lishcd in the March issue ofrnChronicles signed, and presumablyrnwritten, by Samuel Francis,rnan erudite journalist associatedrnwith the Washington Times. Herncannot believe (he tells us) that Irnhad anything serious to say aboutrnMessrs. Buchanan and Sobran.rnCould it have been . . . a Jewishrnplot! “Given the triviality of Mr.rnBuckley’s conclusions, the absencernof any compelling evidencernto support them, and the stalenessrnof the charges themselves,rnreaders are led ineluctably to anrnoverwhelming question: why didrnMr. Buckley choose this particularrntime to secrete so much mentalrnfluid about this immaterial matter?rn”Some light on this may bernshed by a ‘backgrounder’ publishedrnby the American JewishrnCommittee more than a year ago,rnin November 1990, at the heightrnof the controversy about Mr.rnBuchanan. The backgrounder’srnauthor, Kenneth Stern, wondersrnwhat ‘we’ should do about Mr.rnBuchanan, and his decision wasrnsuggestive. ‘Unless he says somethingrnMein Kampfi.sh,’ wrote Mr.rnStern, ‘we should refrain fromrncalling him an anti-Semite. Thatrnwill only draw attention to him,rnand bring him defenders. Rather,rnI suggest we approach other peoplernwhom Buchanan’s adherentsrnsee as equally qualified for the titlernof “defender of the faith” tornwrite a rebuttal. When it comesrnto Catholic-Jewish tensions, whyrnnot a leader in the church? Andrnwhen it is an anti-communismrnbased issue . . . why not a non-rnJewish conservative?’ If Rasputinrnand Machiavelli had conspiredrnover cocktails, they could notrnhave concocted a more furtivernstratagem. The shoe that fits, ofrncourse, is Mr. Buckley, a Catholicrnconservative. Is it too cynical tornask if the American Jewish Committeernor someone associatedrnwith it manipulated him intornlaunching his insubstantial Scudrnagainst Mr. Buchanan and Mr.rnSobran?” From there to the Protocolsrnof Zion is pretty steeprnclimbing, to be sure, but the orientationrnis dead on.rnIt is never easy to reconstruct the illogiernby which a faulty conclusion isrnreached, and Mr. Buckley’s reasoning isrnat best elusive. It seems to consist ofrnthe following: a staple theme of anti-rnSemitic folklore is the claim that therernexists a “Jewish plot,” sponsored by rabbis,rn”elders of Zion,” bankers, etc.,rnwhich is responsible for a variety of orrnall evils that have befallen the West,rnAmerica, Christianity, “Aryans,” etc. Irn(Francis) suggest and discuss the existencernof a “plot” by persons associatedrnwith the American Jewish Committeernagainst Mr. Buchanan. Therefore, I amrnat least encouraging belief in the aforesaidrnstaple of anti-Semitism and mayrnactually credit it mvself, and while therernis no apparent reason to accuse me ofrnbelieving in the old hokum of the “Protocolsrnof the Elders of Zion,” I am clearlyrnon the road to doing so and encouragingrnothers to do so.rnNow in the first place, if this is an accuraternreconstruction of his elliptical argument,rnMr. Buckley has committed anrnelementary logical fallacy in his reasoning,rna fallacy so elementary in fact that itrnhas long since been given the name ofrnthe “fallacy of the undistributed middle.”rnA classic expression of the fallacy isrnthe syllogism: all leaves arc green; my tiernis green; therefore, my tie is a leaf. Thernspecific form that Mr. Buckley has usedrnis (a) anti-Semites believe in a “Jewishrnplot”; (b) Francis believes in a “Jewishrnplot”; (c) therefore, Francis is an anti-rnSemite. You don’t have to be very eruditernto see the flaw, but it seems to havernsailed past Mr. Buckley.rnMr. Buckley’s error in reasoning isrncompounded and made more serious,rnhowever, by yet another fallacy, namely,rnthat of equivocation—using a term tornmean more than one thing in the samernargument, the term in question beingrn”Jewish plot.” He is correct that beliefrnin a grand Jewish plot is a staple of anti-rnSemitic mythology and propaganda, andrnjust for the record I will say that I do notrnbelieve in such a plot and did not intendrnto foster belief in one. What I suggestedrnwas indeed a plot, but one ofrnrather more mundane dimensions thanrnthe “Protocols” and similar literature expoundrnupon. Mr. Buckley seems to bernreasoning that anyone who suggests thatrnany Jews engage in any plots is conceptuallyrnindistinguishable from, or at leastrnon the road to becoming, someone whorncredits the far more grandiose versions ofrnconspiratorialism favored by anti-rnSemites. By his logic, anyone who accusedrnJulius and Ethel Rosenberg ofrnplotting to give secrets to the Soviets,rnanyone who accused the late MeyerrnLansky of plotting with Bugsy Siegel torncommit crimes, anyone who accusedrnJonathan Pollard of plotting with his Israelirnhandlers to commit espionage—rnanyone who suggests that such so-calledrn”Jewish plots” exist is an anti-Semite,rneven though such plots are “Jewish” onlyrnin the sense that some Jews engage inrnthem and not in the more expansive andrnsinister sense that such plots may be attributedrnto the generality of Jews.rnBut of course there is just a little bitrnof difference between using the conceptrnof a “Jewish plot” as an ideological devicernto inculpate all or most Jews, on thernone hand, and, on the other, citing specificrnempirical evidence that a particularrnplot by particular Jews exists. The onernimplies that all or most Jews or their representativernleaders are involved in conspiracy;rnthe other offers evidence thatrnsome Jews are involved in a specific conspiracy.rnMr. Buckley has elided the twornconcepts and condensed their separaternmeanings with his single phrase, “Jewishrnplot.”rnLet it be noted also that I never usedrnthe expression “Jewish plot” in the editorialrnin question; that usage is Mr.rnBuckley’s, and I believe it would havernbeen an inappropriate expression to use,rngiven the false and sinister associationsrnthe expression has. Nevertheless, if, atrnMr. Buckley’s behest, we are going torncall Mr. Stern’s proposal a “Jewish plot,”rnthen there is little question that it existed,rnat least in the sense that no onernhas challenged the authenticity of thernAmerican Jewish Committee’s backgrounder.rnThe question, then, is not,rndid a “Jewish plot” (Mr. Buckley’s term)rnexist, but rather was I correct in suggestingrnthat Mr. Buckley was part of it?rnI simply don’t know; I didn’t know whenrnI wrote the editorial, and I still don’trnknow even now that Mr. Buckley hasrndiscussed it. The reader of Mr. Buckley’srnfootnote (presumably written byrnMr. Buckley) will note that he does notrndeny it, as I deny believing in or trying tornfoster the myth of a Jewish conspiracy. Irnam prepared to assume that Mr. Buckleyrnis an honorable man, and if he does denyrnit, I have no problem believing him.rnBut he has not done so. Will he denyrnthat he was either consciously part of anrnAmerican Jewish Committee plan to discreditrnPat Buchanan or that he was ma-rn10/CHRONICLESrnrnrn