resented, rightl’ or wrongly, a continuationrnof Woodrow Wilson’s democraticrniniperialisui. Not anti-Semitism, butrnopposition to an expansive, centralizedrnregime la- behind this conservativernprotest to what has since been namedrnthe “welfare-warfare state.” Though itrnmay be argued that conservative isolationistsrnunderestimated both Hitler’s aggressivenessrnand his capacitv for meanness,rnthe’ did foresee long-range politicalrntrends at home.rnBut, in point of fact, not all pre-50’srnconservatives were isolationists. Southernrnconseraties, like Carter Glass andrnHarrv Bvrd, were Anglophile interventionists;rnand Robert Taft, though reluctantrnto get involved in European affairs,rnbelieved in the need for our governmentrnto carrv a big stick in the Western hemisphere.rnThough it is generous of Glasnerrnto exempt Taft from the variousrnhate-crimes he ascribes to the rest of thernpre-50’s right, it may be puzzling tornsome why he grants this particular dispensation.rnPerhaps Burt Blumert’s explanationrnis the onlv one that makesrnsense: somebodv must have told Glasnerrnthat Taft strongly supported thernstate of Israel during the last five years ofrnhis life.rnMost surprising to me is that Commentaryrnwould publish an essay with sornmany obvious distortions. It is one thingrnto berate everyone and his cousin forrnnot confessing to their German genes,rnan alleged sin of Pat Buchanan, or forrnbeing insensitive to self-designated victims.rnYet it is quite another to misrepresentrnentire movements in order tornmake one’s dotty obsessions appear respectable.rnCommentary may haerncrossed that line, if not for the first timernthen most dramatically, by publishingrnGlasner’s hastily done screed.rnEven more importantly, it gave proofrnof how far ncoconservatives will go inrnsmearing everyone on the right butrnthemselves (if one is allowed to pretendrnfor the moment that they belong on thernright). In their portrayal of the AmericarnFirstcrs and of the opponents of freerntrade, Glasner and the neocons inventrntheir own history. Neither isolationismrnnor protectionism was a peculiarly conservativernposition before the present divisionrnbetween paleos and neocons.rn1 hat neocon demigod Abraham Lincolnrnwas a more explicit protectionistrnthan Pat Buchanan. And ditto for BillrnClinton, to whose presidential campaignrnneocons flocked in droves. When Clintonrnaddressed economic issues in his lastrnpresidential debate, he spoke out sharplvrnagainst the trade agreement with Mexico.rnStill it was not he, but Ross Perot,rnwhom Morton Kondracke blew up intorna “nativist, xenophobe protectionist.”rnThat goes to show that not all protectionists,rnbut only those not endorsed byrnthe New Republic, arc guilty of xenophobia.rnIn any case, neocons shouldrnnote that at least some old-fashionedrnconservatives fervently backed free trade.rnThe Southern planter class seceded fromrnthe Ihiion partly over the issue of tariffsrnimposed bv protectionist Yankees on thernhapless agrarian South. But Glasnerrndoes not find this history usable for hisrnnarrowly partisan argument.rnIn his partial defense it should bernpointed out that Glasner’s fixation onrnanti-Semitism is all too typical of ourrnopinion elites. The harping on this matterrnbv Glasner and Commentary has itsrnequivalents in the Washington Post, thernNew York limes, Time, Newsweek, thernNew Republic, and, recently. NationalrnReview. In all these publications wernarc told of a pathological hatred of Jewsrnthat extends from Christian antiquity,rnthrough the Nazi era, to the present.rnThe once and future bearer of this anti-rnScrnitc poison, one would gather fromrnour press, is the right as unreformed byrnneocon leadership and sensitivities.rnThose in America who incarnate thernancient menace are, among others,rnPat Buchanan and, according to Timern(claiming to present the views of “otherrnconservatives”), the Rockford Institute.rnThough anti-Semitism has raged inrnother societies, it has never been morernthan a marginal problem in the UnitedrnStates. In comparison to the mobrnviolence suffered by some ethnicrnCatholics in 19th-century America andrnthe massive professional discrimination Irnhave seen visited on their descendantsrnin academic departments, AmericanrnJews have not fared badly, even in relationrnto other whites. Their worst complaintsrnhae been about past residentialrnand professional discrimination andrnabout the operation of ethnic quotas atrnsome universities earlier in the century.rnThough none of this deserves to be defended,rnseveral points should be kept inrnmind. The form of discrimination tornwhich American Jews refer was primarilyrnsocial rather than religious; it typicallyrnaffected the families of recent Jewishrnimmigrants as well as of non-Jewish immigrantsrnrather than the descendants ofrnalready established American Jews; andrnwhatever limited exclusion some Jews inrnsome situations mav have suffered in thernUnited States has not kept AmericanrnJewry from rising to the top socioeconomicallyrnand enjoying the goodwill ofrnits Christian neighbors. Though manyrnJews feel deeply “alienated” from AmericanrnChristian society, the fault is arguablyrntheirs rather than that of a societyrnthat has frenetically tried to accommodaternJewish identity and uneasiness.rnIn any case I agree with JacobrnNeusner when he argues that anti-rnSemitism has ceased to be a real issuernin American life, give or take a few nutsrnin Idaho or some civil rights spokespersonsrnwho seem to be impersonating Jewishrnliberals when they’re not rantingrnagainst “hymies.” Jewish eiil libertariansrnshould feel particularly gratified tornbe here and not in Israel. Most AmericanrnJews, who are not of the Orthodoxrnpersuasion, would not have the freedomrnto practice their religion—that is, wouldrnnot have their rituals legallv recognizedrn—in a Jewish country. In Israelrnonly the Orthodox rabbinate has the legalrnauthority to perform Jewish weddingsrnand to define Jewish identity forrnresident citizens of the Jewish homeland.rnIn view of this situation, one mightrnthink that discussions about anti-rnSemitism as a significant Americanrnproblem would be winding down.rnComplaints about intermarriage dornseem understandable given the documentablernpreference shown by voungrnAmerican Jews for non-Jewish spouses.rnI larder to comprehend, however, are thernpervasive references to anti-Semitism asrnan urgent national danger that one readsrnin the columns of Richard Cohen, A. M.rnRosenthal, Charles Krauthammer, NormanrnPodhoretz, William Safire, andrnother syndicated journalists. By now thernname for this ancient prejudice hasrncome to stand for other traits; nonetheless,rnit has become apparent that bv assailingrna political opponent as an anti-rnSemite, it is possible to inflict irreparablernharm on him. Certainly one cannot denyrnthat history affords all too many grimrnexamples of real anti-Semitism, culminatingrnin the Nazis’ murder of close tornsix million Jews. More problematic isrnfathoming how such catastrophes derivernfrom the assorted policy errors and socialrnfaux pas we are led to believe betrayrna Nazi gestalt. These ominous indiscretionsrnnow include disagreeing withrnstatements by the American ZionistrnAPRIL 1993/45rnrnrn