Sunday Dec 30, 2007

Inside the Middle East: Crude and tasteless

Posted by Martin Kramer
Comments: 6
Decrease text sizeDecrease text size
Increase text sizeIncrease text size

In September of last year, Pat Buchanan, founder of the weekly magazine The American Conservative, published an article on its pages entitled "Fascists Under the Bed." In that piece, Buchanan attacked President Bush for his assertion that we are "at war with Islamic fascism." As a prelude, Buchanan made a general critique of the reckless way analogies to fascism have been deployed in American politics. Buchanan:
Orwell said when someone calls Smith a fascist, what he means is, "I hate Smith." By calling Smith a fascist, you force Smith to deny he's a sympathizer of Hitler and Mussolini...Since the 1930s, "fascist" has been a term of hate and abuse used by the Left against the Right, as in the Harry Truman campaign. In 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. claimed to see in the Goldwater campaign "dangerous signs of Hitlerism." Twin the words, "Reagan, fascism" in Google and 1,800,000 references pop up.
The loose use of the fascist analogy, claimed Buchanan, was a trademark of the far left, so that those who identified the enemy as "Islamofascism" simply betrayed their intellectual origins:
Unsurprisingly, it is neoconservatives, whose roots are in the Trotskyist-Social Democratic Left, who are promoting use of the term. Their goal is to have Bush stuff al-Qaida, Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran into an "Islamofascist" kill box, then let SAC do the rest. The term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.

Having read Buchanan's denunciation of fascist-name-calling as a far-left and neo-con rhetorical device--on the pages of The American Conservative--I almost fell over when I saw the cover of the current issue of The American Conservative:

 

 

A few bloggers have commented that Giuliani is cast here as a Mussolini figure. No he isn't. He's being portrayed as a Nazi. It's not just the armband, it's the pose and the fine details of dress, all of which refer back to this iconic image, from the poster for the 1933 Nazi film, S.A.-Mann Brand ("Storm-Trooper Brand"): 

 

So you get the picture. Pat Buchanan gets himself into a righteous lather if you dare to compare Osama bin Laden to a fascist. But on the cover of the very magazine where he does that, it's perfectly legitimate to compare Rudy Giuliani to a Nazi. The cover of The American Conservative seems to have been concocted by someone steeped in the tradition of... well, the Trotskyite-Social Democratic Left. But here's another irony: the cover article it illustrates, criticizing Giuliani's foreign policy vision, is by Michael Desch, who's well-known for his belief that the civilian leaders of this country exercise too much control over the professional military.

Is this bizarre convergence of far left and far right either American or conservative? I don't know, but I do know that its graphic rhetoric is crude and tasteless.

BOOKMARK or SHARE: technorati digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print
Comments: Post your own comment
1  |  The Other Alan, New Jersey, Monday Dec 31, 2007
A perfect rendition of a Giuliani administration in my opinion. Wiretaps, video surveillance, police brutality, picking on the destitute, World War IV, war profiteering, etc. All this we have to look forward to with Rudy. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Rudy rules.
2  |  Rob - New York, Monday Dec 31, 2007
Rudy is a great friend to Israel and that is why the far left and far right hate him so. We need Rudy as President in 2008! He makes all the others look like light-weights.
3  |  Jew, from America, Monday Dec 31, 2007
Kramer is an advisor for Giuliani, and should have said so. However, Kramer's point is valid. Giuliani won't massacre 50 million people anytime soon. And neither the Left nor the Right actually have an action plan for terrorism or any of the problems of the Muslim world. I'm no fan of Kramer, but this is a good point. Hillary, Obama, Romney - what would you do different? Don't give me well-I-wouldn'ts about individual mistakes of the Bush administration (the vapid "consulting with my allies" is one of these). What WOULD you do?
4  |  Peter Canada, Monday Dec 31, 2007
"righteous lather"? Mr. Kramer seems to be accusing Pat Buchanan of something bad but it’s not clear at all what that bad thing might be. Hypocrisy – would be my guess – provided that founding a magazine makes you responsible for everything it ever publishes. If that’s the logic behind the accusation then it is pretty thin. The article to which the link is provided seems to be very sober and well thought out. I am not sure about the Trotskyist-Social Democratic Left connection but I believe that Pat Buchanan has the same right to be wrong in his theories as anybody else.
5  |  Peter Canada, Monday Dec 31, 2007
(cd) To make it perfectly clear, I am defending basic logic here and not Pat Buchanan who may care to do so himself provided he reads this blog. One more thing: there is at least one portrait of Mussolini that the Giuliani caricature reminds one of.
6  |  bozhidar balkas, Tuesday Jan 01, 2008
it is the long standing u.s. foreign and domestic policies that we need to dwell on and evaluate and not what clinton, bush, obama or any other individual says. to or for israel will be done according to its steafast policy: no peace, no agreement, no democratic arab world; arming israel, etc. but changes are coming. we have lless oil than ever. we will have clean renewable energy; thus, importance of israel will wane. global warming is one change that may force u.s. to abandon israel to arabs.
Add your comment remaining characters
Name and Location *

NOTE: Comments are moderated and will not appear on this blog, until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.

For more information, please see our
Readers' Submission Policy.

E-mail * (will NOT be published)
--------------------------------
* All fields are required

About this blog

Inside the Middle East Shalem Center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies' scholar of Islam and the Arab world Martin Kramer on this turbulent region.

Search this blog

Archives
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs

Most Popular Posts

  1. Haredi anti-Zionism - where to draw the line?
    Posted in Guest Blog by David Turner
    Monday Jun 30, 2008
  2. Selective sympathy
    Posted in The Warped Mirror by Petra Marquardt-Bigman
    Sunday Jun 29, 2008
  3. ADL at 95: Battling old hatreds in new forms
    Posted in A Point of View by Abraham Foxman
    Wednesday Jul 02, 2008
  4. The truth is right there
    Posted in Living with Rockets by Anav Silverman
    Sunday Jun 29, 2008
  5. The falafel and the bulldozer
    Posted in Living with Rockets by David Farer
    Thursday Jul 03, 2008

Recent Comments

James lookretis USA: Declare and recognize unilaterally a Gaza state ,: cut all ties ie elctric,gas shipments food, banking and let it implode. Israel DON"T NEED GAZA Like the US DON"T Need MEXICO....NOTHING!!!!!! in gaza is worth one israeli soldier.Also please send my US soldiers home from Irag. Once Iraq implodes some one with a contract will appear to sell Irag oil as saddam did when he was PREVENTED from doing so.....ever hear of oil for food/medications program with its pure corruption outcomes So what if some in Gaza Don't like you Israel,,Goliath didn't. Close the gates,stop feeding your enemy.Get free
Thomas G. Bradford: The first matter that was ALMOST addressed in this article was the defining of the term "Middle East Conflict". In fact it is not as is usually suppossed that there is a specific national conflict at all. The conflict is in reality the Modern West versus the Ancient East. Let me be even more politically incorrect by saying that it is the generalized world wide conflict between primitive and backward Islamic ideals and a contemporary watered-down, neo-Enlightenment altered version of Judeo Christian morality and culture. It's only that its epicenter is the Midle East, currently Iraq and Isael.
opit Canada: There is another possibility : an attempt to posit connections where there are none. Two years ago Haaretz carried an article about Israeli politics being affected by dictates from Washington : hardly an unlikely scenario considering the massive ongoing U.S. investment of war materiel in Israel. What happened to the consideration of the recent U.S. NIE ? No Iranian nuke weapons program was such an inconvenience it couldn't be recognized as the most likely situation by far.