Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Michael Can't Read: Defining the American Left -- Part II
GOPUSA ^ | March 16, 2005 | David Horowitz

Posted on 03/16/2005 5:52:15 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Editor's Note: Why Michael Can't Read: Defining the American Left -- Part I was published March 14, 2005 on GOPUSA.

----

For the interested, the term "liberal" was hijacked from actual liberals a generation ago. One can see this for oneself by taking the career of John F. Kennedy as a point of reference. Kennedy became a liberal icon at the beginning of the Sixties, before the left gained the ability to define (and re-define) the political spectrum for the rest of us. Kennedy's politics -- militant anti-Communism, hawkish defense policies and tax-cut agendas are indistinguishable from the politics of the 80s conservative Ronald Reagan (he was even weak on Civil Rights). In the 60s, Hubert Humphrey was also recognized as "liberal." But he, too, was an anti-Communist liberal (as any liberal worthy of the name would have to be). This made him an enemy of the left -- the same left which everyone refers to as "liberals" today.

So in 1968, the left set out to organize his electoral defeat and end his political career. They labeled him a "cold war liberal," which meant to them no liberal at all, and organized a riot at the Democratic Party convention that nominated him for president. In those very years, Norman Podhoretz, the editor of the (then) liberal magazine Commentar had begun dissociating himself from the "New Left" because of its support for America's Communist adversaries, and because the Democratic Party which after Humphrey's defeat and fall came under the leadership of George McGovern (a man who never met a Communist enemy he would go to war with). In other words, the Democratic Party appeared to Podhoretz to be joining the leftist camp.

Podhoretz thought of himself as a liberal and, as he describes in Breaking Ranks, fought fiercely to keep the label for himself and those like him who were reacting against the leftwing turn of the Democratic Party. It was the Democratic Party's betrayal of liberalism (its embrace of racial preferences, its appeasement of the Communist enemy) that made Podhoretz support the Republican Ronald Reagan. But socialists like Dissent editor Michael Harrington would have none of this. Harrington coined the term "neo-conservative" to identify and vilify liberals like Podhoretz, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and other Democrats disillusioned with their increasingly leftwing party. If Podhoretz could be labeled a neo-conservative, then leftists like Harrington could be called "liberals."

Fortunately for Harrington, and leftists like him, they had political allies in the arbitrating institutions of the political culture that could make such labels stick. Soon the New York Times (web site) and the network TV anchors (web site) were referring not only to Harrington, but to lifelong Communists like Angela Davis (web site) and pro-Communist radicals like Tom Hayden (web site) -- who had organized the Democratic convention riot -- as "liberals." The Times, followed by the Washington Post and other engines of the culture of course identified Podhoretz and his colleagues, despite their protests, as "neo-conservatives." And the labels stuck.

In this way the entire political culture underwent a shift to the left, so that today leftists like Michael Berube are themselves amazed when an ideological feminist like Ruth Bader Ginsburg (web site) is also referred to as a leftist (although that is precisely what she is).

People who support the redistribution of income generally; people who support the redistribution of social resources on the basis of skin color; people who support the relentless expansion of the state; people who are so intolerant they refer to Republicans as "Nazis" (as for example Bill Clinton, Rep. John Lewis and Senator Byrd have all done) and who can find nothing wrong with university faculties that are 90-95% on one side of the political divide -- such people are not liberal under any reasonable definition of the word. They are left.

On the other hand they don't want to be identified as "left" because they don't want to be burdened with the history of their political "mistakes." In particular, they don't want to be accountable for their support for or appeasement of our Communist enemies during the Cold War. Nor do they want to be accountable -- the case with leading Democrats -- for their protection and support for anti-American radicals like Cynthia McKinney, (web site) and the sixty odd socialist members of the so-called Progressive Caucus. (web site) They like to prefer to refer to overt socialists and anti-America radicals as "liberals" so people won't think of the disasters created by socialists and anti-American radicals when they think of them. Of course they then complain when conservatives respond to the radical ideas of liberals, that conservatives have maliciously given liberalism a bad name.

Take a look at the information provided in DiscoverTheNetwork.org (all the links in this article refer to the database), the alliances revealed and the common agendas disclosed, and learn why it is important to apply the term "left" to the individuals who have been included on this site. Or, if the site doesn't convince you, then argue why the case is not proved. Ridicule is not an argument, though Michael Berube and his comrades seem to think so. As I wrote in my original rejoinder, (web site) "The striking thing about Berube's response is his unwillingness to join the intellectual argument."

In a more recent blog (March 2), Berube has responded to the newly articulated picture grid, which distinguishes the degrees of separation between factions of the left. But he has done so in a manner as superficial and dismissive as ever. Seizing on the category "Affective Leftists," he writes: "What is an Affective Leftist you ask? Don't ask! This humble blog does not know." Well it's not for lack of our trying. If Berube remains ignorant that has more to do with Berube's inability to read plain English, or perhaps just his inability to look at himself.

On the very page in DiscoverTheNetwork where the picture grid appears, there is a description of the section that explains its principle of inclusion. At the end of this description one can read the following sentence: "For an explanation of this picture grid click here." even this sentence escaped Berube's notice because if he had clicked the link he would have been taken to an essay called "Defining the Left," (web site) where his question is answered:.

"The term 'Affective Leftist' requires some explanation, and I am grateful to my comrade-in-arms Peter Collier for the description that follows: These are people who are often in positions of influence, the media in particular, who are bien pensant in the extreme. In spite of their social status, they see themselves 'in opposition,' a legacy from the 60s when the notion of 'The System' as a malign code word for America was born. They are also involved in post-radical chic, glorifying people who 'authentically' represent oppositional ideas in a way they would not have the courage or really even the political inclination to do themselves. To these people, as opposed to serious leftists, political "ideas" are the intellectual equivalent of a fashion statement, always adjusting to meet current trends, always meant as a sort of code to tell the world that they are good people. Obviously, this refers to people like Katie Couric and Robin Williams and almost all of Hollywood. (Some Hollywood people like Sean Penn (web site) with his Communist lineage are harder core and should be distinguished from this category; but there aren't that many of them, and in any case as actors their politics are largely emotion-based as well.)

"These affective liberals have as their bottom-line definition the fact that they want to feel that they are on the right side rather than any real commitment to a vision (or anti-vision) for the country. They are for 'freedom' when it is freedom to kill third-term fetuses or engage in same-sex marriages or blow stuff up their noses; they do not define freedom as having anything to do with captive peoples around the world having the chance to escape the tyrannies that constrain them. They like Fidel because he is a thorn in America's side and a sort of dime-store existentialist, and they rhapsodize about his spreading of literacy in Cuba without considering the fact that at the same time that he teaches people to read he tortures writers like Armando Valladares whose books he doesn't like."

Is this definition difficult to understand? What people like Berube don't seem to understand is that politics is, in the end, a serious business. When Berube and his friends opposed America's Cold War with the Communist enemy, the consequences of their actions were dire indeed. In Cambodia and South Vietnam, Berube leftists -- including John Kerry and Ted Kennedy -- are accountable for making it possible for the Communists to slaughter two-and-a-half million innocent people after U.S. aid was cut at their insistence. But what if they had been successful in other campaigns? If the nuclear freeze movement had prevailed over its conservative opposition it is very possible that a billion people in the Soviet bloc would still be under the Communist heel. If leftists like Berube and Kennedy, had been successful in obstructing the effort of America and Britain to liberate Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, Iraqis would still be disappearing into plastic shredders and mass graves, there would be no democracy movement in the Middle East, and the world in general would be a more dangerous place.

The utility of DiscoverTheNetwork.org is that it shows the left is a network that is vast in scope, and that this network influences American policy at every level, with troubling consequences for us all.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: communism; david; horowitz; johnkerry; left; leftism; liberal; liberalism; michaelberube; radical; radicalism; socialism; socialist; tedkennedy
I found this article quite interesting. DiscoverTheNetwork.org sounds like an interesting site, too.
1 posted on 03/16/2005 5:52:15 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; alisasny; AlwaysFree; AnnaSASsyFR; Angelwood; aristeides; Askel5; ...

PING!


2 posted on 03/16/2005 5:53:34 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Fascinating analysis by Horowitz.


3 posted on 03/16/2005 6:03:00 PM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

It is a good article, although I would disagree with the term "left". I believe the appropriate name is "socialist".


4 posted on 03/16/2005 6:33:51 PM PST by Roland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Good article!


5 posted on 03/16/2005 6:51:04 PM PST by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
But socialists like Dissent editor Michael Harrington would have none of this. Harrington coined the term "neo-conservative" to identify and vilify liberals like Podhoretz, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and other Democrats disillusioned with their increasingly leftwing party.

I heard Michael Medved go ballistic once responding to someone using the term "neo-con."

To be vilified by leftist ideologues should be a badge of honor.

Me thinks that these "former" liberals have brought some of their stupid tricks with them to the Party; to wit, discredit conservative opponents while avoiding discourse by taking offense and reacting with accusations of bigotry.

If the nuclear freeze movement had prevailed over its conservative opposition it is very possible that a billion people in the Soviet bloc would still be under the Communist heel.

And if the people in that nuclear freeze movement -- aided by businessmen and liberal Republicans -- had gotten their way on "free trade" that we trade with the Soviets lest we "play into the hands of the Soviet hard liners and there will be war and it will be our fault" there would be an economically strong Soviet Union today. They got their way with Red China, the damn fools.

6 posted on 03/16/2005 8:05:31 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (MSM Fraudcasters are skid marks on journalism's clean shorts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Horowitz is terrific. He's a former Marxist himself, and he knows all of their angles. While there are some Buchananites who label him a neo-conservative (meaning liberal), I think he's best described as a classical liberal (using the old-fashioned terminology). In today's language, that's a mainstream conservative. According to the classic definitions of these terms, even Buchanan would be considered to be a "right-liberal." The true right is basically absent in American political discourse, as there really aren't many Monarchists around - not since about 1781, at any rate.

Leftists don't even call themselves liberals anymore but "moderates", "progressives", or even "conservatives." That's also a classic Marxist/Leftist MO - to constantly change the terminology. The goal is always to paint those opposing their monstrous agenda as "extremists", "the vast right-wing conspiracy", the extra chromosome right wing", and the old standby, the "racist, homopobic, patriarchy."


7 posted on 03/16/2005 9:20:20 PM PST by Bogolyubski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roland

Left is actually a much broader term than socialist. Socialists believe in state-controlled economies, such as those found in the EU. It's OK with them for the government to be elected, which is where they part company with communists. There are various "flavors" of leftism. On one hand, you have the hard core communists (Soviet Union, North Korea, Mao's China, etc.), then there are the socialists (the EU counties, UK, Canada, etc.), also there are "third way" leftists (Nazis, Italian Frascists, today's China, the Clintons - where large corporate entities are used as vehicles to further the establishment of utopia). Bill Gates, a lifelong leftist, recently gave a speech describing the totalitarian regime in China as a "new type of democracy."

Conservatives are often befuddled when they see all of these CEOs and other very wealthy individuals supporting every sort of crackpot scheme the leftists have going. Most attribute this to ingnorance on the part of the CEOs, et al. While that may be the case on rare occaisions, most of the time it is because the ruling elites see themslves as the vanguard of the new utopia and fully agree with its ultimate agenda - the destruction of Western civilization and all of its underpinnings, especially Christianity. All leftists subscribe to the same utopian melodrama. If we can just get rid of the ignorance of religion, and the oppression of those who still cling to it, the world will blossom into a utopia of free and equal supermen.


8 posted on 03/16/2005 9:40:36 PM PST by Bogolyubski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

bttt


9 posted on 03/16/2005 10:22:56 PM PST by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bogolyubski
RE: "there are 'third way' leftists (Nazis, Italian Frascists, today's China, the Clintons - where large corporate entities are used as vehicles to further the establishment of utopia). Bill Gates, a lifelong leftist, recently gave a speech describing the totalitarian regime in China as a 'new type of democracy.'"

Good points!

The Third Way is "where large corporate entities are used as vehicles to further the establishment of utopia"

Indeed, the DLC's New Democrat On Line (ndol.org) is the New Democrat Third Way "progressives'" web site. They know that the market economy is the only way to create wealth world wide. They say 20th century liberalism belongs on the trash heap.

They favor "free trade" including outsourcing off shore to developing nations. They of course want it all rules-based, they make the rules -- probably at Davos. They want the WTO to include "social justice" concerns.

It is impossible to convince most FR "free traders" to take a look. Those opposed to "free trade" transfer of technology, wealth, and production to China are denounced as opposed to free trade in general (real free trade). "Free trade" opponents favor protectionism and government control, the "free traders" say. They ain't seen government control until they see the Davos world they are helping to build.

My advice to them, when your "progressive" partners ask, "Do you sell rope?" RUN!

10 posted on 03/16/2005 10:32:36 PM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (MSM Fraudcasters are skid marks on journalism's clean shorts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
David Horowitz is an arrogant, self-centered, self-promoting bigmouth.

He's also right, and invaluable. Nobody knows the enemy like he does. Nobody can make the critical links between the Left of the 50s and the Left of today.

11 posted on 03/17/2005 3:30:26 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
They want the WTO to include "social justice" concerns.

If they include social justice concerns in the NWO rules on trade, then they're just shooting themselves in the foot. Sure, some people in developing countries will enjoy higher wages than they'd get otherwise, but want to bet there would be less investment in developing countries as a result, as people find other, more profitable ventures to put their money in?

12 posted on 03/17/2005 2:29:19 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Deport 'em all; let Fox sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson