Posted on 07/11/2003 9:35:43 AM PDT by DPB101
David Horowitz has published a long critique of Ann Coulter’s blockbuster Treason. While David goes to great pains to express admiration for Ann’s work, he also makes it clear that he believes parts of Treason are wrong. The heart of his concern is that the Democrat Party is indicted as a co-conspirator in Treason.
Horowitz believes that Democrats are not recognized in Treason for the role that they played in thwarting communism, and he points out a number of important facts which someone who only read Treason would not know.
Democrat Senator “Scoop” Jackson of Washington State was as an implacable a foe of Soviet imperialism. Democrat Jeanne Kirkpatrick was an eloquent defender of American resistance to totalitarianism. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat until 1963.
That list is not exhaustive. George Meany, longtime boss of the AFL-CIO, was a steadfast enemy of Soviet machinations. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a principled liberal Democrat from New York, is responsible for Ann Coulter having the very Venona decrypts essential to exposing the depths of Soviet penetration of America.
Does this mean that the Coulter has reached a false conclusion about the role of the Democrat Party in the communist subversion of America? No. Treason does not necessarily mean ideological treason of sort now proven conclusively by Venona. Bill Clinton’s draft-dodging was because he was pragmatic treason. This sort of pragmatic treason infested the Democrat Party.
Scoop Jackson was a liberal from a swing state whose career was clean as a whistle and who could appeal to anti-communists. He stood a good chance of winning the presidency, if Democrats would have ever nominated him. Scoop ran for the nomination, but he never had a chance. His anti-communism - and only is anti-communism - doomed him from the beginning.
Jeanne Kirkpatrick was a Democrat, but her most famous speech echoes the language at the beginning of Treason which bothers Horowitz. What were those resonating refrains from Kirkpatrick’s 1984 speech to the Republican Convention? “But they always blame America first.” What was the context of her remarks? Reelect a Republican president.
Which Republican president? The one who began his political activities as an anti-communist in Hollywood, and who came to realize that principled anti-communism was welcome only in the Republican Party, which he joined in 1963. Joe McCarthy also began as a Democrat and then became a Republican. Anti-communists never leave the Republican Party to become Democrats, but often have abandoned the Democrat Party or, like Kirkpatrick, become apostate Democrats.
Horowitz correctly points out that the New Left in 1968 opposed Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey opposed communism and supported the Vietnam War. But this overstates the seriousness of the anti-communism of LBJ and Hubert Humphrey. It also presumes a symmetry between the two political parties which simply did not exist.
The two national party conventions in 1968 approached the Vietnam War from dramatically different positions. Humphrey - Vice President and heir apparent, the party’s leading champion of civil rights, darling of the AFL-CIO, and universally recognized as a good and decent man - faced a passionate and ferocious attack for his anti-communism.
The New Left did not attack racial bigots within the Democrat Party like J. William Fullbright or Albert Gore Sr. These illiberal Democrats were anti-anti-communists who opposed the Vietnam War. That alone made them heroes, just as Humphrey’s support for the war alone made him a villain.
Richard Nixon began his political career as an anti-communist, but many delegates at the Republican Convention in 1968 worried that he was not anti-communist enough. When Barry Goldwater, the most passionate and radical anti-communist modern in American politics, stepped before the Republican Convention, the delegates burst into thunderous applause.
Ronald Reagan, who would win the Cold War, had only held elective office for only two years. He had only been a Republican three years. But Republican delegates seriously considered nominating him as the logical successor to Barry Goldwater.
The New Left did not even bother to show up at the Republican Convention. While the SDS and its crypto-Marxist siblings carried great clout among Democrats, these pro-communist groups had no support at all among Republicans.
The pragmatic treason of Democrats is well illustrated by LBJ during the 1968 presidential campaign. While America fought a totalitarian communist enemy, President Johnson announced, a few days before the November election, that he was unilaterally suspending bombing operations against North Vietnam.
The motivation was simple: swing the increasingly close election to Hubert Humphrey by creating an the impression that peace was at hand. Who paid the price for that political pragmatism? America and the South Vietnamese, who were deprived of critically important air power.
Was 1968 the pivotal year in how Democrats approached communism? No. Although David is correct that much of the communists infestation of the federal government was rooted out by the time Truman left office, Truman did not begin in earnest until 1947. Truman had been president for two years - why did the housecleaning begin in 1947? Republicans in 1946 won Congress in a huge landslide. Truman pragmatically decided that anti-anti-communism was a political liability.
But Truman continued to defend people later shown to be communists and to attack anti-communists. Truman, as Ann notes, opposed Churchill giving his famous Iron Curtain speech in Missouri. Truman famously sacked MacArthur for trying to win the Korean War, rather than simply produce a stalemate.
Eisenhower directed his Attorney General to go n television and announce that President Truman had promoted to the leadership of the International Monetary Fund an individual known to be a communist. Why? Eisenhower was hardly a rabid anti-communist, but he also understood that Harry Truman had taken the easy course regarding communism in America.
And, of course, the problem of communism in America did not go away simply because the greatest actual traitors - Hiss, White, and the rest - left the most sensitive posts in the federal government.
The Soviet Union funneled funds into the anti-war movement in America. Communists and communist sympathizers within Hollywood and academia continued to warp American opinions and policies. Would the SDS, Ramparts and the other entities so reflexively supportive of communism have been able to bedevil Hubert Humphrey in 1968 without support from communists in America and without help from Moscow?
If Democrats were not particularly keen on anti-communism before 1968, their attitude after 1968 was profoundly anti-anti-communist. George McGovern favored unilateral disarmament. Jimmy Carter did not discover that the Soviet Union was bad until the last year or his presidency. Clinton, visited Moscow during the Vietnam War and stating his loathing for the military during that war against communism.
Perhaps the clearest indiction of how Democrats have felt about communism is the tepid, almost annoyed, attitude Democrats take toward President Reagan’s bloodless victory in the Cold War. This is in sharp contrast to how Republicans have acted under Democrat presidents when America faced enemies. Republicans supported FDR in the Second World War, JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis and - unlike his fellow Democrats - Republicans supported LBJ in the Vietnam War.
The single real example of Democrats being tough on communism was John Kennedy. It is revealing that Chris Matthews asked three times if Ann Coulter felt JFK was a traitor. She denies that he was, then adds that his heart was in the right place, but that is not enough for Matthews. It is not his repetitive questions that seem to trouble David; it is her answers.
JFK was strongly anti-communist and he did resist Soviet aggression. The critique that Ann Coulter makes has less to do with JFK’s intentions than with his general incompetence at achieving those goals and with his essentially immoral and dishonest personal life.
Senator McCarthy was presumably censured for bad behavior, when that was clearly not the reason. What is the best evidence of Democrat hypocrisy on the real reasons for destroying McCarthy? John Kennedy - faithless husband, drug addict, pal of crime bosses, vote stealer...and the list seems to grow each year - was made a martyr, when he was actually simply a victim.
McCarthy was an actual martyr, denied even the dignity of a victim. He stood up to the elites of Washington, Hollywood and New York, aware that his enemies were both powerful and unscrupulous. Horowitz notes that McCarthy was right on almost everything. McCarthy certainly acted no worse than several thousand other congressional committee chairmen, except that McCarthy fought a real dragon. Does that not deserve some honor, even posthumously?
The Kennedy Klan looks increasingly less benign as times passes. Bobby Kennedy (aka St. Bobby) grew so hostile to anti-communism that by 1968 he was the principal focus of those very anti-anti-communist efforts intended to keep Hubert Humphrey from winning the Democrat nomination. Ted Kennedy never pretended to be anti-communist, and he formed a core of resistance to Ronald Reagan’s plan to win the Cold War.
Were Democrats all traitors - ideologically or pragmatically - during the long decades of struggle with communism? No, of course not. But was there a profound and fundamental difference in the courage and tenacity that America’s two major political parties displayed in our long battle with the evil empire? Yes, of course there was.
Perhaps the lexicon of the New Left is helpful. During the 1960s, those timid souls who feared the real power of communism called themselves “non-communist” as opposed to “anti-communist”or “communist.” In the war against communism, Republicans leaders were “anti-traitors” and Soviet agents in America were “traitors.” What then were the Democrat leaders? How about calling “non-traitors”?
That little factoid has been erased from liberal history.
. . . Along with those on-target those citations, Ann's references are impeccable, every one. They all check out, and not one is lifted misleadingly out of context.
I bought and read Treason, and I have to say that so far as I could see there were no misstatements of fact in it, obvious hyperbole asside. But then, she does refer to things that I don't remember or never knew. Is it your assertion that you have in fact gone to the primary materials she cites, and can vouch for them?My favorite tidbit in it is in the last paragraph of an early chapter, where she quotes a 1954 description of "McCarthyism" to the effect that
From all across the country come loud cries saying, "I am cowed. I am afraid to speak out." And from all over the nation come even louder responses saying, "Look, he is cowed. He is afraid to speak out."That reminds me of my own feeling at the time, tho I was young enough to discount the possibility that I just didn't fully understand the situation. And also of a deadpan statement by a favorite '50s comedian, Herb Shriner:My sister was handed a note in the lobby of a hotel saying, "You are the only woman I have ever loved. Please come to me in Room 115." (pause) . . . She wasn't sure it was sincere, though--it was mimeographed!In both cases, the medium denies the message--people who are afraid to speak out do not in fact get megaphones and join a chorus declaiming that fact, any more than a man who sees his one true love across a crowded room will produce a mimeographed declaration of dedication and devotion. Rather, if CNN is cowed, it doesn't say a word crosswise to what Saddam Hussain wants. And parrots his line for years--including not mentioning their fear to anyone, for as long as he remains in power.
SLANDER. Journalists are, on the whole, biased to the left. FACT. To help prove this, she says that Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing ilk don't count because they are commentators, not journalists, but does quote liberal commentators such as Maureen Dowd to demonstrate journalists' bias.
Oh, man, Ann, yer busted...
NOT!!!
My definition of a "journalist" is, a member of the clique of writers who explicitly or implicitly conspire to convince the public that some particular person "is not a journalist." Notwithstanding the fact that under the First Amendment anyone can own and operate a press, so if you want to be a journalist then in fact you are one (probably an unprofitable one, but . . . ).That definition would probably include just about every liberal writer.
SLANDER. Journalists are, on the whole, biased to the left. FACT. To help prove this, she says that Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing ilk don't count because they are commentators, not journalists, but does quote liberal commentators such as Maureen Dowd to demonstrate journalists' bias.
Oh, man, Ann, yer busted...
NOT!!!
My definition of a "journalist" is, a member of the clique of writers who explicitly or implicitly conspire to convince the public that some particular person "is not a journalist." Notwithstanding the fact that under the First Amendment anyone can own and operate a press, so if you want to be a journalist then in fact you are one (probably an unprofitable one, but . . . ).That definition would probably include just about every liberal writer.
lately, there have been a spat of " oral history " books done one the first 1/2 of the 20th century. I'll give you a list, if you're interested.
I have detested the Kennedys, since I was a teenager. I've read EVERYTHING about them, that I can. I've done the same thing with the Clintons. For some reason or other, I tend to read about those I hate and not much about the recent American political figures I like.
The term " THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST ", used for the Kennedy & Johnson administrations was hyperbole at the very least...outright propaganda !
No, Ann is NOT the problem; she's part of the answer. Bush is NOT the problem; is is the antidote for eight years of poison.
Our side should have taken the white gloves off decades ago. Those, who think this is wrong, don't understand the enemy, nor the rules of the game. This " playing nice " , in politics, is NOT the way it was...not even for the FFs.
While we're on the subject, don't neglect to Google the Malmedy Massacre, and Senator McCarthy's role in the sequelae. You will be appalled.
We have been deceived with a thoroughness that renders ludicrous all explanations except an outright effort to sabotage the national memory.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
Yeah I know what you mean. I'm a radical individualist yet somehow totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union draw me in ..... to read about that is. My grandparents were all born in the 1890s and my parents in the '20s so I grew up with certain types of stories on a regular basis that made me want to learn more about what happened before my time. While I am addicted to the news and current events the whole era of my times repulses me in a way - I guess it has something to do with aesthetics - the goofy custumes of the "beautiful" people in the '60s and the god awful fashion of the '70s - to me it looks like the smart set of those decades were dressed in circus clown outfits - and actually believed they looked good! Then there's today's body modification trends and scroungy attire - no sense of dignity. Sorry I got side tracted. I'ld be glad to hear of any book recommendations that you have to offer - doesn't matter what political stripe it is either. Do you like Studs Turkle?
The term " THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST ", used for the Kennedy & Johnson administrations was hyperbole at the very least...outright propaganda !
Having a natural contrarian nature I have developed a keen eye for propaganda and most history is writen by the winners i.e. court historians. I suppose regimes need legitamacy to retain the support of the people and the people by nature seem to need myths and heroes so I suppose the lies serve everyone's interests in the long run.
I like Horowitz, but I also know what he is. He has alot of liberal friends and backers, he's a nice guy, who is as neo-conservative as they come, but he tends to be naive at times, and in his honorable attempt to be objective, which he does go through painfull lenghts, he makes hard mistakes and winds up attacking his own. I don't think he attacks conservatives because he wants credibility for when he attacks liberals, but I think that he believes that he is a true conservative, and that everyone else is hurting his cause with bad P.R.
To put it nicely, he's a little out of touch, his heart is in the right place, but all the liberals around him, are starting to probably make him think they are mainstream.
Please see also Sauce For The Goose.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
4 posted on 07/11/2003 12:58 PM EDT by fporretto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
the Left's gander is smarting from Coulter's brisk application of its own favorite sauce. It ought not to receive aid or comfort from our ranks.
. . . Along with those on-target those citations, Ann's references are impeccable, every one. They all check out, and not one is lifted misleadingly out of context.
I bought and read Treason, and I have to say that so far as I could see there were no misstatements of fact in it, obvious hyperbole asside. But then, she does refer to things that I don't remember or never knew. Is it your assertion that you have in fact gone to the primary materials she cites, and can vouch for them?That's right, Lynn. I've been to the primaries. I had a little help, a friend who works for M. Stanton Evans who pointed me in the right direction a few times. Ann Coulter has done her homework honestly and well. She may be strident, but she's no liar.145 posted on 07/12/2003 10:29 PM EDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
While we're on the subject, don't neglect to Google the Malmedy Massacre, and Senator McCarthy's role in the sequelae. You will be appalled.
We have been deceived with a thoroughness that renders ludicrous all explanations except an outright effort to sabotage the national memory.
151 posted on 07/13/2003 8:35 AM EDT by fporretto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Seems to me that independent confirmation of Ann's citations is worth a bump to all concerned. IMHO Ann should put her citations and the primaries up on a web site to go with the book.We have been deceived with a thoroughness that renders ludicrous all explanations except an outright effort to sabotage the national memory.The story about Nuremberg is pretty ugly. But then, there is plenty for Americans to question if they really look at Roosevelt-Truman foreign policy history. According to The New Dealers' War by Thomas Fleming (a self-professed Truman Democrat) FDR planned for Stalin to be in control of Europe after WWII. And had our forces doing some things their mothers wouldn't be proud to hear, along the way to that objective. Well worth a read, if you haven't seen it.
. . . which raises the issue of Slander--the fact that journalism is so monolithically anticonservative that it is as a whole capable of a big lie propaganda campaign. Which is also illuminated by
my still-developing thread about the reasons for that situation.
(all bumps gratefully accepted)
The war on terrorism is not any more important than the war on traditional morality.
What is concerning in America at this point, is not only Marxists per se, but how all sorts of materialist, egocentric philosophies and motivations have crept into our national life -- ever pushing out the God-based reality understood by our nations's founders.(Post 131)
I completely agree with both of you - the war on simple God-based human life, based on the laws of nature (notice sodomy used to be called "crime against nature") authored by God - is not really separate from the war against islamofascists. But if we think the only enemies are Muslims who want to kill us, we are deluded.
Killing the body is actually not as dangerous as killing the soul of a nation and people.
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.