THE BEST BOOK THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN ON THE HISTORY AND PROGRESS OF THE RADICAL LEFT’S CURRENT WAR WITH AMERICA
THE BEST BOOK THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN ON THE HISTORY AND PROGRESS OF
THE RADICAL LEFT’S CURRENT WAR WITH AMERICA
by
Ken Eliasberg
I want to take time out from my election coverage to commend an outstanding book to your attention. As most of you know, I am a great fan of David Horowitz. Why? Because, in my opinion, no one is doing more to keep America in business — in short, to keep America, America. His website — again, in my opinion — is the best on the web. No other site covers the same important territory with the insight and completeness that his (FrontpageMag.com) does. For that reason it is my home page and where I begin the day. Whether it’s the war on terror, the depleted and biased state of academia, or just significant news items of the day, to me no other site is as consistently informative and intellectually invigorating as Horowitz’s.
Also, his writing is nonpareil. Good writing is the product of clear thinking, and Horowitz is not only a clear thinker, but he has that rarest of gifts — the ability to express himself succinctly; there is neither pretense nor waste in his writing. Also, he has the ability to take a profound subject, and deal with it in a manner that any layman can understand. Finally, he does an excellent job of connecting the dots.
I have read every one of his books, starting with his autobiography, Radical Son (also a must read for it documents his journey from the far left to his present position on the right, and, in the process, documents how the country was moving further left as he was turning right), and I have thoroughly enjoyed each and every one (I recommend all of them; for the reader’s benefit I include a bibliography of my top 10 at the end of this column). While all are excellent (and easy) reads, with the possible exception of Radical Son, none are better than Horowitz’s latest effort, Party of Defeat. Why? Because it vividly points up the peril to America - at a time when we face a struggle for survival, we are divided in a way that we have never been. And because of this House-Divided status, our very survival is being weighed in the balance (and may very possibly be found wanting). We are trying to fight a vicious and dangerous enemy with one hand tied behind our back. Or, put another way, America is fighting Osama bin Laden and radical Islam; the Democrats are fighting George Bush and America.
Or, as Horowitz and Ben Johnson, his co-author, put it in the opening paragraph ofthe book’s introduction (which is republished on their website, frontpagemag.com on 4/11/2008):
“The object of war is to break an enemy’s will and destroy his capacity to fight.
Therefore, a nation divided in wartime is a nation that invites its own defeat. Yet
that is precisely how Americans are facing the global war that radical Islamists
have declared on them.
And there you have it — the theme of Party of Defeat. But that’s merely the head note — the destination, if you will. It is the journey that makes this book a compelling read, one well worth your while.
Horowitz acknowledges not just the right to criticize one’s government, but points out that this right is particularly important during a time of war. Indeed, at such times, the right to criticize rises to the point of a need — after all, for a participatory government to thrive, it is essential to have participants. That said, he points out that the left has gone well beyond the point of legitimate criticism; indeed, it has gone beyond the point of any form of acceptable criticism. Or, in my own terms, I look at criticism of one’s government in the following 3 contexts:
1. Constructive criticism — legitimate criticism
2. Destructive criticism — useful-idiot criticism
3. SUBVERSION — fifth-column criticism
Permit me to elaborate on these categories of taking issue with your government, and forgive me if space and time prevent me from dealing with this subject in a more expansive manner.
Constructive criticism.- It is not just desirable but necessary for a democracy to have an informed electorate (unfortunately we no longer have such a body; ergo some of the idiotic criticism that you frequently encounter). In that context, one can expect that all members of the electorate are not going to agree with all of the actions of their government. Here it is hoped that, once the decision has been made by the appropriate decision-makers to go to war, criticism would deal with strategy and tactics and lighten up a bit on the initial policy decision to go to war. Or, at the very least, criticism should not take the form of trying to undermine our leadership in this endeavor. And, indeed, some criticism may be entirely legitimate, and a positive contribution to the war effort.
Destructive Criticism. — Criticism here takes the form of an irresponsible (but possibly well intentioned, though misguided) effort to question the wisdom of the policy decision and the worthiness of our cause. This is the criticism of the useful-idiot class. These are people who, while they may not provide direct support to an American enemy, find themselves in sympathy with our enemy’s position, or, at the very least, not particularly supportive of our position. For the most part they are viewed as more misguided than venal. At best this is the “can’t we all get along” crowd; at their worst, which is more typical, this the moral equivalence crowd, or, put more appropriately, the crowd in search of a moral equivalence. This is the crowd that spawned Ward Churchill (and Pastor Wright) who found America deserving of 9/11 — the crowd that found America’s civilians devoid of innocence (via our own left-wing (useful?) idiot). This is the crowd that finds that America didn’t just do something wrong; rather, America is something wrong. You know, the distinction that counselor John Bradshaw made between guilt and shame, i.e. guilt being the emotion addressing one’s response to having done something wrong, and shame being the feeling attendant on believing that one IS something wrong. Why don’t these guys just find a country that is more compatible with their belief system, e.g. France (oops, I almost forgot, France is moving right — they’re finding it difficult to support their welfare state).
This crowd — particularly our useful-idiot academics - are, as noted, typically more confused than venal, but the consequences to America may, in the final analysis, be the same — our deterioration and decline.
Subversion.- Here we are dealing with critics who really support the other side — these are guys who view America as evil, and want us to lose any war in which we are engaged. Why? Because they see us as the cause of such wars; in their eyes we are imperialistic and seek hegemony in any and every foreign encounter. This category has usually been populated by either individuals or non-governmental groups. Historically, they have never had the dignity provided by the support of one of our two principal parties. That has now changed. The Democrat Party has now gone over to the other side. And their movement in this direction is thoroughly documented in Horowitz’s excellent effort, Party of Defeat.
Horowitz’s books (10 of my favorites):
Radical Son, Touchstone (Simon & Schuster, 1997)
Unholy Alliance — Radical Islam and the American Left (Regnery, 2004)
The Shadow Party — How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties
Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (Nelson Current, 2006)
Deconstructing The Left — From Vietnam to the Clinton Era (Second
Thoughts, 1995)
5. The Professors — The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Regnery,
2006)
6. Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes (Spence Publishing,
1999)
7. The Politics of Bad Faith — The Radical Assault on America’s Future
(The Free Press, 1998)
8. Destructive Generation — Second Thoughts About the Sixties
(Copyright, 1989)
9. Indoctrination U. — The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom
(Copyright, 2007)
10. Left Illusions — An Intellectual Odyssey (Spence Publishing, 2003)