James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at Jkfitz42@cs.com.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
Since then I have seen it used numerous times, usually to denote an individual who postures as a holier-than-thou elitist and who reflexively finds fault with the American mainstream. Jeane Kirkpatrick used the term “blame America first” to describe the same type of person.
These terms popped to my mind as I read a recent column by Michelle Malkin about former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Clark came to Malkin’s attention because of his efforts to secure better treatment for the al Qaeda detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Clark’s organization, the International Action Center, is concerned that the detainees’ human rights are being violated because they are not being provided “adequate clothing, underwear and footwear, fairly priced food, soap, tobacco and ordinary items and complete latitude in the exercise of religion.”
Is there anything to Clark’s charge? It doesn’t look that way to me. But what is of greater interest to me just now is Malkin’s reprise of Clark’s activism over the years since he served in the Johnson administration. She concludes that “Clark’s agenda is neither peace nor justice. It is terrorist ambulance-chasing. He is far less concerned with freeing the innocent than with allying himself with America’s enemies at every turn – the gorier, the better.” Take a look at Malkin’s list. It gives Clark’s career context. Clark is the man who:
• “Flew to Hanoi to give aid comfort to the North Vietnamese while American POWs were being beaten, tortured, and killed;
• Flew to Teheran to condemn the “Crimes of America” while his fellow citizens were being held hostage by Iranian militants;
• Flew to Tripoli to cheer up Colonel Mohamar Qadaffi after the U.S. bombed Libya terrorist training facilities;
• Flew to France to kneel at the feet of the late Ayatollah Kohmeini;
• Flew to Baghdad to consult with Saddam Hussein;
• Flew to the defense of PLO leaders sued by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the wheelchair-bound American tourist who was shot and tossed overboard from the cruise ship Achille Lauro by Palestinian commandos in 1986;
• Flew to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic’s side, in a show of solidarity against American imperialism, to defend him against charges of genocide, rape, and torture against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo;
• Flew to the aid of indicted Rwanda genocide conspirator Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a Hutu pastor accused of luring hundreds of Tutsi men, women, and children into his church and hospital compound – where they were massacred by gunmen and grenade-throwers; and
• Flew to support the 1993 World Trade Center bombers…and continues to represent Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, the scheming Muslim cleric now in federal prison for his role in planning New York City terrorist attacks.”
Now there’s a bird of paradise. I bet you, like me, had forgotten much of Clark’s bizarre past behavior. Malkin concludes that “Ramsey Clark’s record is not one of principled pacifism, but of compulsive anti-Americanism.”
Fair enough. I guess no one would quarrel if Clark were called a leftist. Yet look at Malkin’s list: Clark does not limit his activism to your regular garden variety of leftists. Whatever you want to call the Ayatollah Khomeini, Colonel Qaddafi, the PLO, Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, and Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, they are not Marxists. It appears that Clark will come to your aid if you hate America – for whatever the reason. (Well, almost. I don’t think he would leap to the defense of members of the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Brotherhood, or an American soldier accused of a war crime.)
And what is my point? Just this: I think the Clark syndrome makes clear that it can be a mistake to assume that those who oppose our national interests are part of some leftwing conspiracy. And too many of us make that mistake, discrediting the cause of those who defend our national and traditional values. It does no good to come across as “conspiracy nuts.”
Please don’t misread me: I am not saying that all the conspiracy theories are without merit. I could picture myself organizing a conspiracy to promote my values if I had great wealth and powerful friends. So I don’t think it irrational to picture leftists with money and power trying to do the same thing. Maybe there are Marxist cells and Illuminati and Bilderbergers out there, and secret meetings between powerful men at the Council on Foreign Relations. I don’t think that those who believe this to be true are cranks and fanatics – not all of them. I admire the work of many of those who seek to demonstrate the effect of one-worlders in our government and the academy, for example.
But, before we go around accusing people of being members of shadowy conspiracies and cabals, we should look carefully at what makes them tick. Not everyone who opposes us is a member of some secret society. They just may be Ramsey Clarks, birds of paradise, individuals who take their ideological positions more to establish their credentials as elitists, or out of some quirky psychological need, than to promote the cause of a mysterious organization with a clear ideological focus. It is important to speak out against men such as Clark, but we should make our case against them without resorting to charges that we cannot back up.