVATISM IN AMERICA: MAKING SENSE OF
THE AMERICAN RIGHT (Palgrave-Macmillan, July 2007), THE
STRANGE DEATH OF MARXISM: THE EUROPEAN LEFT IN THE NEW
MILLENNIUM (University of Missouri Press, 2005),
MULTICULTURALISM AND THE POLITICS OF GUILT: TOWARDS A
SECULAR THEOCRACY (University of Missouri Press, 2002),
and AFTER LIBERALISM: MASS DEMOCRACY IN THE MANAGERIAL
STATE (Princeton University Press, 1999).
Contact the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation at
FGF@vacoxmail.com to obtain permission to reprint this
article.