David Horowitz

This was the object of the campaign of vilification I encountered when I suggested that reparations for an injury committed 136 years ago and payable on the basis of skin color instead of injury was “a bad idea and racist too.” For the heresy of opposing the left on an issue it considered a political litmus, I was accused of expressing ideas that were “offensive,” and then tarred and feathered as a bonehead “racist.” The attacks weren’t limited to me; they were also directed at the journalistic institutions that printed my ad in the interest of free speech. My Salon colleague Joan Walsh accurately described these attacks as “political correctness run amok. Yet they were also lent credence and support by pundits who generally opposed political correctness like Jonathan Alter, Clarence Page and the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen.

This is a sure sign that the tenets of political correctness are still very much alive and well. An interesting case of this was recently provided by my good and courageous friend Andrew Sullivan in a column that appeared in the New York Times Magazine. In it, Sullivan addressed the subject of gays in the military in a way that I found morally persuasive and poignant on the one hand, but politically correct and obtuse on the other.

His column was titled “They Also Served,” and it asked for “some … recognition in today’s war nostalgia of the role that gay men have played in the past in defending their country.” In the film “Pearl Harbor,” for example “Cuba Gooding Jr. played the brave segregated Negro, fighting back for his country.” In “Saving Private Ryan,” “the sensibilities of the ’90s were projected backward. We didn’t see just soldiers; we saw a Jewish American soldier, an Italian, a WASP and so on.” Actually, Sullivan is wrong on that count. This wasn’t the sensibility of the ’90s. It was the same sensibility I saw as a kid in the 1940s when World War II films invariably featured the identical rainbow and, in features like “Home of the Brave,” included black soldiers and was accompanied by a powerful anti-discrimination theme.

This is the part of Sullivan’s argument I can wholeheartedly embrace — and I believe a majority of Americans do, too. When a socially conservative president appoints an openly gay man to an administration post, it is a sign that things have really changed. But the recognition of gays who served the country was not Sullivan’s main agenda in his New York Times Magazine essay. Having established the point that we should, but do not, acknowledge the service that gay men have performed for this country, he wants to use it as a wedge for the argument that the armed services should abandon their “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and embrace a gay presence in their ranks. Sullivan calls this goal a “diverse military” and wonders why “we seem to be going in reverse.”

It is at this point that Sullivan’s argument abruptly incorporates the telltale syntax of political correctness. His opponents are reactionaries, prejudiced against “diversity” — i.e., gays. The assumption is that no serious rationale other than lingering social prejudice exists for current military policy. Opposing it requires no military argument, while defending it is a sign of failure to fully qualify for the ranks of the decent and humane. As Sullivan presents the case, no other possibility exists.

Sullivan’s argument, however, is counterintuitive. Of all social institutions, the military is the most pragmatic. Its task, brutal in its simplicity, is to develop the most efficient killing machine that money can buy and intelligence can devise. This singularity of purpose creates a paradoxical result. The military is indeed retrograde in some of its aspects. (It’s not a democratic institution, for example.) On the other hand, it is more progressive in others. Precisely because the military’s overriding purpose is to win wars, free black fighting units were incorporated into its ranks more than a century ago, at a time when slavery was still legal. Less well known is the fact that free black troops and military support units were part of the Confederate war effort as well.

For almost a century after that, black soldiers were still segregated and confined to subordinate roles. But in 1947 the military was integrated. That was seven years before the Supreme Court integrated the nation’s schools and 18 years before progress in the political realm made it possible to end segregation in the South. (All this military progress was made notwithstanding the fact the military culture is largely a Southern culture.) In short, because of its pragmatic focus, the military — rigid in other areas — in this crucial terrain of social conflict has shown itself to be historically more flexible, progressive and ready to adapt than the democratic political process itself.

Then what is the military’s problem with including gays, other than prejudice? It is a sign of the force of political correctness in our culture that there is probably not one among a hundred readers of these words who could answer that question. Because of the embargo that political correctness puts on even considering the arguments of the other side, the conventional “wisdom” is that an institution that pioneered integration is run by individuals — many of whom are themselves minorities — who are more prejudiced against gays than they were against blacks. And by 100 years! Is this an argument that any self-respecting pundit — in other circumstances — would even want to be associated with?

Yet it is precisely the argument that all proponents of including gays in the military currently make. For all such advocates, including my friend Sullivan, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is just a hypocritical attempt to appease lingering social prejudice. That’s the voice of political correctness.

In fact, there is a military argument against the inclusion of gays in combat, which has nothing to do with social prejudice. It may or may not be a sound argument. I am not a military expert, and any opinion I have about the armed forces is necessarily based on intuition rather than experience. I certainly am open to counter arguments. It’s just that nobody on the inclusion side is offering any.

Sullivan’s argument in the Times article is more interesting than most in that it credits the Army with having important agendas that are worthy of respect. He observes that the current policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” creates a standing loophole for anyone who wants to leave the service. This is bad for the military, and an argument for changing the policy. That’s well and good, but hardly persuasive for a service that relies on volunteers. To make a credible argument for changing the policy, Andrew and others will have to address the military rationale for the policy itself.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a way of containing the destructive force of sex on a combat capability called “unit cohesion.” To create the perfect killing machine, the military works hard to drain recruits of their individuality and their self-interested desires in order to make them think like cogs in a machine. An essential part of the military mind is that the members of fighting units don’t think for themselves but do as they are told. They work as a unit in which each performs an appointed task. The mission objective — not personal consideration — guides their actions. Suppose a commander were faced with the choice of risking his unit or risking the life of his own son, for example. Suppose the life of his son were threatened, but to save him would risk the military objective his superiors had set. Suppose he let the human override the imperatives of the machine. He would be doing what was natural, but the military objective he sacrificed might cost the lives of hundreds or thousands.

To avoid such breaches of military discipline, military policy does not allow family members to fight in the same unit. The same principle underlies its policy towards gays. Sacrifice of unit cohesion and military order is the threat that sex between soldiers poses for any combat force. The open inclusion of gays in the military is regarded by military men who oppose it a threat to effectiveness of the military as a fighting force.

This has nothing to do with the individual fighting capability of gay males. It is about unit cohesion. It’s about making every soldier a cog in a machine whose larger purpose he cannot understand, but he is bound to serve. Suppose two men in a five-man unit are sexual partners. What will that do to the cohesiveness and effectiveness of the fighting unit? What impact will it have on its ability to carry out its mission? These are the questions that led to the ban on gays in the military and then to the subsequent “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Because once you are able to tell — and stay — then there is no containing the sexual problem.

As a comeback, some may be tempted to ask: What about the fact that women now serve in combat units? Far from taking care of the problem, this comparison only underscores the dangers in letting politicians treat the military as a social experiment. In one sense, of course, we don’t really know the magnitude of the threat since we haven’t been in a ground war since women were allowed in combat roles. (And there may, indeed, be a connection between the two.) But we do know that every military that has attempted to place women in combat positions — the Israelis, the Germans and the Russians provide three examples — has abandoned the practice, because of its negative impact on unit cohesion. (In part, because men will instinctively sacrifice their tactical missions to protect the women.) We do know that since women have been included in these roles, requirements and standards have been dramatically lowered, and along with them morale — a crucial, if immeasurable, element of military success.

Moreover, we know that once the politically correct foot is in the door, the possibility of reasserting pragmatic controls becomes ever more remote. The same “progressive” intolerance that forced the original issue will prevent any rational assessment of the result. The admission of women into the American military was not a military decision but a political act. The Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, which was created during Bush père’s administration, recommended against putting women in combat positions.

The Clinton administration ignored the recommendation and slipped the new policy into place without a public discussion or congressional debate. During the Gulf War, women in the armed services failed to report to combat duty at rates many multiples that of men. When you don’t show up for your combat assignment you are effectively sabotaging existing battle plans. On one ship, the Aurora, 10 percent of the women en route to the war zone got pregnant. The military looked the other way. None was court-martialed for cowardice or dereliction of duty. In other words, under the force of political correctness, the military has surrendered to the fact that it will be a less effective fighting machine.

The integration of women in the military and in combat forces is a politically created debacle that has already weakened America’s defenses. The open inclusion of gays in the military could have an even more damaging effect, with unknown consequences for untold lives. If proponents of gay inclusion want to make their case persuasively, they need to make it not on the battlefields of political correctness, but here in the real world.

Note: A correction to this story has been published.

“We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al-Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al-Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts … “

And Iraq! This is the war he had opposed as unnecessary and wrong, until now. In Cairo he did not apologize for “Bush’s war” or America’s “occupation.” He said that the Iraqis were better off without Saddam Hussein, which obviously could not have happened without the war — a truism, which for seven years Democrats failed to concede. Where Kennedy and Gore and Obama himself condemned America’s war as “unnecessary,” “illegal,” “based on lies,” an aggression against a “fragile and unstable” country that could not defend itself, Obama, speaking in a Muslim capital, defended our presence in Iraq as driven by a desire to give Iraqis their freedom and their country. Bush could not have said it better.

As for the Middle East conflict, Obama began — began — by telling the Muslim world that the bond between Israel and the United States is unbreakable, and by opening the wound of the Jews that made a homeland for them a moral imperative: “America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”

And then he characterized Holocaust deniers like Ahmadinejad as despicable, and identified them as a cause of war in the Middle East, and announced that he was going to Buchenwald the next day (clearly to underscore that fact): “Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews — is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.”

And while Obama made false parallels between Jews and Arabs as contributors to the intractability of the Middle East conflict and rewrote some history, he also said in no uncertain terms that it was Palestinians who had to renounce violence (and here he drew no parallels and no moral equivalence) and had to recognize the Jewish state — something even the “moderate” terrorist Abbas refuses to do.

And to underscore this point he drew a parallel between the struggles of American blacks for civil rights and Palestinians. But unlike Condoleezza Rice, who not too long ago drew the same parallel to aggrandize the PLO terrorists as civil rights activists, Obama drew a sharp and revealing line of distinction between them: “Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding.”

And that was really the core of Obama’s speech. It was a defense of America’s founding and America’s mission. We are a tolerant nation and a peaceful nation, Obama told 1.5 billion Muslims, and we will accept and embrace you if you reject the violent and hateful among you and walk a peaceful and tolerant path. And this tolerance must extend not only to the Jews of Israel, and other infidels, but to Muslims among you who are oppressed, specifically Muslim women: “The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights. I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.”

That is not pandering. It is saying that America’s democratic, tolerant, inclusive way needs to be the path to the future for the Muslim world.

Conservatives will make a great mistake if they fail to see this speech for what it was, and treat it as another round in the partisan food fight. It was not an appeasement of our enemies. It was a forthright statement by an American leader in a Muslim capital explaining why America is in fact the global leader in those battles that matter most to people everywhere: freedom, equality, and peace. As conservatives we have many quarrels with the Obama administration — and we should have. But this speech is not one of them.

Conservatives, please. Let’s not duplicate the manias of the left as we figure out how to deal with Mr. Obama. He is not exactly the antichrist, although a disturbing number of people on the right are convinced he is.

I have recently received commentaries that claim that “Obama’s speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history” and “never has a politician in this land had such a quasi-religious impact on so many people” and “Obama is a narcissist,” which leads the author to then compare Obama to David Koresh, Charles Manson, Stalin and Saddam Hussein. Excuse me while I blow my nose.

This fellow has failed to notice that all politicians are narcissists – and that a recent American president was a world-class exponent of the imperial me. So what? Political egos are one of the reasons the Founders put checks and balances on executive power. As for serial lying, is there a politician that cannot be accused of that? And once, the same recent president set a pretty high bar in this category, and we survived it. As for Obama’s speeches, they are hardly in the Huey Long, Louis Farrakhan, Fidel Castro vein. They are in fact eloquently and cleverly centrist and sober.

So what’s the panic? It is true that Obama has shown surprising ineptitude in his first months in office, but he’s not a zero with no accomplishments as many conservatives seem to think — unless you regard beating the Clinton machine and winning the presidency as nothing. But in doing this you fall into the “Bush-is-an-idiot” bag of liberal miasmas.

It is also true Obama has ceded his domestic economic agenda to the House Democrats and spent a lot of money in the process. But what’s the surprise in this? After all, Bush and McCain both proposed (and in Bush’s case pushed through) massive government giveaways (which amount to government takeovers as well). This is bad, but it doesn’t make Obama a closet Mussolini, however deplorable the conservatives among us may regard it. Moreover, he’s already run into political resistance even within his own party. Charlie Rangel has made it clear that the itemized deduction tax hike is not going through his committee — and that should tell you that the American system, the one the Founders created, is still in place.

Even as astute a conservative thinker as Mark Steyn has been swept up in the tide that thinks Obama is a “transformative” radical. But look again at his approach to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, as noted, he is carrying out the Bush policies — the same that he once joined his fellow Democrats in condemning. And that should be reassuring to anyone concerned about where he is heading as commander in chief.

In other words, while it’s reasonable to be unhappy with a Democratic administration and even concerned because the Democrats are now a socialist party in the European sense, we are not witnessing the coming of the antichrist. A good strategy for political conflicts is to understand your opponent first — not to underestimate him, but not to overestimate him either.

Once conservatives do that, they will find some silver linings in the first moves of the Obama administration. Through a combination of ineptitude and zeal, Obama has in two short months locked down the conservative and Republican base. On fetal stem-cell research, on borders (e-verification), on spending, on unions, on shutting down talk radio, Obama has flexed the leftist muscle so nakedly and unmistakably that there isn’t a conservative left who will vote Democratic in the next election (and there were many who did so in the last).

As we move forward, Obama faces increasingly tough choices in the wars against Islamic fascism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza and Iran. Hopefully, he will make the right choices, and should he do so conservatives will need to be there to support him. If he makes the wrong choices, conservatives will need to be there to oppose him. But neither our support nor our opposition should be based on hysterical responses to policies that we just don’t like. Let’s leave that kind of behavior to the liberals who invented it.

This piece first appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Here is what Conason wrote: “In many quarters on the right, doubt about war equals hatred of America or worse. This sort of hysteria now pervades the propaganda operations of David Horowitz [whose] Front Page magazine features ‘The Fifth Column,’ where political adversaries are smeared with treason. Like many right-wingers, he insists that anyone who doesn’t enthusiastically support an invasion of Iraq must despise America and love Saddam. Anyone, that is, except for the antiwar skeptics on the right — who somehow escape being branded as traitors.”

These are all — how shall I put it delicately? — lies. I have never equated doubt about the war with hatred of America. I recently reposted a Boston Globe article by Todd Gitlin, a man with doubts about the war, and changed the title to “A Patriotic View From the Left.” The point I was making to my conservative readership was that Gitlin’s view was patriotic because it was critical of the “hate America” crowd, even though Gitlin remains a leftist critic of Bush. My documenting America’s fifth column is not a plot to suppress leftist critics, let alone all those who do not line up behind Bush. I do not equate political dissent with treason. Would I have spent years writing for Salon, and political capital defending its editors, if I considered them traitors? These charges are both insulting and absurd, and Conason knows it, and that is what makes his performance even more distasteful than it normally would have been.

Underneath my conservative white robe, Conason suggests I’m a  communist! “While Horowitz and company focus on easy targets like Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark, their deeper aim is to depict anyone who doesn’t line up behind Bush as soft on terror. Aside from scamming a few quick bucks — ‘Help David Expose the Leftist Plot to Control America’s Young Minds!’ — that is in fact their only purpose. (Despite its capitalist form, this enterprise strongly resembles communist methods of enforcing the correct line. You can take Horowitz out of the CP, but you can’t take the CP out of Horowitz.)”

The insinuation — the vulgar Marxist insinuation — that my conservative politics is a plot to make money is typical of Conason (indeed, as was the subject of his first attack on me, inspired by my first Salon column). Does anyone wonder why conservatives regard socialism as envy gussied up as a political cause? Although my parents were communists, after adolescence I never was, in either practice or theory. I was always a new-leftist critic of communism. My first book, “Student” — published in 1962 — was dedicated to Supreme Court justice and civil libertarian Hugo Black and explicitly criticized American communists for their rigid party line and anti-democratic philosophy (and was attacked by the Communist Party’s People’s World for that very reason).

Far from suggesting anything close to the idea that “doubt about war equals hatred of America or worse,” I have posted antiwar articles on FrontPage by my own columnist, John Zmirak. If Conason wants to maintain I have “smeared [my] adversaries with treason,” he should produce the quotes. Who is he talking about — Jane Fonda? John Walker Lindh? Or Noam Chomsky, who like Fonda traveled to hostile terrain (in this case Pakistan in the middle of the Taliban war) to accuse the United States of crimes against humanity.

Visitors to my site and readers of my Salon articles know that I have defended specific individuals who are Dissent socialists, Nation leftists and Salon editors. At HorowitzWatch, a site created by my critics, I have explicitly dissociated myself from the view that those who criticize the war are ipso facto fifth columnists or traitors. “Criticizing American policy is fine,” I wrote in my most recent post, “and almost no particular criticism can be labeled Fifth Column. It’s a matter of the profile of the critic, and the context of his/her criticism. I agree that it’s problematic and one needs to be careful in these matters when applying charged labels. But we are also in a war and it is clear that there is a large constituency in this country that believes America can do no good and that its enemies have ‘social justice’ on their side.” Are these sentiments controversial?

As it happens, Conason is also 100 percent wrong about my having no enemies to the right. I personally commissioned Myles Kantor to write an article titled “Introduction to the Anti-American Right” and have run articles slamming the antiwar positions of Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative. I have also crossed swords with the right-wing editor of Antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo (whose search engine turns up 240 attacks on me, personally).

Conason’s column is an attempt to create an atmosphere in which the left cannot discuss what is now its most serious problem, namely, the presence of terrorist sympathizers in its own ranks. To do so would be McCarthyism, right-wing chauvinism, witch-hunting. Yet the problem created by the solidarity of many leftists with America’s enemies is not a new one for progressives. During the Cold War and before the emergence of the new left, progressives lent their support almost across the board (the Dissent camp and the Trotskyists were exceptions) to the Soviet adversary and later to Cuban and Chinese communists and other divisions of the gulag state.

Alienation from one’s own country and fifth-column support for its enemies is a much bigger problem for the contemporary left than it was for the left during the Cold War. Already the national peace demonstrations are in the hands of pro-Saddam, pro-Milosevic, even pro-ayatollah fanatics (as not only Michelle Goldberg, but the Nation’s David Corn have scrupulously pointed out). This has already so discredited the left generally that it has probably undone most of the gains the left made as a result of the Soviet collapse and the successful, albeit fanciful, alibi it employed to escape the connection — “Well, that wasn’t real socialism.”

The left’s problem in the war on terror is that America has been attacked, that American citizens have been slaughtered in their places of work and — if the D.C. snipers were (as I believe) a domestic al-Qaida — in their neighborhoods. Moreover, the left’s fifth-column wing has embraced not only anti-Americanism, but anti-Semitic, anti-female, religious fanaticism — thus forfeiting every last shred of the left’s “progressive” aura.

Sympathy for an enemy 10,000 miles away in Vietnam was one thing. Sympathy for the architects of 9/11 is another. The perils that the patriotic left faces from being connected to an anti-American, terrorist-sympathizing fifth column are vastly increased by the prospect of more 9/11-grade atrocities waiting in the wings. If you think sympathies for the communist devil created problems for radicals during the Cold War, wait until the casualty toll inside America begins to mount. That is why the left needs to feel free to have this discussion, which attitudes like Conason’s seek to embargo.

Contrary to Conason’s claims, it is my view that tactical disagreements over taking on Saddam Hussein at this moment in time don’t even qualify in the categories we are discussing. It is perfectly legitimate for skeptics to worry about the risks and/or distractions of the war against Iraq, even though it is also my belief that the sooner we do go to war with Saddam the better. In this hawkish perspective, I happen to be in complete agreement with Al Gore’s running mate, Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Conason’s article does an immense disservice to the left. By distorting the arguments of critics like myself he stigmatizes in advance anyone who seeks to raise the problem. By equating critics of the anti-American left with McCarthyites, Conason obscures the problem itself. I may disagree fervently with a David Corn or a Todd Gitlin, or with Salon’s editor David Talbot, on a host of issues, but I am truly gladdened and encouraged that critics from the left are forthrightly condemning the ugly progressives who side with the enemy.

The more recent article about the Wichita events originally appeared on the Web site of American Renaissance, a white racialist group founded by Jared Taylor. Even though the article stayed with the facts in the case and did not include any interpretative remarks that might be construed as racist, reposting it from this site seemed to require some commentary about the source, so I reprinted the piece with my own commentary. But Salon readers probably require additional explanation as to why I would post even a factual article from a tainted source.

The short answer is this: Why not? We live in an age of multicultural excess, in which the current issue of Harvard Magazine (September-October)features — without apology — an article by Noel Ignatiev titled, “Abolish the White Race.” Ignatiev’s piece proudly mentions his infamous magazine Race Traitor, with its inflammatory motto: “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Ignatiev is currently a fellow at Henry Louis Gates’ W.E.B. DuBois Institute, the nation’s most prestigious African American Studies department. Neither Harvard Magazine nor Henry Louis Gates seems to feel an obligation to explain why they are sponsoring a race-hater like Ignatiev. Since I was not sponsoring Taylor but merely reposting a factual report from his magazine, to go out of my way to justify my deicision would seem to me like a capitulation to the racial double standards I was protesting in the first place.

Nonetheless, I was aware that others committed to those double standards would attack me for merely posting Taylor’s article. So I did provide a brief commentary outlining the difference between Taylor’s views and mine. In the commentary I wrote to accompany our feature, I described Taylor as “a man who has surrendered to the multicultural miasma that has overtaken this nation and is busily building a movement devoted to white identity and community,” agendas we “did not share.” I further explained:

“What I mean by ‘surrendering’ is that Taylor has accepted the idea that the multiculturalists have won. We are all prisoners of identity politics now. If there is going to be Black History Month and Chicano Studies then there should be White History Month and White Studies. If blacks and Mexicans are going to regard each other as brothers and the rest of us as ‘Anglos,’ then whites should regard each other as brothers and others as — well, … others. Within the multicultural framework set by the dominant liberalism in our civic culture, Taylor’s claim to a white place at the diversity table certainly makes sense. But there is another option and that is getting rid of the table altogether and going back to the good old American ideal of E Pluribus Unum — ‘out of many, one.’ Not just blacks and whites and Chicanos, but Americans.”

In the current issue of American Renaissance Jared Taylor replies to these comments and raises the fundamental question of whether America is or should be a multiethnic, multiracial society, or whether it was conceived and should be preserved “as a self-consciously European, majority-white Nation.” Among literate conservatives, Jared Taylor is the most blunt in expressing this vision, but it is a theme of others who might be called “Euro-racialists.” (This is a bastardized and somewhat incoherent coinage, but one that adequately describes a bastardized and somewhat incoherent perspective).

Prominent among the articulators of Euro-racialism are writers for the Web site Vdare, and Pat Buchanan, whose bestselling book “The Death of the West” articulates its most familiar version. If Buchanan’s last electoral run is any indication, Euro-racialism is a still a fringe prejudice among conservatives. But if it were to emerge as the view of conservatives themselves, it would in my view mean the death of the conservative movement. Since I consider the conservative movement the last bulwark in the defense of America and the West, it would ironically also fulfill the prophecy in the title of Buchanan’s book.

Taylor describes me as a “neo-conservative,” but I have no idea what reference this has to my positions or my work. The two most prominent theoreticians of neo-conservatism announced its death some time ago, because it had always defined the defection of a group of New York liberals from liberalism over its failure to stay the course in fighting the anticommunist battle during the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War, neo-conservatism – at least in the view of its founders — has become indistinguishable from conservatism itself.

I have never identified myself as a “neo-conservative” because belonging to a younger political generation I did not share some of the social attitudes of the neo-conservative founders. Since attitude is fundamental to some conservative perspectives, I have preferred to define my own. To be a conservative in America, from my perspective, then, is to defend where possible and restore where necessary, the framework of values and philosophical understandings enshrined in the American founding. This should not be taken to mean a strict constructionist attitude toward every clause of the documents that constitute the founding. If the framers of the Constitution had presumed to see the future, or had wanted to rigidly preserve the past, they would not have included an amendment process in their document.

My brand of conservatism is based on a belief in the fundamental truth in the idea of individualism; in the idea of rights that are derived from “Nature’s God” and therefore inalienable; in the conservative view of human nature and the philosophy of limited government that flows therefrom; and in the recognition that property rights are the proven foundation of all human liberties.

Thus, for me, Taylor’s challenge goes to the heart of what it means not only to be an American but also to be an American conservative.

Because America is a nation “conceived” — and not just a nation evolved (although it is that, too) — the meaning of the American founding is and will always be a contested issue for Americans, and the answer to these questions about the meaning of the American idea and therefore of the American nation, will always affect its direction and its future. It is not coincidental, therefore, that the issue of the founding is the very first to which Taylor turns.

Taylor contends that the national motto “E Pluribus Unum” refers not to many races or ethnicities when it comes to forming an American people but simply to the 13 colonies. But this is a rhetorical argument rather than a comment on reality, since it ignores the actual populations of the 13 colonies, which even at that time were multiethnic and multiracial. In 1776, American citizens included not only ethnic Englishmen, but Dutchmen, Germans, French, Scotch-Irish, Jews, free blacks and others.

In an attempt to anchor his rhetorical case in the attitudes of the founders themselves, Taylor quotes John Jay to the effect that Americans were a united and connected people because they had common ancestors. But Jay is obviously mistaken because this was certainly not true in any ethnic or racial sense. Even insofar as Americans were European in origin, “European” is not an ethnicity, and the history of Europe is the history of wars between its ethnicities and its racial groups.

An acquaintance of mine, of Scotch-Irish descent, maintains that his forebears came to the New World expressly for the opportunity to fight the English. Whether the memory is accurate or not, it illuminates the error made by both John Jay and Jared Taylor. America was created out of a British Empire that was virtually global in scope, and its various peoples, European and otherwise, far from being a cohesive group with a common ancestry, were the bearers of histories of hostility and war.

The fundamental mistake of the Euro-racialists is to confuse ethnicity and culture. How is race or ethnicity integral to the American idea or the American culture? Are not Francis Fukuyama, Dinesh D’Souza and Thomas Sowell quintessential Americans despite their Japanese, Indian and African lineage? The Jews have remained a people united by culture and — until recently — a language for 2,000 years; but as a people they embrace a world of ethnicities and races.

It is a culture that is crucial in shaping the American identity, not an ethnicity or race. John Jay’s observation that speaking a common English language is a critical element in uniting the American people transmitting this culture is probably correct. Here, there is ground for agreement. An American identity cannot exist outside an American culture. Even though that American culture can and inevitably must evolve and incorporate new elements, it cannot leave behind its European roots without losing, in some fundamental sense, its self. It is this American culture, not a racial or ethnic heritage, that we need to preserve.

Ironically, Taylor and the Euro-racialists have fallen into a trap set by the “multicultural” left. The left’s multicultural offensive is an attack on America’s national culture, not on its racial or ethnic composition. “Inclusion” and “diversity” are not the real agendas of the left — America has always honored both principles, however imperfect their implementation may have been. The idea of the melting pot is an American idea. The left, however, has never been interested in a “melting pot” that would assimilate diverse ethnicities into an American culture.

The left is hostile to the idea of assimilation. Its agenda is the deconstruction of America’s national identity and culture, of the American narrative of inclusion and freedom. Multiculturalism is not about the assimilation of minorities into the crucible of American freedom, it’s about their supposed liberation from American oppression. By accepting the left’s view of itself as a movement for diversity and inclusion, and responding with a call for Euro-centricity and exclusion, the Euro-racialists simply play into the hands of the multiculturalists.

Under the cloak of ethnic inclusion, the left has injected an anti-American curriculum into the American educational system, in an attempt to alienate America’s youth from its heritage. Under the smokescreen of “diversity,” it has rewritten America’s laws and subverted its Constitution. It has launched a campaign to institutionalize group rights and racial privileges in place of individual rights and laws that are race-neutral.

This is a perfectly diabolical scheme: In the name of diversity and inclusion the left is systematically destroying the framework of individualism and the rule of neutrality that make diversity and inclusion possible. But instead of fighting this sinister attack on the very foundations of the American system, Jared Taylor and the Euro-racialists are eager to validate it. They have even embraced the destructive narrative devised by the left whose purpose is to kill the American dream. Taylor’s construction of American history in his reply to my commentary directly parallels the maliciously distorted version of the nation’s history in works of such anti-American fanatics as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.

In Taylor’s telling, America has become the racist nightmare of leftist fantasy. Taylor begins his historical reconstruction with Thomas Jefferson who “thought it had been a terrible mistake to bring blacks to America, and wrote that they should be freed from slavery and then ‘removed from beyond the reach of mixture.’” Taylor then describes a pantheon of notable Americans who were officers of the American Colonization Society designed to promote the same “solution,” including Andrew Jackson, Francis Scott Key and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall. He observes that the capital of Liberia, Monrovia, is named after the chief architect of the Constitution, James Monroe, “in gratitude for his help in sending blacks to Africa.” Naturally Taylor includes the chief icon of the left’s deconstruction project, Abraham Lincoln, who “also favored colonization” and invited the first delegation of blacks to visit the White House in order to “ask them to persuade their people to leave.”

The purpose of Taylor’s pantheon of political leaders is transparent. It is to establish that white America is racist since politicians “are cautious people who re-circulate the bromides of their times.” Racism, in other words, is just the American creed.

This picture of the American mind is no less a caricature coming from Jared Taylor than when it comes from Louis Farrakhan or Howard Zinn. There are obviously many motives that could have prompted 19th century American statesmen to consider “colonization” a reasonable alternative to the problem of assimilating people who had been brought to America against their will and who had suffered grievous injustice at the hands of American citizens. But even granting, for example, Jefferson’s racial prejudice, the presumption that this fully expresses the complexity of his attitudes, and let alone his historic role in shaping the racial question, is both vulgar and absurd. This is the man who proclaimed that God had endowed men with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In short it was Jefferson who sowed the ideological seed not only of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution granting emancipation to slaves but also the 14th Amendment guaranteeing all Americans, black as well as white, equal citizenship rights under the law.

If Jefferson planted the seeds of this liberation, it is the American people who implemented it, through the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of lives in a civil war. The denigrators of Lincoln hate the fact that he resolved the schizophrenia of the American birth in favor of Jefferson’s idea that America was a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all man are created equal. Reactionaries like Taylor may want to take this country back to the pre-American social order that existed before 1776, but there are few Americans alive today who will follow them. Moreover, it is a gross historical misrepresentation to call this project “American,” as Taylor and his followers do.

Taylor’s recounting of the legislative past is equally selective and ahistorical. The fact that the first American naturalization bill made citizenship available only to “free white persons” or that it took more than 100 years to expand citizenship rights to all races and ethnicities, would have the significance he wants to assign it, only if the weight of American history were not behind the expansion of these rights, and only if the premise of that expansion were not the very principles embedded in the founding itself. The text of the Constitution does not contain the terms “black” and “white,” because it does not recognize racial distinctions in respect to citizens and their rights.

The delayed granting of citizenship rights to blacks is the fulfillment of the American promise. It is not to be confused with the seemingly limitless expansion of rights promoted by the left under the doctrine of a “living Constitution.” The “rights” the left seeks to create are not rights recognized in the classical liberal doctrines the Founders embraced, but are antithetical to them. They are the redistributionist rights of the radical tradition the Framers despised and that Madison himself described as “wicked.” Racial preferences, which have become the “civil rights” cause of left and which have been made constitutional by “liberal” courts are in fact an offense to the Constitution and the values it enshrines. Equality of citizenship for all races and ethnic ancestries, on the other hand, is clearly an expression the principles inscribed in the constitutional foundations, which are the foundations of a free republic.

To conclude his argument Taylor turns personal, which may be appropriate for a discussion that attempts to address both the universal and the particular:

“Mr. Horowitz deplores the idea that ‘we are all prisoners of identity politics,’ implying that race and ethnicity are trivial matters we must work to overcome. But if that is so, why does the home page of FrontPagemag carry a perpetual appeal for contributions to ‘David’s Defense of Israel Campaign’? Why Israel rather than, say, Kurdistan or Tibet or Euskadi or Chechnya? Because Mr. Horowitz is Jewish. His commitment to Israel is an expression of precisely the kind of particularist identity he would deny to me and to other racially conscious whites. He passionately supports a self-consciously Jewish state but calls it ‘surrendering to the multicultural miasma’ when I work to return to a self-consciously white America. He supports an explicitly ethnic identity for Israel but says Americans must not be allowed to have one … If he supports a Jewish Israel, he should support a white America.”

There is a lot that is wrong with this picture. To be a “prisoner” of identity politics is not the same as regarding race and ethnicity as “trivial matters,” and I don’t. To portray me as a political Jew, who identifies primarily with Jewish causes, or who would not rally to the defense of Israel if he were of some other ethnicity, is very wide of the mark. My political causes are public record and go back more than 50 years, and in my autobiography, “Radical Son,” I have even recorded my interior thoughts about why I took on these causes. None of them were ethnically motivated, which I believe is true for most people involved in similar ones. If there has been an ethnic group to which I have devoted the major portion of my political energies over the course of a lifetime, it has been black Americans, not Jews.

As a Marxist, of course, I was a deracinated Jew — never bar mitzvahed and a stranger in synagogues. As an editor of the left-wing magazine Ramparts, I did write a cover story called “The Passion of the Jews,” and did defend the existence of Israel as a “raft state” for survivors of the Holocaust, rejected everywhere else. But the article itself was a case against Jewish particularism, while recognizing its validity in a world in which Jews had become the objects of a program for their extermination. At the time, however, I still believed in a socialist revolution that would dissolve these prejudices and forge an international community free from such atavisms.

This utopian delusion was killed in me shortly after I wrote the piece, in circumstances I have described elsewhere. But to recognize the fact of ethnic particularity is not equivalent to becoming a racialist or a nationalist in the narrow, tribal sense to which Jared Taylor aspires.

Even after I rejected the progressive illusion, I did not become the prisoner of an ethnic calculus in selecting my (now conservative) causes. The American creed is universal, and a conservative will defend it wherever it becomes an inspiration for others. Call this American ethno-centrism if you will; it is a lot more inclusive than the white European nation for which Jared Taylor longs.

I do not fool myself for a moment into thinking that it would not matter to me as a Jew if the Arabs succeeded in their determination to destroy the state of Israel. But I also do not expect any American of any national origin to be unaffected by the infliction of great harm to his or her ancestral community. Despite this concession, I do not think ethnicity defines the way I, or most Americans, measure right and wrong, or decide to commit our political passions.

Israel is under attack by the same enemy that has attacked the United States. Israel is point of origin for the culture of the West and it is under attack for the same reasons that America is regarded by radical Islam as the “Great Satan.” In defending Israel, as I have defended other countries — Afghanistan for example, when it was attacked by the Soviets — I have no ambivalence about my national identity, which is American. It is not Israeli, and most certainly not “white.”

If I support an ethnic Jewish state in principle, it is because if Arabs were to become a majority in Israel they would persecute, kill and expel the Jews as they have for a thousand years. No sober person could believe otherwise. But I also support an ethnic Jewish state because this is merely the granting of equality to Jews among the family of nations. Would a Frenchman feel sanguine about a German majority in France?

America is different. It is a nation that from the beginning has encompassed many ethnicities and more than one race. It was created as a “new nation” and its creators defined its identity not in categories of blood and soil, but in a document articulating principles that are universal: we hold these truths to be self-evident. Most of the nations of the world are different from America in their essential construction.

One could argue, of course, that this very fact of America’s uniqueness proves the reactionaries’ case — that human beings are incapable of transcending their ethnic and racial particularities to form a common national bond. But that would require arguing that the two-and-a-quarter centuries of the American experiment have failed. I am not ready to believe this, even if Jared Taylor and the Euro-racialists are. I could very well be mistaken. But I would rather be wrong as an American, than the President of Jared Taylor’s Euro-white alternative. Moreover, I remain certain of at least one thing. America is such a multiethnic and multiracial experiment, and Jared Taylor and the Euro-racialists are wrong in contending that it is not.

Defenders of racial checklists note that the current census has been liberalized to let citizens to choose from among 63 racial and ethnic categories — although there is no obvious reason for stopping at 63, and there is no constitutional basis for asking the race question at all. The constitutional rationale for the census is to count heads for the purpose of determining congressional districts. Since congressional districts are not determined on the basis of race or ethnicity there is no justification for such questions.

Connerly’s campaign is another stage in his crusade to free Americans from the racial albatross, an agenda he has described as an effort to “eliminate racial profiling.” This agenda has provoked a frenzy of opposition from the usual racial reactionaries — the NAACP, the ACLU and the entire “civil rights” coalition, who simply can’t imagine life without racial categories. The same coalition opposed Connerly’s Prop 209 campaign and was eventually proven wrong in every hysterical particular of the arguments they used to oppose it. Women were not stripped of their rights, as the anti-Connerly coalition had warned. Minority enrollment dipped, then climbed again. African-American enrollment is still down from where it was when it was artificially bolstered by affirmative action, but maybe the continued struggles of black students to meet high educational standards will force some attention to the corrupt educational bureaucracy in most inner city school districts.

Now that same old coalition is arguing that Connerly’s new initiative will cripple anti-discrimination laws. This is just a new twist to the old hysteria. Anti-discrimination laws that protect individuals will not be affected at all. Pseudo-anti-discrimination laws that provide racial preferences and privilege for politically anointed groups will.

But Connerly’s latest campaign has also thrown some cooler heads into an ideological tizzy. For example, Peter Beinart, the usually astute editor of the New Republic, had this to say about Connerly in a TRB column:

“[Connerly's anti-racial profiling slogan] should strike you as odd. In fact, it suggests just how schizophrenic conservative rhetoric on race has become. On the one hand, conservatives blithely endorse Connerly’s initiative as the natural extension of their longstanding battle against racial preferences. On the other, since Sept. 11, conservatives have unceremoniously junked the very principle on which all that anti-affirmative action crusading rests: color blindness. When it comes to Arabs and the war on terrorism, conservatives don’t want to “eliminate racial profiling” at all. They want the ACLU and all the other politically correct guilt-mongers to get out of the way and let the government start practicing it. In its writing on affirmative action and its writing on homeland security, the American right is engaged in a dialogue of the deaf — with itself. ”

Actually, Peter, the shoe is clearly on the other foot. It’s the left whose cynical abandonment of its own color-blind standard created racial preferences, which are an obvious form of racial profiling. Having marched in the ’60s to establish the principle of color-blindness, the left switched sides in the ’70s to support the principle it had just successfully opposed. Its rationale for embracing the profiling principle in the guise of “affirmative action” was that it was necessary to use racism to combat racism (although it is politically incorrect to express it so bluntly). This was the point of the infamous Blackmun opinion in the Bakke decision, which held that it might be necessary to take race into account to get beyond it.

This is the most widely embraced Orwellian principle in our culture today. It allows the cynical manipulators of race on the left to smear conservative civil rights activists who oppose race consciousness and race privilege as “racists.” It allows the left to call itself a “civil rights” movement even while it embraces the very principle that made segregation possible, and even though it is the conservative opposition that has remained faithful to the civil rights standard set by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the hundreds of thousands who marched on Washington in 1963.

Such ideological sleight-of-hand is not unusual in these matters. In fact, it is normal for liberals to blame conservatives for the sins their own policies and practices caused. Liberals blamed conservatives for launching the politics of personal destruction during the Clinton impeachment battles, but it was obvious that the attacks on Clinton were a belated retaliation for the personal assaults liberals themselves had earlier launched against Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. The lynch mobs of the left set out to defame these Supreme Court nominees by rifling their personal garbage (literally) in a campaign that was unprecedented. Then, when it came to Clinton’s sexual misbehavior, conservatives mistakenly believed that because liberals had set the standards for “sexual harassment,” they would be outraged if one of their own violated them.

Conservatives never seem to fully appreciate the fact that the issues are never the issue where liberals are concerned. For liberals, the issue is power. Whatever serves their need for power is right; whatever frustrates it is wrong. When racial profiling is to their advantage it is good. It’s only when it isn’t that it’s bad. The left’s hypocrisy is limitless. After decades of demanding racial profiling in job placements, school admissions, scholarships, corporate boards and government agencies, the left began decrying so-called “racial profiling” in law enforcement procedures without a single missed beat.

The quotes around racial profiling are necessary, because the profiling that upsets liberals and is endorsed by conservatives is not “racial profiling” at all. It is a time-honored race-neutral practice, often enforced by minority officers themselves, and completely consistent with a color-blind society properly understood. Obviously a color-blind society does not mean either a society where racial characteristics are invisible or where racists don’t exist. Conservatives are not the utopians in this fight. A “color-blind society” means a society with a single standard for all races and ethnicities.

Security profiles should be designed to protect law-abiding citizens from likely criminal predators. Profiles that include the ethnicity or race of potential suspects – but are not limited to those characteristics — do not constitute “racial profiling” in any meaningful sense of the term. The inclusion of race in a security profile is in itself as harmless as the inclusion of gender or height or any other identifying characteristic. It does not imply racism on the part of the profilers. On the other hand, rigging admissions or contract standards for selected racial groups does. It is the sole purpose of affirmative-action racial preferences to achieve a race-specific result. They are designed to target racial groups for racial privileges. This is what segregation and apartheid were all about. The means and the end were identical.

This is not what the security profiling demanded by conservatives is about, at all. Conservatives do not want Muslims to be arrested as terrorists if they are innocent. The profile is not constructed out of a desire to stigmatize Muslims as terrorists. It is based on already established incidences of terror and is intended to heighten awareness of where the danger may be coming from. To raise suspicions about groups whose members have in fact targeted innocents for harm bears no relation to ethnic or racial prejudice, as long as the suspicions are not raised solely by ethnicity or race. An unintended side effect may to raise suspicions toward members of the group who are innocent. But this is not the same as convicting them. Causing inconvenience to innocents is regrettable, but it is a price people regardless of ethnicity or race are willing to pay for safety. It is a characteristic of all preventive programs that innocents will be screened along with the guilty. But the ultimate target is the guilty and not the innocent, and the guilty may turn out to be of any ethnicity or race. In affirmative action measures, by contrast, the target itself is racial.

The war in which we are now engaged is a war with radical Islam. All of the terrorists who have targeted us are Muslim and/or Arab. Not to have heightened suspicions of Muslims and Arabs in these circumstances is mindless, not to say suicidal. To draw conclusions solely on the basis of the fact that people are Muslims or Arabs would be unwarranted and prejudiced. But conservatives are not calling for the convictions of Muslims or Arabs on the basis of their ethnicity.

The same observations about racial profiling hold for the scrutiny of criminal suspects in the practice of crime prevention, the original pretext for these concerns. Black males commit crime way out of proportion to their relatively small numbers in the U.S. population. So it stands to reason that black males as a group would merit heightened scrutiny by law enforcement officials. The abuse of fears about “racial profiling” to lobby against law enforcement practices that stop a higher percentage of black males is form of racism itself, because it exposes innocent black Americans who constitute the vast majority of the victims of black crime to greater risk because they are black.

Ward Connerly’s mission is really a mission to save America from the hypocrisies that leftists have imposed on it. The price of this political correctness has already been great in the form of increased crime, exacerbated racial tensions and lost opportunities. A color-blind society means a society in which government treats all Americans under a single standard and does not single out particular races for privilege or prejudice. It does not mean a society that is blind to the dangers that confront it.