I don't normally comment on politics (or religion, or sex) here, since I don't want to pick gratuitous fights; this blog is supposed to be about the unique interests my friends and I share, not about the common and divisive stuff of everyday discourse.
I think that may be a bit of a mistake, though. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in…
Through the miracle of TiVo I just got done watching Stephen Colbert interview Pat Buchanan on The Colbert Report last Thursday. Buchanan was pimping his new book, which apparently has as part of its thesis that World War II could have been avoided if we'd just given Adolf Hitler some of the territory he wanted; indeed, that his country deserved, since the disputed territory was populated mostly by German-speaking people.
The thesis seemed ludicrous on the face of it, but it swerved way into the offensive when Buchanan claimed that a strategy of appeasement would have prevented the Holocaust. By implication, the Holocaust was the fault of the British and Americans for opposing Hitler. (Buchanan has been accused of anti-Semitism and admiration for Hitler on many occasions with good evidence. He has made strongly Revisionist statements about the Holocaust.)
The Holocaust was Adolf Hitler's fault. No one else's. I know of no credible historical evidence or argument that suggests that some different course of action by the Allies would have prevented it. To play political games with it is inexcusable.
But I already know Pat Buchanan is a creep. What disturbs me is Stephen Colbert giving him airtime. I've noticed this pattern a lot with Colbert and Stewart (although never in my recollection this egregiously). They want to give the appearance of "fairness" and "balance", so they invite somebody beyond the pale onto their program. Once there, they naturally want to show their respect to the guest they've invited in. Thus, they ask pointed but measured interview questions and make mild jokes that do little to express the scorn and outrage one can only believe they must feel.
What deplorable people such as Pat Buchanan seem to crave most is fame and attention. They thrive on Barnum's famous dictum about publicity. The only decent course that well meaning people in the public eye can take is to ignore them. Pat Buchanan is completely irrelevant to modern political life—unless someone like Stephen Colbert gives him a soapbox.
Shame on you for doing so, Mr. Colbert. Shame. (B)