What Kind ofArgument is That?

By Ann Coulter of drinks,professorDerk Boddc (who was one of the first issuedflagrantly pro-Communist propaganda in his reports to apply for the post I was vacating at Yale) rose and an fromChina, insisting thatthe United Statesabandon our ally Arnold Beichman recently nounced, 'I propose a toast! Wc finally got Dick Walker!'" Chiang Kai-shek and work with the Communists. The future wrote a column attacking my Beichman wearilyexplainedhe refusedto read my book ofChina, Davics said, is not Chiang's, but theirs. Or. as the latest book. Treason — which he because "life is too short." But life is not so short that it Wa.shington Postputit in Davics' obituary, Davies' reports "ad- at least admits he didn't read— cannot be filled with days reading Dick vi.scd a more nuanccd approach to claiming he has the "napes of Walker quoting people lauding Dick Communism in Chinathan waspoliti- 'innocent lives' Mr. McCarthy Walker. (How can I add my name to cally palatable."(In the sense that Bcnc- j ruined." 1 was excited to see it. the list of people whose lives were m- ^ diet Arnold took a more "nuanccd" I've been asking for just one in- ined by Dick Walker?) approach toward the American Revolu- loccnt person ruined by Joe McCarthy for six weeks, but But the point is, anyone who adver* . 1 lion than was politically palatable.) inlilnow all I had gottenwas wildspeculation about my tises his own pathological need for es- In addition, a Senate committee rcc- •crsonal life. tablishmentarian approvalis not likelyto ommendcddiat Davicsbe triedforper- But strangely, while Beichman claims to have the names be found praising Joe McCarthy. Still— ' jury for denying that he had >f McCarthy's innocent victims, he declines to mention though Beichman fmdsit absolutely ur- /i '• sM 1^1 "^of^nicndcd various communisLs and hem. (It's been almost 50 years and these people still gent that I read Walker's piece — the Communist sympathizers to the CIA. »on*t name names.) Instead he offers to send me an article only specific charge against McCarthy investigated more than half a iiatgives"one of themost important testimonies aboutMc- in the entire groaning articic is this: dozen times by the State Department. 'urthyism"by "oneof our leading Sinologists"—if 1pro- "McCarthyism destroyed the careers of Eventually. Secretary of Slate John ide my address. SinccBeichman ain't gettingmy address, a number of fine China specialisLsin the Fo.stcr Dullc.s—no fan of Mc- vc looked up the article on my own. It contains the names Foreign Service. What happened to Canhy'.s—asked Davie.s to resign. f preciselytwo people allegedly destroyed by McCarthy. Oliver Edmund Clubb and John Paton y Evidence that Davics' carecr was The author of this "illuminating article on Joe Mc- Davics was a discreditable chapter in the i H "destroyed" by McCarthy consisLs of arthy"is one Richard Walker. Hedidn't allot muchspace defense of Stale Department profes- * raftsof platitudinous, worshipful men- or the discussion of McCarthy's victims, inasmuch as the sionals who were rendering honest ser- Defending her book Treason, Ann lions ofhis name, hagiographic obitu- fticic consisted primarily of Walker's reminiscences about vicetotheir country." Coulter rebuts assertions that the arics, the "John Paton Davics Lecturc imsclf. I quote: Davics andClubb were among the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R.-Wisc.) Series" at Decrficid Academy—and • "In 1953I publishedmy book TheMulti-Stale System WASP three-names who helped relin- ruined the lives of innocent people, even his return tothe State Department /Ancient China. The reaction from the scholarly world quish China to Communist mass mur- in 1969to workondisarm.'unenlwork on disann.-unenl ivuc:.i.vuc:. as very good." derers—, John Stewart Service, John Most important, there is an iron-clad taboo against • "One distinguished scholar—who shall remain name- Paton Davies and Oliver Edmund Clubb. blaming communist-sympathizing Foreign Scrvicc officers jss but who will appear in this narrativeagain in the con- Leaving aside the intriguing facts about Oliver Edmund like Davies for the loss ofChina. You can say the neo-con- :xt of events that happened a few years later—wrote to Clubb. this was not a case instigated by McCarthy, but servatives single-handedly took the nation to war with Iraq, ic. 'I wish to send my congratulations. I find it excellent rather by one of Beichman's heroes. . but you cannot say that a band ofpro-Mao Foreign Service nd marvel at the mass of literature you went through to Indeed, Chambers says as much in his book "Witness"— agents in China had any effect on Mao's triumph in China. :ach your conclusions a bookBeichman has praised, saying"few autobiographies Democrats lose entire continents to totalitarian monsters, • "Other reviewers praised the volume." are as moving and as instructive about the meaning of lose wars to bloody tyrants, lose countries to Islamic fascists, • "Two of my graduate students, who subsequently re- Communism." I've read the article by Richard Walker. and then insist that everyone recite the liberal catechism: "No civedtheirdoctoratesfromYale, attended the meetingand Now Beichman ought to actually read Witness. one lost China." "Vietnam was an unwinnable war." )ldme what transpired. Following a few toasts and rounds As for John Paton Davies, as a Foreign Service officer, he "Khomeini's rise to power was inevitable." (Conversely. Ronald Reagan didn't "win" the Cold War, it just ended.) At the time, the State Department even issued an 800- page "White Paper" purporting to prove the communisi takeover ofChina was inevitable. Despite these heroic ef forts, a Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans did not buy the "inevitability" excuse. If Foreign Service of ficers like Davies can't be blamed for the loss of China, why is Joe McCarthy blamed for the loss of Davies' job? Maybe that was "inevitable." too. It is not clear how one goes about delineating with ab solute certainty where "inevitability" ends and "traitorous incompetence" begins. I will leave that to metaphysicians like Arnold Beichman. Still, what kind ofargument is thatl The claim that nobody could have saved China is the most amazing Democratic dodge ever. Perhaps in the chaos of the Weimar Republic, Hitler's rise to power was also inevitable. But it is unlikely that we would feel much warmth toward Nazi stooges feverishly working in the State E>cpartment to reach out to Hitler on the grounds that his rise was "in evitable." Would our anger be assuaged if we were informed their hard work didn't really help? They tried to help Hitler, but their assistance was superfluous. Lei's move on. Whether or not China could have been saved from Communism, it is a fact that the WASP three-names like John Paton Davies weren't trying to save it. llrxLW Events • theWeekofaugust11,2003