Treason: Horowitz v. Coulter

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”?

I don't know what article you're talking about but it isn't the one I linked to in my post. That article was written by James P. Pinkerton. He worked for Reagan. He's a Republican. He's no idiot. Try reading and commenting on the correct article, 'k?

You won't like it either. You people who buy into Coulter's over the top portrayal of McCarthy as a "poet" and saint are amusing up to a point. Believe what you will. I'm beginning to believe that Ann's out for Ann and conservatism (her version of it, anyway) is the horse she's chosen to ride to infamy (and wealth). I hope I'm wrong. But that's my current opinion.

I don't know what article you're talking about but it isn't the one I linked to in my post . .

Yes it is. You linked to a PBS station which carried a LA Times article. My comment "pure Bob Scheer" refers to not the author, I know Pinkerton wrote it (I tumbled to that when I saw his name on the article), but to the BS published in the LA Times.

I see on another thread you think Colonel Robert Patterson's book Dereliction of Duty is too "partisan."

Figures.

Familiar with Patton's comments on the SS? Got him into a lot of trouble. He said, initially, the SS were special son's of bitches but, as the war progressed, Germany ran out of special sons of bitches and put anyone in there. Being in the SS at the end of the was, he said, was no different than being in the Democratic Party.

He did want to get the top SS people but wasn't interested in trying those drafted into SS units.

So your gripe is that some who find her smashmouth ways just boring and tireseome an indication of weakness and latent liberal tendencies?That if we don't all rally round this demagogue, we are suspect?

Who the hell needs to read Ann coulter when many other fine writers have weighed in on the subject of Communism in America, some even going going back 50+ yrs? Gee, is Coulter the last and best word on this subject? She outshines Robert Conquest,Whittaker Chambers,James Burnham,Malcolm Muggeridge, Eric Breindel,Eric Hoffer and the authors of the Mitrokin Archive and Black Book of Communism? Her style is her substance, and for some, it isn't a crime to point out how much of a bad taste she leaves upon reading and viewing, regardless how much you say to the contrary.Lap it up all you wish, but don't expect all to fawn with the deep genuflection that only you can muster.

Yep, his strongly partisan tone detracts from his effort to be taken seriously (which he should be) by anyone other than those who are already members of the choir. That is unfortunate, because the things he has to say are important.

Many of Ann's points are important, but she's so over the top in "Treason" that once again, she won't be taken seriously by anyone other than the choir. You must be head of the tenor section.

Try reading and commenting on the correct article

Oh, but I did, didn't you see my post, Pinkerton man? Say, what was it about "pro-choice" Pinkerton's little smear job on Ann that warrants even a hiccup from me? Do even you know, self-appointed "conservative" standard bearer?

Uh, no, didn't you pay any attention to the top of the thread? Yeah, some of you guys don't like Ann's "tone"...she needs to drop her attitude...etc. etc. OK, WE GET IT!!!

It's just when you hoary old keepers of the "true conservatism" flame start sneaking in slimy little asides about her "accuracy" that we go to bat for her (get it? go to bat???? BWAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!) That's what this thread is about, you dig? You accuse Ann of misrepresenting facts, you better be prepared to back it up. If all you want to do is accuse her of a "smashmouth" style, go to your dentist and get a bite-plate.

As you said, it is good to research these issues. Many links are not reliable. I finally found a very lengthy account of the collapse of Germany and its US military adminstration at www.army.mil. The beginning occupation was not pretty. There were some in the US administration who wanted to punish all Germans and others who campaigned against this as immoral and illegal.

On another military site, I found that members of I company, 157th regiment, 45th division of the Seventh Army shot unarmed prisoners who had surrendered. The group historian blamed Patton but Patton headed the 3rd Army not the 7th. During the occupation there were serious violations of military code committed by members of the Seventh Army but I can not find who led this group.

Throughout WW11 every American heard week in and week out that the Geneva convention absolutely banned mistreatment of POWs. We were told the Americans were vigorous in pursuing these honorable codes of war. Those who objected to violations did the right thing.

Another good thread DPB... thanks..
Is Horowitz passing dis-information about Ann?..
Sure looks like it to me... Because, as the demo party slowly totally became Socialist controlled as it is now... They, the entire party is a 5th column as far as I can tell... Anns book is a shot across the bow of the demo party .. Because unless stopped and searched they have been and will deliver a load of industrial stength Socialism to a people slowly being indoctrinated by a media cartel to be a helpless drugged market..

#38
[ Why aren't prestigious conservatives massing behind Coulter? ]

Could because of anti-McCarthy comments they've made in the PAST...(sucking up to liberals) and trying to not appear like they are simps are doing damage control for the future. For the very word communist has been off limits for so long in Washington D.C... And conservatives have been doing a very strange dis-jointed word dance for so long. Changeing now must be ruffleing their comb overs... makeing them look SILLY'er...

My doubts stem from some of the links on the Freda Utely Home Page. She was sited as a source in a book on the denial of the holocaust and quoted as having discounted the first person reports of German atrocities. Check it out, I wasn't sure about what I was reading. It all seemed so implausible.

I never said that Rabinowitz' smear of McCarthy was legitimate, far from it. I was only indicating that perhaps Utely is not the best person to quote in defense of McCarthy. As a matter of fact, support by these German apologists could have hurt McCarthy more than it helped him.

Thanks for your explanation. Being cited by holocaust deniers and being one are two different things. A person who objects to mistreatment of POW's---even if they served the Nazis---is not necessarily a Nazi sympathizer. And in fact, in you read the bio at her site, you'll find that Freda Utley was an ex-communist, who had actually lived in the Soviet Union, OK?

I never said that Rabinowitz' smear of McCarthy was legitimate, far from it. I was only indicating that perhaps Utely is not the best person to quote in defense of McCarthy. As a matter of fact, support by these German apologists could have hurt McCarthy more than it helped him.

I see---"guilt by association." Well, if it works with Freda Utley, it could surely work with McCarthy by the commutative principle.

I've worked extensively in the pro-life movement, having been part of the planning group for a national anti-abortion campaign which included having then President Ronald Reagan address the crowd for the campaign kick-off.

You are naive to assess my intellect over the misspelling of one word. You are also naive in assuming my politics are anything but mainline conservative.

But then, you have already proven yourself to be naive in swallowing ALL things Coulter, so why should I be surprised?

But you'll use a smear authored by a pro-abort when convenient, is that it?

You are naive to assess my intellect over the misspelling of one word. You are also naive in assuming my politics are anything but mainline conservative.

Oh, not just that: your use of the epithet "fruitloop" to address an opponent; your ad hominem attacks on my intellect; your failure to respond to my critique of Pinkerton's hatchet piece. Little things like that.

But then, you have already proven yourself to be naive in swallowing ALL things Coulter, so why should I be surprised?

Didn't this thread start out pointing out the inaccuracies in Horowitz' purported "expose' " of Ann's alleged "inaccuracies"? And didn't you post a link to an article by pro-abort Jim Pinkerton making equally unsupportable charges against Ann?

If you're just that much of a manly conservative, why don't you debate such points with me, instead of calling me "naive" and an "idiot"? See why I'm having a tough time crediting your intelligence and integrity? It really has nothing to do with Ann.

That was the reason that I said I was not sure about what I was reading. I came to a dead end when I tried to research Freda Utely. I know that she was a prolific political historian and writer, but without reading any of her work, I can't make a judgement. I just know that I was attacked for quotintg her and that if I was attacked, I am sure that McCarthy was also.

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.