COLUMN: Misfiring Line

From Gregory Pavlik's "Note from the Laundry Room," Fall '93 From Gregory Pavlik's "Note from the Laundry Room," Fall '93Attentive readers of the Daily Pennsylvanian will already have noticed that William F. Buckley and his TV entourage will be pulling into the University of Pennsylvania campus to film a special episode of Firing Line, his boring, weekly PBS program, on the subject of – what else? – free speech. All two people who still want to hear rehashes of the water buffalo and DP confiscation stories will want to set aside time on their calenders for this one. But there is an important question that needs to be raised with regard to his visit. How is it that Buckley can stroll in and pass himself off as a civil libertarian on speech when his book before last, In Search of Anti-Semitism, was a rather convoluted argument in support of content-based speech codes for journalists? Ostensibly, the subject of his book is anti-Semitism, but he never quite gets around to defining what that term means. He does suggest however that "the structure of prevailing taboos respecting Israel and the Jews is welcome." The book breaks down to this: anyone guilty of breaking these "taboos" – again, undefined – is suspect of being an anti-Semite, and therefore is in need of expulsion from the world of journalism and opinion. In practice, this amounts to an effective media blackout on anything that a small clique of ultra-Zionist neoconservatives deem to be at odds with Jewish interests. As if to illustrate this point, Buckley, after agreeing to give space for the individuals insulted in his essay to respond, refused to run a letter from Professor Paul Gottfried – a prominent Jewish critic of neoconservatism. Now, I have no qualms with Israel's right to exist. There are many admirable qualities about the country. But no country is without its flaws, and no one has the right to squelch the voices of anyone that would dare to discuss those flaws. Not within what we still call the land of the free. Of course, this whole discussion provokes a range of questions: How is it that the editor of Commentary magazine and his wife, both of whom Buckley seems particularly eager to please, speak for all Jews everywhere? Are certain ultra-Orthodox Jews "anti-semitic" for their opposition to Zionism? And, the question I'll try to shed some light on, why is Buckley so desperate to suck up to the neoconservative interests represented by the Podhoretzes? Some light was shed on the subject in the September 30, 1993 issue of the Wanderer, a Catholic weekly. In an essay entitled "My Dinner with Bill," Sobran recounts an interesting story about a dinner conversation with Buckley. After he explained to Sobran the need to come to terms with the media power of the Podhoretz clan, the conversation took a revealing turn. As Sobran recounts: "I had just met a dear old Irish Catholic couple, by the name of Sullivan, at my friend Kevin Lynch's house . . . they told me one of the sweetest things I'd ever heard: that they prayed for me in their daily rosaries. I thought that Bill [Buckley] might find this moving too, so I told him about it. If I live to be 100, I'll never forget his reaction. His face just curdled in contempt, and he snarled, 'You don't need those people.'" Oh? As Sobran points out, "those people" are the kind of people that supported the National Review from the start. Not only does Buckley need "those people," but he owes them. Sobran's keenest observation is also the greatest irony of the whole episode. It was devout Catholics like that couple who were the most fervent apologists for Buckley when his current set of friends were busying themselves denouncing Buckley as a Nazi. Buckley would have plenty of Jewish support without pandering to neoconservatives like the Podhoretzes, and these people would have been authentic allies. Equally as revealing is Buckley's treatment in his book of celebrated author Gore Vidal. Vidal's crime was to write a scintillating piece in my favorite weekly, the Nation, entitled "The Empire Lover's Strike Back." It seems the victims of his roast were Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter. The verdict, as we have seen, for anyone that disagrees with them – let alone insults them – is "anti-Semite." Of course, Vidal was being funny and not at all anti-Semitic in his writings. But since he made the reasonable suggestion that the Podhoretzes register with the Justice Department before continuing their lobbying on behalf of a foreign power, he stepped over the line. So it seems that the explanation for Buckley's little tirade and his personal betrayals amounts to his willingness to stoop to any level to please those centered around a New York neoconservative elite. In order to fully reflect the interests of any minority, we must have the necessary protections of speech codes, etc., that are always demanded when an agenda might be threatened by honest and open debate. I still scratch my head and wonder why we need to fight wars in the Middle East, or dish out foreign aid, or tolerate the bombing of U.S. ships, or excuse the spying of a foreign country, or ... you get the picture. But under the auspices of Pope Bill and his friends, no one is allowed to talk about any of these things – unless they have the proscribed opinion. Buckley should take his dog and pony show elsewhere. Maybe Penthouse will be holding a forum on free speech soon. I know they've enjoyed his contributions in the past. Gregory Pavlik is a senior Materials Science and Engineering major from Delran, New Jersey. Idols of the Theater appears alternate Tuesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.