THE JEWISH PROBLEM:

The cons game: The Republican Party is torn between old conservatives and neocons. (Shmuel Rosner, 7/07/04, Ha'aretz)

[A] true war is being fought in the Republican Party. The gloves are off and the name-calling is in full swing: "opportunists," "impostors," "cowards," "America-haters," "dangerous." And also: "Jacobins," "McCarthyites," "Trotskyites," "anti-Semites." Plenty of "anti-Semites." And worst of all: "They're not true Republicans," the retort of the "they": "They're the ones who aren't true Republicans."

What are they squabbling about? Mainly about the war in Iraq. There are other issues, too, such as immigration, the budget, globalization and family values, but it's the war that caused the dam to burst.

That could be precisely because this is a war of a Republican president, which has the aim of "changing the face of the Middle East." He followed the advice of the Republican camp known as the "neoconservatives," or "neocons" for short, whose dream is global American intervention in order to improve the world, change its values and uphold its security. The neocons want an America of the kind that existed after World War II and of the kind that took action in Bosnia and Kosovo. An America that conducts an uncompromising war to promote democracy and human rights; an interventionist war that shows no consideration for the desire of neighbors and friends; a war with noble goals and great pretensions - perhaps too great. That, at least, is what the other camp, the angry camp, thinks. It too is a Republican camp. And its strength is growing apace.

The point is that it's not just those to the left of the president who are incensed about the war in Iraq. Not only the liberals from the Democratic wing of the demagogic director Michael Moore, and not only the moderate conservatives, those known as "realists," such as Scowcroft and Baker and Powell (and maybe the first President Bush, too).

The conservatives to the right of the president are equally angry. These are the "paleo-conservatives" ("paleo" in the sense of early, or ancient), conservatives of the traditional type who were thought to be extinct. Yet here they are again, outraged and cursing, threatening and provoking. They are led by Patrick Buchanan, whose article "Whose War?," published in March 2003 in The American Conservative, a relatively new monthly, added much fuel to a fire that has since become a conflagration.

Buchanan is hardly a new face in American public life. In the past he was a candidate for president of the United States - not that he had a chance to win, but it's a good way to put forth an agenda - and he continues to write articles and appear frequently on television, espousing clear-cut opinions on a variety of issues. Buchanan is the epitome of right-wing American politics: argumentative, sharp, articulate. He's already learned a thing or two about the media and is capable of utilizing it for his own ends and of getting its attention. "We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests, Buchanan wrote, and also spoke about a "cabal of intellectuals."

At that time, his defiant voice sounded weaker - a voice from the lunatic fringe. Bordering on comic relief. However, as the war in Iraq has become increasingly bogged down, his followers are growing in number and his voice is sounding stronger, with its refrain of "cabal," "intellectuals," "interests."

The voice of the neocons, who lambaste Buchanan unmercifully, labeling him - justly - an isolationist and a racist, is growing weaker in direct proportion to the mounting mess in Iraq. Buchanan is not alone in fomenting a gathering storm of emotions that is threatening the Bush camp and its prospects of reelection. Whose war, ask the Democrats on the left. Whose war, ask the conservatives on the right. And their answer sometimes unites in a disturbing chorus: Israel's war; not ours.

Hard to see how George W. Bush could survive if Pat Buchanan leads his following out of the GOP. Wait, what's that? You say he ran against the President in 2000 even though there was no Iraq war? And there's no one running against him this time, not so much as a challenger for the nomination? Well, how does that help the idea that this war within the Party is new and getting worse?

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 23, 2004 2:25 PM