The man is truly brilliant and is more understandable than Wm Buckley in his choice of vocabulary in explaining 'how things work'.
Big deal. These pseudo-communists are only "influential" through one's affinity and belief in them. If they discussed Kampuchia and mass murder in intellectual terms would you still call them influential? Clue: The premise of morality is based upon the individual, not the collective. The 'greater good' BS is the normal starting point for tyrants.
"September 11 reminded me, too, of a poem by W. H. Auden...written upon the outbreak of World War Two, was entitled “September 1, 1939.” It contained hostile sentiments about America left over from Auden’s Communist period, but the opening lines are so evocative of September 11, 2001 that it is no wonder they were quoted so often in the early days of this new war:
A communist's musings on the causes of WWII? Is this really what we want our political dialog regarding Islamic terrorism founded upon? Well, Mr. Podhoretz founded his argument upon it. What an ASS. I say "in his face". It's the old 'split-the-difference' logic. By taking on extreme politic viewpoints (communism in America) and rationalizing their politics via argument the solution is merely a reduction of that platform, not an abbrogation. It is in essence, damage control.
I sympathizize with the conservative FReepers stuck in Liberal-dominated regions and lives. I just don't want to see them unwittingly sucked into a defense of liberalism a.k.a. communism as Mr. Podhoretz does with his speech. He does not abrogate liberalism, he rationalizes it to the point of repair. If it 'works-for-you' then I'm sorry, you've been duped. Hopefully, you fell for it due to campy, patriotic snippets he sprinkled throughout it.
"The thoughtful observer of Islamic terrorism will…experience a certain gratitude for a Providence which, by providing the American people with this implacable challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on their pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear.
To which, surely, the only fitting response is a very loud and a very resonant Amen.
The first paragraph establishes the social collective as the venue for discussing 9/11. The second is a tacky pull at those who believe in God (the non-communists), in other words, the target audience.