Semite, he finds the sentiments expressednby Mr. Sobran “indefensible,”nand also “finds it impossible to defendnPat Buchanan against the charge thatnwhat he did and said during the periodnunder examination amounted to anti-nSemitism, whatever it was that drovenhim to say and do it.”nIt would be unproductive to retreadnthe road by which Mr. Buckley and annumber of others less talented than henhave arrived at these non-overwhelmingnthoughts. Essentially, the casenagainst both Mr. Sobran and Mr. Buchanannconsists in applying the mostnsinister interpretations to the highlynfigurative language in which both ofnthem (and many other journalists) habituallynwrite. At no time in the severalnyears of controversy over the two individualsnin question has anyone whonpersonally knows them well — includingntheir Jewish friends and associatesn— accused either of them of harboringnanti-Semitism or seeking to promote it.nMoreover, a number of their friends,nJewish as well as gentile, have defendednthem against the charge. In the absencenof such accusations and of clearnevidence of their anti-Semitic intentions,nonly the malevolent or the manipulatednwould bring in a verdict ofnguilty.nNor does Mr. Buckley reveal anythingnnew about either his “closenfriend” Mr. Sobran or Mr. Buchanan.nIndeed, never in the entire length andnbreadth of his gargantuan odyssey doesnMr. Buckley emit any new informationnor any enlightening thoughts thatnwould yield a conclusion more portentousnthan his own personal inability ornunwillingness to defend either man.nGiven the triviality of Mr. Buckley’snconclusions, the absence of any compellingnevidence to support them, andnthe staleness of the charges themselves,nreaders are led ineluctably to an overwhelmingnquestion: why did Mr.nBuckley choose this particular time tonsecrete so much mental fluid about thisnimmaterial matter?nSome light on this may be shed by an”backgrounder” published by thenAmerican Jewish Committee morenthan a year ago, in November 1990, atnthe height of the controversy aboutnMr. Buchanan. The backgrounder’snauthor, Kenneth Stern, wonders whatn”we” should do about Mr. Buchanan,nand his decision was suggestive. “Un­nless he says something Mein Kampfish,”nwrote Mr. Stern, “we shouldnrefrain from calling him an anti-nSemite. That will only draw attentionnto him, and bring him defenders. Rather,nI suggest we approach other peoplenwhom Buchanan’s adherents see asnequally qualified for the title of ‘defendernof the faith’ to write a rebuttal.nWhen it comes to Catholic-Jewish tensions,nwhy not a leader in the church?nAnd when it is an anti-communismnbased issue . . . why not a non-Jewishnconservative?” If Rasputin and Machiavellinhad conspired over cocktails, theyncould not have concocted a more furtivenstrategem.nThe shoe that fits, of course, is Mr.nnnBuckley, a Catholic conservative. Is itntoo cynical to ask if the AmericannJewish Committee (or someone associatednwith it) manipulated him intonlaunching his insubstantial Scudnagainst Mr. Buchanan and Mr.nSobran? If so, the plotters didn’t getntheir money’s worth.nBill Buckley used to be the king ofnthe conservatives, and when he whispered,nthe trumpets sounded. Todaynthat’s not the case. Most of what he hasnwritten in the last few years is simplynfashionable chatter; it may make thenbest-seller list, but there’ll never be anClassics Illustrated version.n— Samuel FrancisnMARCH 1992/5n