That is both the ethical core and psychological heart of what it means to be a part of the left. That is where the gratification comes from. To see yourself as a social redeemer. To feel anointed. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism.
That is why it is of little concern to them that their socialist schemes have run aground, burying millions of human beings in their wake. That is why they don't care that their panaceas have caused more human suffering than all the injustices they have ever challenged. That is why they never learn from their "mistakes." That is why the continuance of Them is more important than any truth.
If you were active in the so-called "peace" movement or in the radical wing of the civil rights causes, why would you tell the truth? Why would you tell people that no, you weren't really a "peace activist," except in the sense that you were against America's war. Why would you draw attention to the fact that while you called yourselves "peace activists," you didn't oppose the Communists' war, and were gratified when America's enemies won?
What you were really against was not war at all, but American "imperialism" and American capitalism. What you truly hated was America's democracy, which you knew to be a "sham" because it was controlled by money in the end. That's why you wanted to "Bring the Troops Home," as your slogan said. Because if America's troops came home, America would lose and the Communists would win. And the progressive future would be one step closer.
But you never had the honesty—then or now—to admit that. You told the lie then to maintain your influence and increase your power to do good (as only the Chosen can). And you keep on telling the lie for the same reason.
Why would you admit that, despite your tactical support for civil rights, you weren't really committed to civil rights as Americans understand rights? What you really wanted was to overthrow the very Constitution that guaranteed those rights, based as it is on private property and the individual—both of which you despise.
It is because America is a democracy and the people endorse it, that the left's anti-American, but "progressive" agendas can only be achieved by deceiving the people. This is the cross the left has to bear: The better world is only achievable by lying to the very people they propose to redeem.
Despite the homage contemporary leftists pay to post-modernist conceits, despite their belated and half-hearted display of critical sentiment towards Communist regimes, they are very much the ideological heirs of Stalinist progressives, who supported the greatest mass murders in human history, but who remember themselves as civil libertarian opponents of McCarthy and victims of a political witch-hunt. (Only the dialectically gifted can even begin to follow the logic involved.)
To appreciate the continuity of communism in the mentality of the left, consider how many recent Hollywood promotions of the industry Reds and how many academic apologies for Stalinist crimes (in fact, the vast majority of recent academic texts on the subject) have been premised on the Machiavellian calculations and Hegelian sophistries I have just described.
Naturally, today's leftists are smart enough to distance themselves from Soviet Communism. But the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev was already a critic of Stalin forty years ago. Did his concessions make him less of a Communist? Or more?............."
Long ago, Peter Rodman demolished that old canard.
I only scanned it, as it was utterly devoid of any content other than the writer’s juvenile scolding.
by going to and opening relations with China, Nixon flanked the Russians in vietnam and eliminated the need for the war
Lots of hate and cognitive dissonance from a nutjob.
Reagan was Governor of California, he had no influence about Vietnam. This is author is just whacked out crazy
My parents, both products of working-class families and graduates of a tuition-free public university, marched often with other suburban families. They never carried the Vietcong flag, or saw anyone else do it. They never committed any acts of violence. They did have rocks thrown at them by construction workers, and they were spit on (unlike the humiliated, returning soldiers of right-wing legend) but they kept marching, because they thought that was the right (and American) thing to do.
While not every veteran may have been spat on, I really doubt more protesters were actually spat on either. I wouldn't call one a "right-wing legend" and assume the legitimacy of left-wing myths.
Also, it's pretty striking that we are supposed to take him at his word that his parents didn't carry or see anyone carrying the Viet Cong flag so somehow it didn't actually happen, when actually it did.
Somebody who was actually there at the time or somebody who was a little more thoughtful, could have made some of the same points without putting us through all of the emotional turmoil -- all the animosity and self-righteous arrogance -- all over again.
What is this load of horse tripe?
Bkmk
We still have forces in Korea. How was the justification of Vietnam any different from that?
You can go to his website and read about his book complaining about how awful he thought his father was. From that you might conclude that he'd agree that the 60s generation had a lot of problems, but Birkenhead presents a whitewash here.
I get that people have ambivalence about their parents and their parents' values, but Peter's writing here really doesn't reflect the negative side that he apparently stresses in his book. It looks like focus on common political enemies has clouded his vision of the environment he grew up in.
Protecting the image of JFK is part of what it means today to be an American. Even Dan Quayle did it at his expense in the pitiful debate with Lloyd Millard Bentsen, Jr., of Houston.
Having lived through the Vietnam Era I don’t see it as a Noble Cause.
The reasons for going into Vietnam were never made very clear. I can remember reading David Halberstam’s book “The Best and the Brightest”, which tried to explain things. I read when it first came out and maybe I need to re-read now.
I look at Vietnam as a war were we sacrificed the Flower of our youth of my generation and after all was said and done there was really nothing to show for it.
I think in a large sense we were betrayed by the leaders of the time and sold a bill of goods. While the genus of our involvement started in the late 1950’s under Eisenhower,and then Kennedy, but more so under Johnson who expanded and enlarged our involvement past the point of any kind of logic.
It is and will continue to be a controversial episode in our countries history.
Did hippie scum. All of them.