Democratic Well-Spring of ideas?

[VRWC_minion]

Are you looking at classical liberalisim or what is currently passing as liberalism ?

In any case, if I were you I would seek out David Horowitz's books and writings. He went through the same path as you and it would seem to me that he would be the best place to start.

[Congressman Billybob]

I used your link to visit DU to see what they were saying about what we were saying about what they had done to a former poster there, who has now posted here. And I was absolutely AMAZED.

I read ten consecutive posts on DU and never saw the F-word used. Are they getting literate? Or merely tired?

I used to go there on occasion, for the same reason that I have occasionally whacked a hornets' nest with a stick. But getting banned after making a single post that raised a relevant question in plain English, wasn't worth it.

As far as a recommendation to our new friend, I suggest he start not with "liberal" or "conservative" thinking, but with "American" thinking. The greatest single treatise on American politics is still the first one ever written. The Supreme Court still refers to it on occasion (less occasions than it should).

So please, my friend, begin with the Federalist by Madison, Jay and Hamilton. You will find many treasures there, including my favorite quote about win-at-any-cost politicians. In discussing the Electoral College, Hamilton referred to politicians "with talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity." He assumed that the College would make the election of such types impossible. He was dead wrong about the result, but the intention stated is as fresh as the election news from 5 November, 2002.

Congressman Billybob

This Just In: Bush Defeats Clinton

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[GOPJ]

Donozark is right: "Marx. Lenin. Ho. Ans soon to-be-dead, Castro" Liberals haven't had a new idea in almost 40 years. There was a time (before it was known which ideas worked and which didn't) that their ideas were cutting edge. Some of the good ones are still with us. They made a contribution.

Here's the problem: Power. Power in and of itself is not evil. To accomplish any good in life you must have power. The point where it becomes corrupted is when you've accomplished your goal, but don't want to give up the power. At that point it's power for power's sake. And that's the start of the corruption of power. It's what happened to the democrats.

When democrats enacted what they had that was good, they didn't come up with new ideas to replace the ones that didn't work, and they didn't want to give up the power. Hence, we got the modern democrat party. Tactics, lies, thuggery, shallow thinking, name calling, empty, and morally bankrupt. It's a shame.

Read the liberal classics, enjoy them for what they are now: the history of mostly failed ideas.

[VRWC_minion]

Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey
David Horowitz

Retail Price: $15.00
Our Price: $13.50
You Save: $1.50 (10%)
Readers' Advantage Price: $12.15 Join Now
 In Stock:Ships within 2-3 days 
Order this item no later than Dec. 14th using standard ground
to make sure it arrives by Dec. 24th.

Format: Paperback, 468pp.
ISBN: 0684840057
Publisher: Simon & Schuster
Pub. Date: March  1998
Barnes & Noble Sales Rank: 35,925 

Other Formats: Audio


 

Buy it Now! As you order, each item will be listed in Your Shopping Cart in the upper right corner. You may make changes at Checkout. Safe Shopping Guarantee! Safe Shopping Guarantee!

  

Write your own Review
1 other customers have reviewed this book. Average Rating:
Read what other customers have said

bn.com customers who bought this book also bought:
Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes, David Horowitz
The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America's Future, David Horowitz,Designed by Carla Bolte
Uncivil Wars: The Controversy over Reparations for Slavery, David Horowitz
How to Beat the Democrats: And Other Subversive Ideas, David Horowitz
The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits, David Horowitz

ABOUT THIS ITEM

Synopsis
This is an autobiography by the author of The Free World Colossus (1965); The Kennedys (1984); Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts about the Sixties (1989); and Deconstructing the Left (1995). Index.

From the Publisher
In a narrative that possesses both remarkable political importance and extraordinary literary power, David Horowitz tells the story of his startling political odyssey from Sixties radical to Nineties conservative. A political document of our times, Radical Son traces three generations of one American family's infatuation with the radical left from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 to the collapse of the Marxist empire six decades later. David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left and an editor of Ramparts, the magazine that set the intellectual and revolutionary tone for the movement. From his vantage point at the center of the action, he populates Radical Son with vivid portraits of people who made the radical decade, while unmaking America at the same time. We are introduced to an aged Bertrand Russell, the world-famous philosopher and godson of John Stuart Mill, who in his nineties became America's scourge, organizing a War Crimes Tribunal over the war in Vietnam. There is Tom Hayden, the radical Everyman who promoted guerrilla warfare in America's cities in the Sixties, married film legend Jane Fonda, and became a Democratic state senator when his revolutions failed. We meet Huey Newton, a street hustler and murderer who founded a black militia that became the Sixties' most resonant symbol of black power and black militance. Horowitz's encounter with Newton and his Black Panthers, the most celebrated radical group of the Sixties, becomes the focal point of the story when a brutal murder committed by the Panthers changes his life forever, prompting the profound "second thoughts" that eventually led him to become an intellectual leader of conservatism and its most prominent activist in Hollywood.

What People Are Saying
The single most important book I have evern read about modern American politics. —Mary Matalin


One of the best political memoirs I have ever read. —P.J. O'Rourke

 From the Critics
From American Spectator  
Radical Son is the most remarkable testament of its kind since Whittaker Chambers' Witness.
 
From Publisher's Weekly - Publishers Weekly  
Horowitz (The Rockefellers) has prominently charted his turn from leftism in Destructive Generation (both books co-written with Peter Collier), but here, he digs deeper to recount his intertwined personal and political odysseys. Because he has witnessed some elemental political battles, and because he tells his often painful story with candor and passion, his lengthy book remains absorbing. His teacher parents were New York City Jewish Communists full of angst and false conviction; young David emerged convinced at least that ideas were important. Married, Horowitz moved to Berkeley for graduate school, the New Left and Ramparts, the hot radical magazine. However, family man Horowitz was made uneasy by figures such as Michael Lerner and Robert Scheer, who rejected community; worse, though Horowitz found Huey Newton's courting of his advice seductive, he fell into "internal free-fall" when he realized that the Panthers were criminal thugs. His Jewish identity-at a time when blacks and the Third World were not allies-helped move Horowitz rightward, as did his disgust with dogmatic leftists. And in 1985, Horowitz and Collier publicly supported Ronald Reagan; the author considers himself a classical liberal. Particularly interesting is his score-settling with authors Todd Gitlin, Tom Hayden and Paul Berman, who, he argues, either sanitize '60s history or misrepresent his own views; now, with the help of foundations, he runs the magazine Heterodoxy and monitors what he views as liberal excess. (Feb.)
 
From Library Journal  
Horowitz has had three successful careers: as a Marxist critic of U.S. foreign policy, a best-selling biographer of the Kennedy and Rockefeller families, and a prominent critic of both Hollywood and academe. His autobiography describes each of these careers in turn, concluding with a vigorous defense of the contemporary Right as the best defense against communism, utopianism, and the "destructive fantasies" of the 1960s New Left. The most interesting material concerns the disintegration of the radical movements of the 1960s and the squalid behavior of some New Left and Black Power leaders. At times the rhetoric gets out of hand-for example, the author's blithe comparison of "the [Black] Panthers and their crimes" and "Stalin's crimes" is certainly hyperbolic-but the book provides a useful corrective to overly idealistic treatments of the politics of the 1960s. Recommended for collections with a special focus on the New Left, the counterculture, and/or contemporary conservatism.-Kent Worcester, Social Science Research Council, New York
 
From Richard Gid Powers - The New York Times Book Review  
{This is a} warmly human and abrasive memoir. . . . Mr. Horowitz's odyssey guides readers through the arcane and sometimes wacky customs, myths and taboos of the radical archipelago. We hear the siren songs that enchanted the author on his twisting and unforeseen path to reconciliation with patriotic and 'bourgeois' values. Along the way we meet, among many others, Isaac Deutscher, Bertrand Russell, Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Tom Hayden, Eldridge Cleaver andRonald Reagan. Mr. Horowitz's self-exploration is sensitive and involving, but his portrait of the 60's and its legacy is certain to make this book controversial. . . . Mr. Horowitz has written a courageous book, full of self-revelation and with a willingness to expose his own frailties. . . . Still, he is nothing if not contentious, and some of his contentions will rub readers the wrong way.
 
From Julia Vitullo-Martin - Commonweal  
The story of a red-diaper American childhood has seldom been told, and perhaps never told so well. . . . What Horowitz sees as the evil of sixties' radicalism was rooted in the protest movement's alleged Stalinist origins--his own roots. He believes that Stalinists like himself directed and manipulated the protests. . . . {But} many, perhaps most, antiwar activists came from the civil rights movement, often through Protestant and Catholic churches. We marched first for civil rights and then we marched against the war. Those who cameto the antiwar movement after having worked in poor neighborhoods came because of substance, not form. For the Stalinists, the substance didn't matter. Any volatile issue would do--thus Horowitz's odd ignorance of the civil rights movement, which he barely mentions. . . . With stupendous hubris, Horowitz tells the history of radicalism from the very narrow prism of his own limited personal experience.
 
Read all 10 reviews about this title

 CUSTOMER REVIEWS - An Open Forum
Number of Reviews: 1    Average Rating:

A reviewer, an armchair political observer, May 23, 2002,
The most important book I've read
David Horowitz entered this world as a 'red diaper baby,' the son of two American Communists. He was an intellectual leader of the New Left in the 1950s and 1960s and became heavily involved with the Black Panthers.

Horowitz's parents were betrayed by Khruschev's 'Secret Speech' in which he admitted the excesses of Stalin, and Horowitz was determined to avoid placing himself in a similar position in which he could be betrayed.

He details the tactics of the New Left, showing how it was more important to advance the Movement than it was to use honest arguments. Horowitz's own disillusionment came when he knew of a murder committed by the Black Panthers which was not properly investigated or prosecuted. He moved to Right, voting for Reagan in 1984.

I find this book's portrayal of the New Left to be disturbing. The success of the American political system ultimately depends on the parties (in the broad sense, including, but not limited to, the two major political Parties) acting in good faith. Horowitz documents that the New Left, the Communists, and their Fellow Travelers have not done so.

RELATED TITLES

More on this subject
Nonfiction

Find other books using these keywords:

Biography	History	1945-
United States	Political activists

[agooga]

I believe in a cessation to the war on drugs, I believe in civil unions in same-sex relationships with the same benefits as pertains to married people, I believe in absolute protections of all citizens' civil rights under all circumstances as put forth in the consitution (not a liberal idea per se, but one which liberals agree with).

[agenda_express]

"absolute protections of all citizens' civil rights under all circumstances as put forth in the consitution (not a liberal idea per se, but one which liberals agree with)."

Explain what you mean here.

[slimer]

Here, this ought to keep you occupied for awhile.

Liberalism

[stands2reason]

One of those posts: I can't give him an answer about 'great liberal minds' because there is no 'fountain' of liberal thought.

How ignorant these people are! They have no idea of the basis of their own beliefs! I haven't seen one name mentioned on that list yet, they only suggested the poster was a plant.

They also believe that noone goes from the Dems to the Republicans! They think we ex-lefties are lying about being "converted", for no other reason, I guess, than to trick Dem lurkers into conservatism. Hey DU'ers out there! I VOTED FOR DUKAKIS!!!! There! I finally admitted it. Of course, they think I'm lying. Well, they are clueless. And in the minority.

[The Right Stuff]

I disagree with you about Korn. We met him at the House Managers rally and he is a diehard leftist.

Radical Son, and Destructive Generation are two good ones by David Horowitz. Ron Radosh's Commies is also good.

I think our new FReeper - if rational inquiry is honestly pursued - will quickly discover that today's Left is bereft of intellect and ideas, all their big ones having failed spectacularly. They resort to character assasination and ad hominem attacks, or shouting their enemies down.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Liberals want government to replace God and, true to their fear of competition, outlaw God and religion in the process. Therefore, go to the source of true liberal ideas, the New Testament. What is more liberal than the admonition to "Hate the sin but love the sinner."

Unfortunately, when the left decided to replace God they failed miserably, instead becoming the Antichrist.

[exit82]

Hello--and welcome to Free Republic.

No doubt the many posts you received already have given you much to cogitate over. That's one of the best things about FR--ask a question and you definitely will get answers.

Although an occasional "flame" may come your way, you will find good hearted people here who really care about America and want to preserve the freedoms that make this country the best place on earth.

You will find many who will help you, and many who will challenge your thought process as well. That's part of the fun.

Since you joined today, we are allowed to call you a "newbie". So, newbie,glad to have you aboard.

[Kerberos]

"You would have to admit that legalizing marijuana tends to be an issue the left supports, not the right"

No one would not have to admit that legalizing marijuana is an issue that the left supports. I can think of no legislation that the left has put forth that would favor legalizing marijuana. Moreover, they have certainly not put anything forth that would be in favor of ending the War on Drugs. They are just as interested in keeping the WOD as a tool to subvert the Constitution as the right is.

Therefore that is why the Libertarians has picked up the WOD issue in that it is not in the political interest or either of the major parties to support it. Incidentally most of the people I know who smoke marijuana, which have become pretty few these days, are Republicans. But then again that could be because I don't hang with liberals.

[avg_freeper]

I would highly suggest
"The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America" by Louis Menand

This work chronicles the shift in national thought that occurred after the Civil War up to the end of the First World War. Louis describes how that era formed the philosophies of individuals like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., William James, Charles Pierce, and John Dewy.

You'll be introduced to such characters as Eugene Debs an instigator in the Pullman Strikes and Jane Addams who lectured that antagonism, war, even small arguments are never necessary.

Not exactly a book about "great liberal thinkers" but you'll be left with a good idea as to how this train of thought and others began in America.

[tnlibertarian]

I can think of no legislation that the left has put forth that would favor legalizing marijuana. Moreover, they have certainly not put anything forth that would be in favor of ending the War on Drugs.

By the left, I mean liberals, not necessarily the Democratic Party. The Democratic party of course, does love the war on drugs as a mean to usurp our rights. You just wouldn't see a plank of drug legalization in the Republican Party. You could see the liberal left of the Democratic Party pushing for one. The leaders would never allow it based on the power the WOD can give them.

[strela]

So because, the democrats don't seem to be willing to answer this question, I'd like to put it forth to you: Where is their stockpile of substance and ideas? From where does it flow.

[Kerberos]

You just wouldn't see a plank of drug legalization in the Republican Party"

Well in all fairness there has been some movement in the Republican party to bring the legalization issue to the forefront. Most notably from Gary Johnson the governor of New Mexico, however there have been some others. Moreover, it is understandably that it has been only a few who have done so, seeing how in political terms to do such is akin to political suicide. However in Governor Johnson case he is in a position where he has already made his money in life and is not beholding big money sponsors to see that he stays in the political game, so therefore he has more freedom to stand up for what he thinks is right.

But that is where I see the role of the Libertarian party as being crucial in the political process in that they do not have big money sponsors that they are accountable to and are free to speak the truth about the failed War on Drugs and the damage it causes to this country. It is therefore their reasonability to continue to try and educate the propagandized masses as to what the truth is and is of course one of the reason why I support their party.

[agooga]

Thanks for the flood of quick responses from everyone. I am very impressed with the quality of messages.

I feel a little bit like Charlton Heston at the end of "Planet of the Apes" when Dr. Zaius tells him: "Don't go looking- you may not like what you find..."

I followed the post that linked back to the DU and read all of their responses too. I was fascinated actually to read how many people there believed that this was some kind of a stunt to start a flame war- or whatever else they were concerned with. Most people were HIGHLY skeptical that I was who I claim to be: just an honest joe, ex-democrat cum libertarian, trying to give the left an honest hearing for my own interests.

And I'm not a Bill Maher libertarian either, let's get that straightened out right now. I walk the walk. I am probably more fiscally conservative than even 90% of the folks here on FR. I want to see an end to ALL government programs not directly outlined in the Constitution and essentially adding to the defense of our nation. But I also believe in legalization of all drugs, gay "marriage," and very strictly defined use of governmental powers to surveil, arrest and detain.

In all honesty, I don't ever expect to vote for another democrat as long as there is breath left in my body, with the only exception being an attempt to "fire" an absolutely immoral and/or corrupt republican or libertarian.

But that doesn't mean that I don't care to know the strengths of their arguments.

I was astounded at the scope of the thinkers and writers that you all have presented me- and I'm actually going to take the time to select some of them and delve into their work. What this will accomplish- who knows? As I said- I have been a democrat for 32 years (I am 36 now) and I never really KNEW what I was believing in or fighting for.

"To understand via the heart is not to understand." Michel Eyquem de Montaigne

I have become politically conscious now, perhaps with a little less "heart" but with certainly much more "mind." Arguments for or against an issue now only resonate with me if they are pragmatic, not just feel-good.

I was shocked to read one DU poster actually say something to the effect of "we don't need great thinkers, our ideology comes from ourselves." That seems to indicate a state of anarchy where one can simply claim that his own personalized ideology must be equal to all others, equally good, equally valid, equally important.

Such a world would be one where moral equivalency reigns. Perhaps such a world where a US Senator can deplore his President from the soil of a brutal dictator. Perhaps this is our world now.

I have already learned much from this little excersize, and I want to thank everyone so far for these sometimes challenging comments.

As for the DU: I have petitioned to have my posting privilages restored so I can at least convey to the folks over there that I am not a FR "stooge" merely attempting to get their panties in a bunch.

I am not holding my breath.

JP

[AFPhys]

"Anyone who is not a liberal when they are 20 has no heart.

Anyone who is not conservative by the time they are 40 has no mind."... Winston Churchhill (close paraphrase, at least)

You are well on your way, friend.

[tm22721]

Where is their stockpile of substance and ideas?

It died a fiery death in the forests of Minnesota about three weeks ago.

BUMP

[tm22721]

Those who are on the left side or middle of the road usually end up as roadkill.

BUMP