Robert Novak: Prince Of Twilight?

[Previously
by Kevin Lamb
:



The Leftward Course Of
Human Events
]

The

publication
of The Bell Curve in

the fall of 1994
created a

major uproar in newsrooms in Washington and New York
.
The book was a big problem for many editors and
journalists since they were unsure about—and largely
unfamiliar with—the book`s

empirical claims.
At Newsweek, where I worked
as a library assistant, the book generated a buzz that
led to awkward conversations and intense discussions.
Everyone had an opinion about Herrnstein and Murray`s
controversial work.

Almost everyone,
that is.

Leaving work
one afternoon, having just picked up a copy of the book
at Sidney Kramer`s on I Street earlier that day, I
encountered Robert Novak in the elevator. (The Evans and
Novak office was in the same building, one floor above
us.) Trying to strike up a conversation with the
"Prince of Darkness"
, who is notoriously
conversation-averse, I asked what he thought about The Bell Curve.


"The

race book
"
, Novak replied dismissively, in his
snippy Crossfire mode.

Novak`s brush-off
reply made clear that he didn`t have any opinion about
it and would just as soon not have any opinion about it.

This is typical.
"Conservative"
journalists inside the Beltway are
rarified specimens. Most are highly detached from the
issues that concern Middle America:

Immigration
,

affirmative action,
crime, job security, the
stability of

"safe" neighborhoods
and

"good" schools
, and so on. What matters to
this elite cadre aren`t issues or ideas, but access to
information (cultivating reliable sources for
exclusives) and peer acceptability (avoiding

rejection from fellow journalists,
fatally often
liberals). With the rise of

politically correctness
, this means an

unprecedented level of conformity
now holds sway
over Establishment "Conservatives".

Any young

"Conservative"
who plans on making it in today`s
climate avoids excessive controversy and goes along with
the cultural flow.

For years, Novak has
cultivated an image of himself as an iconoclastic
outsider in a profession dominated by leftists—a bold
reporter combating the twin evils of liberalism and
communism.

And to some extent, Novak
is iconoclastic. But his pariah persona is
largely a façade. Even though Novak deviates
ideologically from the average Washington journalist,
his successful career trajectory reveals an ambitious
streak,

common among journalists,
that makes him much more
cautious than rebellious. Paradoxically, despite his
image, Novak epitomizes the insider.

Tellingly, one of Novak`s
gripes in his recently published autobiography The Prince of Darkness:

50 Years
Reporting in Washington
is not being invited often
enough to official White House functions.

Similarly, I remember one
Thursday afternoon while we were scrambling to finalize
Human Events on deadline, my boss Editor-in-Chief
Thomas Winter just up and left the office to get ready
for that evening`s White House "Holiday
Party
"
. He told us how much his wife enjoyed
greeting the President and First Lady in the receiving
line.

Acceptance is the
life goal of Beltway conservatives—and not just of their
wives.

Novak`s personal
reflections span nearly five decades as a
reporter-columnist turned political commentator for CNN
covering nine presidents, Congress, major national
events, and foreign affairs—from

Vietnam
and

Watergate
to the

Cold War
and

9/11
.

But as Novak writes, "I`d

like to think
that I emulated

Bertrans de Born
in

stirring up strife
but not in wreaking havoc…."

In other words, avoid pushing the envelope. The
perception that one harbors "extreme" views will
not open many doors in this "go along, get along"
culture.

Interspersed throughout
the book are amusing anecdotes—for example, about his
friend

Pat Buchanan
, whom he respects, and
priest-turned-political commentator

John McLaughlin
, whom he disdains as a bullying
cheapskate. Novak affects a self-deprecating demeanor
and forthrightly divulges his own shortcomings and
vices, including a fair number of mistakes and gaffes
(which also occur in this book). He reveals a side
rarely seen in public: his deeply personal

religious conversion
as a non-observant Jew to

Roman Catholicism
, a spiritual odyssey that
alienated some friends and relatives; his heavy bouts of
drinking; his seemingly-endless health problems,
including cancer and spinal meningitis; his devotion to
his family as an affectionate father and grandfather.

But this reflection in
the rearview mirror offers some peculiar omissions and
evasions. Novak`s conservatism is devoid of any interest
in social or cultural issues. He makes virtually no
mention of immigration policy or the impact of

rapid demographic changes
on his country`s future.
(He was an

outspoken supporter
of the Kennedy-Bush Amnesty/
Immigration surge bill and predicted it would pass). His
conservative convictions are confined to tax policy,

free-market
economics,

containing communism
and the growth of government.

This is a big difference
between Pat Buchanan and Novak. Buchanan`s last three
books have

addresse
d some of the

most pressing issues facing America
and the West,
namely

the cultural and ethnic replacement
of the West with
the

Third World
at home and American imperialism

abroad
.

Novak describes his
friendship with

Ian Smith,
the former prime minister of

Rhodesia
. He admired Smith largely because

white-ruled Rhodesia
blocked

Soviet-supported Marxists
from getting a larger
foothold in Southern Africa.  Of course, all of this
came to end after Smith caved in to pressure by the

British and U.S. governments
and extended the vote
to Rhodesia`s

majority of uneducated blacks
. What happened, in
Novak`s view, was a foreign policy failure of the Carter
administration. But what action did the Reagan
administration take to reverse course?

And where in Novak`s
account is the courage to acknowledge what would
inevitably result from the transition of Rhodesia to
Zimbabwe under black majority rule:

racial displacement
and

national decay
? As if this

wouldn`t have happened
had

Mugabe
not been a Marxist!

Novak also incorrectly
reports that Smith

continues to live in Zimbabwe
. The former prime
minister moved to Cape Town, South Africa two years ago
and took up residence in a community of Rhodesian
expatriates.

Especially when Novak`s syndicated column was in partnership with the late

Rowland Evans,
the Middle East was one significant
area of difference from their colleagues. Their
criticism of Israel and

Israeli influence
over U.S. Mideast foreign policy
made them walking targets for

neoconservatives
and assorted

Israeli supporters
.

Evans and Novak were
particularly skeptical of the

official explanation
for the attack on the
USS Liberty,
a Navy intelligence ship that
was fired upon in international waters by Israeli forces
in 1967. Thirty-four American servicemen died and 173
others were wounded in the attack.  In a November 1991
column, Evans and Novak broke the news of an American
eyewitness to the deliberate planning of the Israeli
assault [Remembering the Liberty, Washington
Post
, November 6, 1991(Pay
Archive
)].

But, oddly, Novak`s only
mention of the Liberty incident in his 670-page
tome is a passing reference to it in reminiscing about
Rowland Evans` death.

"In both the column and the eulogy, I noted Rowly`s
brilliant reporting on

Soviet arms control cheating,
the fall of communism
in

Eastern Europe,
and the Israeli attack on the U.S.S.
Liberty and its cover-up by the U.S. government.
These were high points in the history of the Evans and
Novak column in which I played little part."

Novak likewise makes only
a glancing reference to the

Middle East
and Israel in general—also crediting
Evans with all but a handful of their columns on the
subject over the years.

Novak was clearly uneasy,
although ultimately firm, when PBS host Charlie Rose
cross-examined him on the subject of Israel in his
recent interview (my emphases):


CHARLIE ROSE: Israel.


ROBERT
NOVAK
:
Israel. We—the "Evans and

Novak" columns—we ran
hundreds of columns critical of Israel, all of them
written by Rolly Evans
. But I agreed with him. I`ve
written a few columns on Israel since Rolly retired and
I was writing the column myself, but not nearly as many.
Rolly became very committed on the issue.


CHARLIE ROSE: OK, I want to talk about
today.


ROBERT
NOVAK
:
Today, I believe that—that—that Israel—it`s in Israel`s
best interest to make an agreement in the Middle East.
I`m very happy that the President is at least giving lip
service to trying again to move toward a Middle East
agreement. I think that`s been one of the great failings
of this Administration. I`ve been to Israel each of the
last two years. I think that the—that the time is ripe.
The conditions are correct for a negotiated settlement.
And—and it is—it will take an enormous amount of
courage.


CHARLIE ROSE: There are people in the
Israeli community who believe you`re anti-Israel.


ROBERT
NOVAK
:
I`m not. I want Israel to survive. And I believe—I
believe Israel is in an enormous amount of difficulty
right now. It has a very weak government. I think they
have—I think the—the war in

Lebanon
was a disaster. They thought they were going
to crush Hezbollah, and they didn`t. So I believe it is
time for peace, and I think there`s elements in the
Palestinian community who feel the same way….


CHARLIE ROSE: Is it hard for a
journalist to criticize Israel?


ROBERT
NOVAK
:
Well, you suffer if you do. I think.


CHARLIE ROSE: Have you suffered?


ROBERT
NOVAK
:
Oh, yes.


CHARLIE ROSE: How have you suffered?


ROBERT
NOVAK
:
I lost papers because of it. Advertisers dropped
their—threatened newspapers. They did drop the Evans and
Novak
column that—


CHARLIE ROSE: But the Evans and
Novak
column is history. I`m talking about today, today.


ROBERT
NOVAK
:
But that is history. You say, is it hard to criticize
Israel? Yes. And I have suffered because of it.


CHARLIE ROSE: Is that issue out in the
open now more than it was?


ROBERT
NOVAK
:
No. I think it`s still—


CHARLIE ROSE: The Israeli lobby has too
much influence on American foreign policy?


ROBERT
NOVAK
:
I think it has a lot of influence.


CHARLIE ROSE: Too much?


ROBERT
NOVAK
:
Yes, I felt it has too much, and I believe that
the—the—that the—both parties now are so committed to
trying to get the Jewish community in support—it`s a
very small community in numbers, but large in financial
support and influence—that it`s very hard to take these
positions. [Charlie Rose show, August 3, 2007

watch it
]

One mini-saga that Novak
devotes a full chapter to is

David Frum
`s notorious April 2003 National Review
cover story  Unpatriotic
Conservatives
which attacked Novak,

Pat Buchanan,


Sam Francis
,

Llewellyn Rockwell
, Thomas Fleming,

Scott McConnell
,

Justin Raimondo
,

Joseph Sobran
, Charley Reese, Jude Wanniski, Eric
Margolis, and

Taki Theodoracopulos
for their opposition to the
Iraq war and alleged anti-Americanism. (VDARE.Com had a
cameo role, although it does

not take a position
on the war, for the irrelevant
but inadvertently revealing reason it has published
Professor Kevin MacDonald`s

work
on Jewish political influences).

Novak really gets his
dander up over Frum`s salvo. He remains bitter that

William F. Buckley
`s own magazine would—not so much
publish Frum`s attack—as not remove his name from
the final draft. He writes:

"Frum had put me in strange company.

Buchanan
and

Wanniski
were the only people mentioned who were my
friends though I was an acquaintance of

McConnell
, who once had edited my copy at the

New York Post
. I had never heard of Raimondo,
Reese, or Margolis. Fleming was a historian whose
brilliant critique of U.S. participation in World War I
(The Illusion of Victory) I had
reviewed favorably, but I had never met him or read his
forty other books. I knew of

Taki
but thought of him as a
millionaire jet-setter
and clever

essayist
. I had met Francis and Sobran once or twice
and had never met Rockwell at all; I considered those
three to be ideological extremists whose

views I did not embrace
."

Of course, this is a remarkable
confession of ignorance, indicative of the parochial
nature of Beltway political journalism—especially as
Novak confuses

Thomas Fleming the historian
with

Thomas Fleming
the redoubtable editor of

Chronicles Magazine
.
(Which is embarrassing not only to Novak, but also to
his son-in-law, Weekly Standard editor

Christopher Caldwell
, and the half dozen other
individuals who are credited with reading the manuscript
and should have recognized the error.)

Still, Novak confesses that the
episode "was burning a hole in my heart". He felt
dejected for having been so sharply criticized in

Buckley`s magazine,
which had published his work for
30 years.

Why? Because he stood to
lose what he worked so hard to achieve: his reputation
and the recognition he cultivated over the years.
Consider the

Don Imus incident
—on top of the world one day and

unemployed
the next.

Novak had suddenly found himself
among undesirables—marginalized figures he considers
(paradoxically taking Frum`s word for it in their cases)
to be “ideological extremists”. Rather than take
a

principled conservative position
, defending his
right to doubt the Iraq invasion and challenge Frum and
the neocons at National Review

once and for all
, as

Paul Gottfried
and others have, Novak is more
concerned about salvaging his own reputation. (Frum has
replied to Novak`s book here:

1
,

2
,

3
.

Reading Novak`s
autobiography, one is struck by what can best be
described as "Beltwayitis"—the
fixation of "inside-the-beltway" public figures
on what

grassroots conservatives
out there in Americaland
would consider at best trivial: notoriety,
personality-engrossed gossip, GOP and Democrat
intra-party intrigue, and the obsession over esoteric
legislative matters.

Issues that
conservatives—even elected public officials such as Rep.

John Ashbrook
(R-Ohio)—once took

bold positions on
, such as "civil
rights
,"


affirmative action
, feminism, and

forced busing
, were characterized by an
anti-egalitarianism that is largely absent from leading
conservatives today.  Instead of opposing and working to
reverse the cultural and racial balkanization
that multicultural advocates have fostered on American
society, today`s “Conservative” establishment
embraces "diversity"
as a worthy national
goal. Richard Weaver`s admonition on conservative trends
some 50 years ago, that conservatives would remain
slightly to the right of an increasingly leftward
cultural drift, has come to pass.

In a recent public forum,
Professor

Paul Gottfried
commented on how the American
conservative movement has been backsliding for the last
50 years. He slammed conservatives for embracing

Martin Luther King, Jr.
as a role model.
Conservatives such as Novak once opposed making King`s
birthday a

national holiday.
Now they have caved—Human
Events
has gone from having a

token article
plugging King`s alleged
"conservative"
credentials to featuring multiple,

largely laudatory
postings on its

website
.

Novak is no exception. He
writes of an incident when he and

Frank Barber,
a political lieutenant of
Sen. James Eastland,
Mississippi`s
pro-segregation senator
, were in a restaurant.
Barber tried to prove that southern blacks didn`t think
much of King by asking a black waiter of his view. The
waiter responded, "Well, gentlemens… I consider him a
great man”
.

Novak concludes:

"Well into the 1970s and beyond as I pondered this
incident, I saw it as helping me understand that Martin
Luther King was a

mythic figure for blacks.
His professional,
political, and personal shortcomings were subsumed in
his ascension as symbolic leader of African-Americans,
who demanded and deserved a national holiday for him.
The people who opposed it, including me, were wrong."

This, of course, ignores

accumulating evidence
that educrats are using Martin
Luther King Day as a vehicle for anti-white
brainwashing.
 And in fact this about-face on King
by Novak and other conservatives has less to do with
principle than a desire to avoid being

labeled a "racist"
for standing firm in
pointing out his

peccadilloes
,

plagiarism,
and

pro-Communist
affiliations. Even if King has become
a "mythic figure" for his ethnic constituents,
does this mean conservatives should silence any
criticism?

One peculiar omission
from Novak`s book is the scant mention of a program in
which he served as an active participant for years: M.
Stanton Evans`s

National Journalism Center,
an internship program
for aspiring conservative reporters and editors. The
placement rate by Fred Mann, NJC`s job-bank director,
was exceptional, opening doors to many entry-level
positions, not only around Washington but also numerous
newspapers around the country. Although Evans and Novak
utilized and frequently hired NJC interns, the only
individual identified as such is his own daughter, who
was hired after a brief stint at a Northern Virginia
newspaper. He completely skips over his own NJC role.

As a young intern
enrolled in the NJC`s program during the fall of 1988, I
remember distinctly Novak`s Friday afternoon lecture to
our group. He used the recent leaks coming out of the
Bush-Dukakis presidential campaigns to expound upon
different types of leaks and their journalist
significance. He closed his talk by noting that there
were

different types of conservatives
: free-market

conservatives
, neoconservatives,

social conservatives
, religious conservatives, and
even (he said)

"racial" conservatives.

On the evidence of The Prince of Darkness,
Novak
should have added another category to that list:
politically-correct conservatives.

The “Prince of
Darkness”
is not the worst. But he is, at best, the
Prince of Twilight.


Kevin Lamb (email
him) is a former library assistant for

Newsweek
and


managing editor
of

Human Events. He was also
assistant editor of the Evans-Novak Political
Report, which involved no contact with Novak. He
is now the editor of


The Occidental Quarterly
.