Historian John Lukacs writes a negative review of Pat Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. This would hardly be news save for where the criticism appeared: The American Conservative. Buchanan, if you remember, founded the magazine in 2002. Buchanan provided the name, Taki the money, and Scott McConnell the sweat. Taki took his money elsewhere and Pat Buchanan's name has been trashed.

I haven't read Buchanan's book, but one of Lukacs's criticisms certainly rings true. "The further and perhaps deeper problem is Buchanan's sincerity," he writes. "Since when has he been an admirer of the British Empire?" Merely seeing the book's title a few months back evoked the same thought. Does Pat Buchanan really weep over the collapse of the British Empire? Yet, Lukacs's strong points get buried beneath an unfortunate comparison that does more to discredit the reviewer than the reviewed. "In this review it is not my proper business to speculate about Buchanan's inclinations," Lukacs writes. "I must restrict myself to questioning his arguments." But by comparing Buchanan to David Irving, Lukacs violates his self-imposed restriction. Irving, an historian whose claim to infamy involves holocaust denial, isn't cited in Buchanan's book. From what I understand the book discusses the wider question of World War II and takes for granted, as buttressed by the historical evidence and endless personal testimony, that the holocaust was not "the hoax of the century," as one denier's book puts it, but mass-murder on a scale rarely approached in recorded history. Why mention Buchanan's name in the same breath as Irving's? It only obscures any of the valid points Lukacs makes and focuses all attention on a few vindictive sentences.

Lukacs's review, predictably, has caused a firestorm. Tom Piatak, on The American Conservative's blog no less, calls Lukacs a "crank" and--gasp--a "neocon." This is unfair to Lukacs, who has produced many fine works of history. It's also unfair to Buchanan. Perhaps not Piatak, but I sense that many of Buchanan's fans believe he is a god above criticism. Certainly anyone writing a book that calls the fight against Hitler an "unnecessary war" knows that he is in for it.

What is most interesting about this controversy is neither Lukacs's criticism nor Buchanan's book. It is The American Conservative's decision to commission a review of a book by one of its founders by a known intellectual adversary. However harmful it may be to Buchanan that critics can now say that even his own magazine won't back him, it may be ultimately more harmful to The American Conservative to alienate the man primarily responsible for attracting its subscribers.

"While Pat Buchanan is a large name in and of himself, he is the figure most associated with a brand of conservatism that could be called 'old right,' 'paleoconservative,' 'America First,' or even 'Buchananite' or 'Pat Buchanan Conservative,'" Marcus Epstein notes in an informative piece at TakiMag. "Whatever you want to call it, neither TAC editor Scott McConnell nor the magazine fit into any of those categories." Paul Gottfried's take, like mine and Epstein's, finds neither Lukacs or Buchanan the object of interest here, but the American Conservative. He writes at TakiMag, "the magazine is usually predictable, for example, in opposing the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and in supporting the Palestinian cause, sometimes to the point of playing down Palestinian violence. The same magazine is also vehemently against the war in Iraq, indeed so much so that its tirades are often formulaic. Almost every issue has at least one piece on the war, and often by authors who have made similar denunciations in earlier issues. On most other matters, the American Conservative rarely stands to the right of the neoconservative press, and its tendency to feature fairly conventional leftists suggests for me that the editorial staff is trying to build up a following among liberal establishment journalists." The editor's decision to endorse John Kerry for president in 2004, a "conservative case for Obama" piece in a recent issue, and fawning over the likes of Norman Mailer have left many American conservatives scratching their heads over The American Conservative. The attack on Buchanan puzzles further, leaving some to admire its boldness and others to decry it as biting the hand that fed them.

Reviews, unfortunately, are often assigned based on a preexisting understanding between editor and writer on how the review will turn out. In the case of Lukacs reviewing Buchanan, such an understanding was unnecessary since TAC editor Scott McConnell knew how such a review would turn out before even speaking to Lukacs. In other words, publishing a negative review of Buchanan's book was by design. Whether motivated by a desire to forge an identity independent from Buchanan, to get people talking about the magazine, or to distance itself from Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War's controversial thesis, The American Conservative has succeeded in doing all of that.

The American Conservative (and Lukacs) has its defenders. Daniel Larison of the TAC hosted Eunomia blog opines, "Obviously, invoking the name of David Irving was quite unnecessary for the purposes of the review (though I understand why Lukacs used it to make his traditional point about the danger of half-truths), but then so is throwing around the epithet neocon or accusing John Lukacs of all people of holding neoconservative views." "AmCon hasn't been taken over by leftists, its just that they aren't stupid and don't want to refight the 'movement' wars of years gone by," holds the Left Conservative blog regarding Professor Gottfried's critique. "One final note on the subject of the TakiMag v. AmCon issue. Last year Taki himself vanished from the pages of AmCon for reasons that were never explained. Soon thereafter Chronicles took up his column. Last week TakiMag announced that they will begin publishing Pat Buchanan's syndicated column and featured a long excerpt of the previously mentioned book as a feature article. Given all of that, one has to wonder what sort of behind the scenes issues have been going on with both of these journals and why have they now evolved into a public pissing contest?"

Indeed.

Hello my name is Df11 virtually everything I said at the begining of the season about the Celtics and Kevin Garnett has been right on. Everything Ralph has said has been off. And Ben, think back you too. What do you think of Garnett's value now! I wasn't a homer, and the Celtics will win the Championship. They are underdogs? I will be making a big deposit to my bank account in mid June.

What bothers me the most about all of this are the evolutionary inconsistencies of “conservatives”. The principles, tenets and hard fast rules that are supposed to differentiate conservatives from all over the map, wishy washy liberals and most democrats seem to have infected those who consider themselves “conservative” or at least enlightened Republicans.

Must be a result of the new bi-partisan, why can't we just all get along, attitude that seems to be sweeping politics and opinion. Problem is, it hasn't affected the left.

I was a big fan, if thats the word, of Pat B. But i heard him say this in the late 90s and i could not believe it. so now i dont listen to him any more. i mean aint we spos to lern lessons from history?

If Buchanan had been our President after the 96' election, we would now have more f’ing domestically produced gasoline that we’d know what to do with and be energy independent. He was the smartest no bull$hite candidate in the hunt. Which means that he never stood a chance of getting elected.

I have had a subscription to the mag since the beginning but ever since Taki's column disappeared I noted hoiw gay and liberal the magazine has gotten. They could barely deign to mention Ron Paul's candidacy, they fawned over Suckabee, etc. I haven't read the last 4 issues that showed up but knowing they have done this to Pat will finally get me off my duff to go ahead and cancel my subscription.

It is a despicable thing to do, just plain rude. And Pat is not to be deified but like Paul he is a decent man in politics and should be treated with respect as an elder statesman of conservatism.

I am happily wrong, DF11.

looks like a very interesting book.

I'm still waiting for Gottfried to explain how publishing pro-secession leftist Kirkpatrick Sale is kowtowing to the liberal establishment? Or how Scott McConnell is trying to court the approval of Norman Podhoretz despite editing a magazinet hat takes a clear anti-occupation stance on the Israel-Palestinian issue? Or how the magazine rarely publishes anything to the right of the neoconservatives, while regularly hosting foreign policy realists and non-interventionists?

Paul Gottfried is a brilliant man, but that rant is one of the most dishonest, non-sensical things I can remember reading anywhere on the blogosphere this year.