It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Defining the American Left - David Horowitz

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
I know its long but it is interesting nonetheless, I am most interested in hearing those that openly admit their leftist leanings and the reaction and or rebuttal of this article.....interesting...I have just posted parts and ones in which I think or I wish to have a answer to.....

jump in!


Defining the American Left - David Horowitz


Behind the posturing, two real issues are at stake. First, in compiling a comprehensive encyclopedia of the left, is there a legitimate rationale for including the full range of American leftists from radicals to moderates (all currently mislabeled "liberals")? Second, is there a rationale for including Islamic radicals like the aforementioned terrorists along with Americans who disapprove of terrorism (or, like Berube, who disprove of terrorist tactics while locating their own strategic enemies in the environs of Pennsylvania Avenue)? Obviously, the second question is the one that has really got the leftists' goat, so we will address it first.

In fact I have made a detailed and lengthy case for including Islamic radicals in a database on the left in my most recent book, "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left." I even included in this book a lengthy portrait, "The Mind of the Left," which traced the continuities in radical thought from the generation of Stalinist intellectuals, like Eric Hobsbawm (an icon of the academic left), through Professors Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin, who hate each other but also share a common hatred of America (by which I mean "actually existing America" and not some fantasy of an American future shaped by radicals).


What the heck is a mislabeled liberal?I guess we will see


In fact I have made a detailed and lengthy case for including Islamic radicals in a database on the left in my most recent book, "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left." I even included in this book a lengthy portrait, "The Mind of the Left," which traced the continuities in radical thought from the generation of Stalinist intellectuals, like Eric Hobsbawm (an icon of the academic left), through Professors Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin, who hate each other but also share a common hatred of America (by which I mean "actually existing America" and not some fantasy of an American future shaped by radicals).



Now this scares me, "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left." Not even I thought them in league, sure they capitulate but open cooperation?




As a not unimportant footnote, my conclusion that the left is currently defined by its anti-American and anti-Israel agendas was recently confirmed by an academic leftist, Andre Markovits, in an insightful essay, "The European and American Left Since 1945," which appeared in the leftist magazine Dissent. But radicals like Berube can't be bothered to actually read anything that ruffles their feathers, let alone be concerned about the fact that their entire political focus since 9/11 has been in getting our terrorist enemies off the hook. (Doubters can consult the archives of The Nation, The Progressive and any number of leftwing sites on the Web to confirm this.)



Now this I can see





People who support the redistribution of income generally; people who support the redistribution of social resources on the basis of skin color; people who support the relentless expansion of the state; people who are so intolerant they refer to Republicans as "Nazis" (as, for example, Bill Clinton, Rep. John Lewis and Senator Byrd have all done) and who can find nothing wrong with university faculties that are 90-95 percent on one side of the political divide – such people are not liberal under any reasonable definition of the word. They are left.

On the other hand, they don't want to be identified as "left" because they don't want to be burdened with the history of their political "mistakes." In particular, they don't want to be accountable for their support for or appeasement of our Communist enemies during the Cold War. Nor do they want to be accountable – the case with leading Democrats – for their protection and support for anti-American radicals like Cynthia McKinney and the 60-odd socialist members of the so-called Progressive Caucus.

They prefer to refer to overt socialists and anti-America radicals as "liberals" so people won't think of the disasters created by socialists and anti-American radicals when they think of them. Of course they then complain, when conservatives respond to the radical ideas of liberals, that conservatives have maliciously given liberalism a bad name.



Well lately I use turdblossom, as it seems to get them



But what if they had been successful in other campaigns? If the nuclear freeze movement had prevailed over its conservative opposition, it is very possible that a billion people in the Soviet bloc would still be under the Communist heel. If leftists like Berube and Kennedy had been successful in obstructing the effort of America and Britain to liberate Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, Iraqis would still be disappearing into plastic shredders and mass graves, there would be no democracy movement in the Middle East, and the world in general would be a more dangerous place



Great Read IMHO



Defining the American Left




posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   
A little info about Horowitz.
www.mediatransparency.org...



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Looks to me he might have an agenda then, but I still agree with what in says in principle.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I agree. I agree with David Horowitz on just about everything. good post Ed.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I cant say everything but damn near it.....stooge or not, he has em pinned well.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Well I dont agree with this...sorry but defineing the left as "getting our terrorist enemies off the hook" is quite frankly wrong, and I am speaking as someone who fully supports the left but respects the right...
Last time I checked most liberals hate terrorism and war.
Last time I checked all we complain about is the tactics the Co-alition uses....



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp Last time I checked most liberals hate terrorism and war. Last time I checked all we complain about is the tactics the Co-alition uses....


Oh I dont disagree with the fact that you hate it, you are just not willing to do anything to stop it if it requires force. You want to give them 'sternly worded memo's' until they cave to the pressure.

Tactics? War is not easy nor pretty..............I think the tactics have been overwhelming good so far, less than 1500 dead on a nation the size of California? It would be worse to take just Los Angeles.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Oh I dont disagree with the fact that you hate it, you are just not willing to do anything to stop it if it requires force. You want to give them 'sternly worded memo's' until they cave to the pressure.

Now thats a bit of a lie or atleast a misunderstanding.
We hate war but are prepared to go to war, why else would we want an armed forces?


Tactics? War is not easy nor pretty..............I think the tactics have been overwhelming good so far, less than 1500 dead on a nation the size of California? It would be worse to take just Los Angeles.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by edsinger]

War is not pretty but that doesnt mean its acceptable to commit acts of brutality and unhumane tactics on an insurgent.
...is beating a man to death is an "acceptable" tactic?
Its quite fine for a legitimate army to do these acts?
Before you compare these tactics to those done by the insurgents can I ask have they declared themselves a legit army?



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
War is not pretty but that doesnt mean its acceptable to commit acts of brutality and unhumane tactics on an insurgent.
...is beating a man to death is an "acceptable" tactic?
Its quite fine for a legitimate army to do these acts?
Before you compare these tactics to those done by the insurgents can I ask have they declared themselves a legit army?


So let me get this straight, you think that this is standard operation procedure don't you?

Beating the # out of a man to save your ass or your buddies is fine with me.

No they are not an army, they are cowards that deliberately target civilians in a terror campaign because they know they can not fight like men and with honor. They deserve no less.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
So let me get this straight, you think that this is standard operation procedure don't you?

Beating the # out of a man to save your ass or your buddies is fine with me.

So you wouldnt have a problem if any enemy done this not just insurgents...
That is SOP at guantanimo....


No they are not an army, they are cowards that deliberately target civilians in a terror campaign because they know they can not fight like men and with honor. They deserve no less.

Didnt american revolutionary's fight "with out honour"?
I mean how do you define "honourable" fighting?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwaspDidnt american revolutionary's fight "with out honour"?I mean how do you define "honourable" fighting?


Us renegade colonists did not kill civilians in the same manner as now, there was a thing called honor but then again it could be argued that Sherman committed war crimes in the 'War of Northern Aggression'.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
It is ludicrous for Horowitz to align Radical Islamists with liberals. A brief review of 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks shows that just the opposite is true, Radical Islamists are aligned with right-wing fascists, and they have been for a long time, at least since WWII. The Radical Islamists attacked the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11, and just a week later the Anthrax letters were sent to Tom Brokaw and Tom Daschle. Both of these men are liberals, and the anthrax strain was traced to an Army lab. Right-wing fascists unhappy with W's progress on their agenda were for sure behind the Anthrax attacks, and probably assisted or tacitly approved of the 9/11 hijackers plans as well.




posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Us renegade colonists did not kill civilians in the same manner as now,

It doesnt matter the way, the fact is they done it.
Is there a diffrence in sentance between a man shot or stabbed to death?


there was a thing called honor but then again it could be argued that Sherman committed war crimes in the 'War of Northern Aggression'.

"Honour" is thrown around a lot, no one can really define it.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join