The Neocons Launch A Coulterkampf

Far be it from me to leap to the defense of an author
whose latest book has been on the New York Times
bestseller list for five weeks and whose next book has
already fetched her the tidy sum of $3 million.

Nevertheless, given the viciousness of the attacks on
conservative columnist

Ann Coulter
by her

neo-conservative "allies,"
it seems there`s a tale
to be told here.

I confess at once I haven`t read Miss Coulter`s book,
a volume with the fetching title of

and, from all reports, the thesis that
liberals commit it—treason, that is.  For obvious
reasons, liberals don`t care for the book, but what may
be more puzzling, to some at least, is why
neoconservatives don`t either.

But if you understand what neoconservatism is—a

brand of liberalism
that likes to masquerade as a
phony conservatism, mainly so it can wheedle influence
in the Republican Party—the puzzle is solved.  What`s
especially interesting about the

neo-con onslaught
against Miss Coulter is that it`s
virtually indistinguishable from the liberal one.

Thus, the Wall Street Journal op-ed page last
month unleashed the

sarcastic reflections
of neocon Dorothy Rabinowitz
on Miss Coulter and her book. The burden of the attack
was that Miss Coulter praises the late Joe McCarthy as
someone who was willing to call the spade of liberal
treason by its proper name.  Then there was a

by Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post
Book Review, followed a week later by yet
another broadside from neo-con

Arnold Beichman
in the

Washington Times.

Miss Applebaum, an editorial writer for the
Washington Post,
is a liberal, one supposes, but
it`s hard to tell the difference between her sneers and
those of the other two. "Even the company of

insurgents would be more

intellectually invigorating
than that of Ann
Miss Applebaum avers. "More to the
point, whatever side this woman is on, I don`t want to
be on it."

Miss Applebaum at least shows signs of having read
the book, which is more than Mr. Beichman did. "I
have tried to read Miss Coulter`s book and failed,"

he admits and then gets nasty.  And what all these
savants dislike about it is not just Miss Coulter`s
inclination to say nice things about McCarthy but also
her claim on page one that "Liberals have a
preternatural gift for striking a position on the side
of treason."

Well, as I noted, I haven`t read the book (although,
unlike Mr. Beichman, I bet I could), and it may be that
Miss Coulter kind of O.D.`s on the hyperbole. I know the
problem myself.

Nevertheless, if she`s seriously arguing that
liberalism is inherently prone to

, she`s right.

Indeed, neither Miss Coulter nor I am the first to
say so. Decades ago Whittaker Chambers

much the same insight, one that explains
why liberals of his time were so cuddly with

Alger Hiss
and almost as mean to Chambers as
neo-conservatives today are toward Miss Coulter.

Perceiving that

Franklin Roosevelt`s
New Deal "was only

a reform movement"
and really
"was a genuine revolution, whose deepest purpose was not
simply reform within existing traditions, but a basic
change in the social, and, above all, the power
relationships within the nation,"
Chambers also
grasped that both the liberals who pushed the New Deal
revolution and the communists who

on it shared a common goal, even if they
differed on methods.

"At the basic point of
the revolution,"
he wrote, "the two kinds of
revolutionists were at one; and they shared many other
views and hopes. For men who could not see that what
they firmly believed was liberalism added up to
socialism could scarcely be expected to see what added
up to Communism."

The ultimate loyalty of liberalism is not to the
concrete realities of human life—one`s people, nation,

and family—but to the

Great Abstractions
: Equality, Peace, Tolerance,
Freedom (sometimes), Progress, Diversity.

When your own country doesn`t measure up to them,
loyalty to it is—well—negotiable.

I don`t know if Miss Coulter quotes Chambers, but she
should. Like other real conservatives of his day, he saw
that liberals and communists are essentially on the same
wave length, the same page, and that explains a good
deal about the long record of liberal treachery, from

Roosevelt at Yalta
to the last

insipid cuddle
with communism at the end of the Cold

Real conservatives have always understood this ugly
truth about liberalism, even when too polite to mention
it out loud. 

Neoconservatives don`t understand it, and that`s why
they`re so hard to distinguish from liberals—and why
they apparently feel a typically liberal compulsion to

any real conservative who dares call
liberalism the treason it is.



[Sam Francis [email
him] is a nationally syndicated columnist. A selection
of his columns,

America Extinguished: Mass Immigration And The
Disintegration Of American Culture
, is now available

Americans For Immigration Control

Click here for Sam Francis`