TakiMag v. AmCon

The latest pile on attack over at Taki's Top Drawer seems to be aimed at the editorial staff of the American Conservative magazine for the negative review published in its pages of the newest Pat Buchanan book. The review was assigned to John Lukacs, a known hysterical opponent of WWII non-interventionist arguments and a fanatical devotee of Winston Churchill. Since Buchanan's book is a direct critique of the diplomatic and strategic failings made by Churchill in the lead up to WWII and the cause and effect of said actions, it is not surprising that Lukacs would dump on the book. For that reason and others I agree with many of the general criticisms made of the review itself by Marcus Epstein, Richard Spencer and others over on Taki's site. On the other hand the latest offering by Paul Gottfried on the subject is a string of paranoid nonsense and typically anti-leftist hysteria from an otherwise brilliant man.

Gottfried has long argued that alliances with the left are a devils bargain for true conservatives. I am not going to suggest that such an argument is totally absent of worth, but in an environment where the terms "left" and "right" are rarely defined in a meaningful way, it is hard to see how a rigid adherence to such definitions does anyone any good. I have privately thought for sometime now that Gottfrieds now somewhat infamous epitaph for paleoconservatism was a thinly veiled acknowledgment that the newer waive of decentralist, small government, "conservatism" had been influenced to one degree or another by ideas that are considered "leftist" by many traditionalist/movement conservative types, and that Gottfried was uncomfortable being directly associated with that. This latest essay only confirms my suspicions.

The piece is basically a collection of silly charges against the American Conservative magazine, by a member of its editorial board, who has consistently had full page ads for his latest book appear on the back cover of the biweekly. Why would someone who has obviously benefitted from the existence of such an unconventional, paleoesque, magazine accuse it of being "predictable" and "often formulaic", and even go so far as to say that "on most other matters, the American Conservative rarely stands to the right of the neoconservative press"? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it has something to do with Gottfried's absolute contempt for the idea of a Left-Right alliance.

Gottfried seems to think that the magazine's decision to allow an occasional leftist submission is a sign of trying to kowtow to the "liberal establishment". This might make sense, if Kirkpatrick Sale, David Lindorff or Phillip Weiss had any power within such an establishment. The problem with Gottfried's argument is of course that they don't. In fact of the identifiably leftist contributors I can recall appearing in the pages of the American Conservative, none has the mainstream media exposure or public persona, of Pat Buchanan, the very man Gottfried and co. have been defending so fiercely all week.

The real problem of course is that Gottfried is obsessed with the American Left, and yet knows next to nothing about it in its contemporary form. An expert on American Conservatism, Gottfried has made excellent points about neoconservatism being an outgrowth of liberalism. I find these points to be basically undeniable. On the other hand Gottfried's consistent conflation of various leftist strains with establishment liberalism and the managerial state mindset is a critical failing of his, and in fact was a critical failing of the "movement conservatism" that Gottfried rightfully notes plays little role in today's "post-paleo" movement (Gottfried however is a product of "movement conservatism). The truth is that when it comes to understanding the existing political landscape Gottfried is much closer to neoconservatives like David Horowitz, than Kirkpatrick Sale is.

Sadly Gottfrieds views on the left, seems to have infected his thinking on other issues. For example, try and make sense of the following excerpt from today's piece:

The same magazine [The American Conservative] is also vehemently against the war in Iraq, indeed so much so that its tirades are often formulaic. Almost every issue has at least one piece on the war, and often by authors who have made similar denunciations in earlier issues. On most other matters, the American Conservative rarely stands to the right of the neoconservative press, and its tendency to feature fairly conventional leftists suggests for me that the editorial staff is trying to build up a following among liberal establishment journalists.

What does this even mean? Is Gottfried suggesting that the neoconservatives are covert war opponents? After all if AmCon "rarely stands to the right" of the neocons, but "almost every issue" contains an anti-war piece, what other conclusion could be reached? Later in the piece Gottfried suggests that the magazines current editor Scott McConnell actively seeks the goodwill of those he admires, including leading neocon and Commentary magazine guru Norman Podhoretz. Yet earlier in the piece Gottfried says "the magazine is usually predictable, for example, in opposing the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and in supporting the Palestinian cause, sometimes to the point of playing down Palestinian violence." Again, what does this mean? Is it possible to believe that a magazine which takes a consistent anti-occupation stance regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict could possibly be openly seeking the approval of known Israeli-firster and anti-Arab bigot Norman Podhoretz?

These seemingly inconsistent views can only be explained one way. Gottfried thinks the American Conservative magazine has been taken over by leftists. Thus his real argument (implied at times, but never clearly stated) is that the anti-war position of the magazine is not based on conservative principles, but on leftist principles. AmCon does not attempt to appeal to the sensibilities of Podhoretz on war, but rather on certain social issues where the magazine has at times taken libertarian positions. The absence of evidence for Gottfrieds claim is irrelevant, because AmCon has committed the sin of publishing leftists and liberals and thus must be the victim of an ideological takeover, just as the neoconservatives took over the "conservative movement" that Gottfried was once a prominent member of. That Gottfried himself has publicly defended the continued occupation of Iraq for purposes of national honor, and seems to be indifferent to problems caused by the occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel, apparently does not make Gottfried someone who "rarely takes stands to the right of the neoconservatives" because he is a product of that "conservative movement"..the very movement that the post-paleo, descendents of the "Old Right" have no use for (according to Gottfried that is).

In other words the real sin committed by The American Conservative is that they "get it". AmCon is virtually alone among the major paleo outlets in realizing that a tactical alliance of decentralist leftists, populists, libertarians, and conservatives is not only a good thing, but is a necessary thing if progress is to be made on any common goal. The inability of Gottfried and co. to come to this obvious conclusion suggests a paranoid political mindset leftover from the Cold War. AmCon hasn't been taken over by leftists, its just that they aren't stupid and don't want to refight the "movement" wars of years gone by. To Gottfried and his ilk that is unacceptable, and that lack of priorities is sad.

One final note on the subject of the TakiMag v. AmCon issue. Last year Taki himself vanished from the pages of AmCon for reasons that were never explained. Soon thereafter Chronicles took up his column. Last week TakiMag announced that they will begin publishing Pat Buchanan's syndicated column and featured a long excerpt of the previously mentioned book as a feature article. Given all of that, one has to wonder what sort of behind the scenes issues have been going on with both of these journals and why have they now evolved into a public pissing contest?