One of the typical illusions of the Noam Chomsky cult is the belief that its imam and sensei is an analytic giant whose dicta flow from a painstaking and scientific inquiry into the facts. “The only reason Noam Chomsky is an international political force unto himself,” writes a typically fervid acolyte, “is that he actually spends considerable time researching, analyzing, corroborating, deconstructing, and impassionately [sic] explaining world affairs.” This conviction is almost as delusional as Chomsky’s view of the world itself. It would be more accurate to say of the Chomsky oeuvre — lifting a famous line from the late Mary McCarthy — that everything he has written is a lie, including the “ands” and “thes.”
Chomskyites who read “The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky (Part I)” have complained to me that my refutation of Chomsky was not achieved “by reasoned argument or detailing the errors of fact or logic in his writings and statements, but by character assassination and the trivializing of Chomsky’s strongly held beliefs through accusations that they were unpatriotic.”
I confess to being a little puzzled by this objection. Having described Chomsky’s equation of post-World War II America with Nazi Germany, it did not actually occur to me that additional refutation was required. Not, at any rate, among the sound of mind. It is true, on the other hand, that the adulators of Chomsky share a group psychosis with millions of others who formerly worshipped pre-Chomskyites, like Lenin, Stalin, and other Marxist worthies, as geniuses of the progressive faith.
Now to the facts.
Chomsky’s little masterpiece, “What Uncle Sam Wants,” draws on America’s actions in the Cold War as a database for its portrayal as the Evil One in global affairs. As Chomsky groupies are quick to point out, a lot of facts do appear in the text or — more precisely — appear to appear in the text. On closer examination, every one of them has been ripped out of any meaningful historical context and then distorted so cynically that the result has about as much in common with the truth as Harry Potter’s Muggles Guide to Magic.
In Chomsky’s telling, the bipolar world of the Cold War is viewed as though there were only one pole. In the real world, the Cold War was about America’s effort to organize a democratic coalition against an expansionist empire that conquered and enslaved more than a billion people. It ended when the empire gave up and the walls that kept its subjects locked in came tumbling down. In Chomsky’s world, the Soviet empire hardly exists, not a single American action is seen as a response to a Soviet initiative, and the Cold War is “analyzed” as though it had only one side.
This is like writing a history of the Second World War without mentioning Hitler or noticing that the actions of the Axis powers influenced its events. But in Chomsky’s malevolent hands, matters get even worse. If one were to follow the Chomsky method, for example, one would list every problematic act committed by any part or element in the vast coalition attempting to stop Hitler, and would attribute them all to a calculating policy of the United States. One would then provide a report card of these “crimes” as the historical record itself. The list of crimes — the worst acts of which the Allies could be accused and the most dishonorable motives they may be said to have acted upon — would then become the database from which America’s portrait would be drawn. The result inevitably would be the Great Satan of Chomsky’s deranged fantasy life.
In “What Uncle Sam Really Wants,” Chomsky begins with the fact of America’s emergence from World War II. He describes this fact characteristically as the United States having “benefited enormously” from the conflict in contrast to its “industrial rivals” — omitting in the process any mention of the 250,000 lives America lost, its generous Marshall Plan aid to those same rivals or, for that matter, its victory over Nazi Germany and the Axis powers. In Chomsky’s portrait, America in 1945 is, instead, a wealthy power that profited from others’ misery and is now seeking world domination.
“The people who determine American policy were carefully planning how to shape the postwar world,” he asserts without evidence. “American planners — from those in the State Department to those on the Council on Foreign Relations (one major channel by which business leaders influence foreign policy) — agreed that the dominance of the United States had to be maintained.”
Chomsky never names the actual people who agreed that American policy should be world dominance, nor how they achieved unanimity in deciding to transform a famously isolationist country into a global power. America, in short, has no internal politics that matter. Chomsky does not bother to acknowledge or attempt to explain the powerful strain of isolationism not only in American policy, but in the Republican Party — the party of Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations businessmen whom he claims exert such influence on policy. Above all, he does not explain why, if world domination was really America’s goal in 1945, Washington disbanded its wartime armies overnight and brought them home.
Between 1945 and 1946, in fact, America demobilized 1.6 million troops. By contrast, the Soviet Union (which Chomsky doesn’t mention) maintained its 2 million-man army in place in the countries of Eastern Europe whose governments it had already begun to undermine and destroy. It was, in fact, the Soviet absorption of the formerly independent states of Eastern Europe in the years between 1945 and 1948 that triggered America’s subsequent rearmament, the creation of NATO, and the overseas spread of American power, which was designed to contain an expansionist Soviet empire and prevent a repetition of the appeasement process that had led to World War II.
These little facts never appear in Chomsky’s text, yet they determine everything that followed, especially America’s global presence. There is no excuse for this omission other than that Chomsky wants this history to be something other than it was. History has shown that the Cold War — the formation of the postwar Western alliances and the mobilizing of Western forces — was principally brought about by the Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe. That is why the Cold War ended as soon as the Berlin Wall fell, and the states of Eastern Europe were freed to pursue their independent paths. It was to accomplish this great liberation of several hundred million people — and not any American quest for world domination — that explains American Cold War policy. But these facts never appear on Chomsky’s pages.
Having begun the story with an utterly false picture of the historical forces at work, Chomsky is ready to carry out his scorched earth campaign of malicious slander against the democracy in which he has led a privileged existence for more than 70 years. “In 1949,” Chomsky writes, reaching for his favorite smear, “U.S. espionage in Eastern Europe had been turned over to a network run by Reinhard Gehlen, who had headed Nazi military intelligence on the Eastern Front. This network was one part of the U.S.-Nazi alliance …”
Let’s pause for a moment so that we can take a good look at this exemplary display of the Chomsky method. We have jumped — or rather Chomsky has jumped us — from 1945 to 1949, skipping over the little matter of the Red Army’s refusal to withdraw from Eastern Europe, and the Kremlin’s swallowing of its independent regimes. Instead of these matters, the reader is confronted with what appears to be a shocking fact about Reinhard Gehlen, which is quickly inflated into a big lie — an alleged “U.S.-Nazi alliance.” The factoid about Gehlen, it must be said, has been already distorted in the process of presenting it. The United States used Gehlen — not the other way around as Chomsky’s devious phrase (“U.S. espionage … had been turned over”) implies. More blatant is the big lie itself. There was no “U.S.-Nazi alliance.” The United States defeated Nazi Germany four years earlier, and by 1949 — unlike the Soviet Union — had imposed a democracy on West Germany’s political structure as a condition of a German peace.
In 1949, West Germany, which was controlled by the United States and its allies, was a democratic state and continued to be so until the end of the Cold War, 40 years later. East Germany, which was controlled by the Soviet Union (whose policies Chomsky fails to examine) was a police state, and continued to be a police state until the end of the Cold War, 40 years later. In 1949, with Stalin’s Red Army occupying all the countries of Eastern Europe, the Communists had established police states in each one of them and were arresting and executing thousands of innocent people. These benighted satellite regimes of the Soviet empire remained police states, under Soviet rule, until the end of the Cold War 40 years later. The 2 million-man Red Army continued to occupy Eastern Europe until the end of the Cold War 40 years later, and for every one of those years it was positioned in an aggressive posture threatening the democratic states of Western Europe with invasion and occupation.
In these circumstances — which Chomsky does not mention — the use of a German military intelligence network with experience and assets in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was an entirely reasonable measure to defend the democratic states of the West and the innocent lives of the subjects of Soviet rule. Spy work is dirty work as everyone recognizes. This episode was no “Nazi” taint on America, but a necessary part of America’s Cold War effort in the cause of human freedom. With the help of the Gehlen network, the United States kept the Soviet expansion in check, and eventually liberated hundreds of millions of oppressed people in Eastern Europe from the horrors of the Communist gulag.
Chomsky describes these events as though the United States had not defeated Hitler, but had made a pact with devil himself to attack the innocent: “These operations included a ‘secret army’ under U.S.-Nazi auspices that sought to provide agents and military supplies to armies that had been established by Hitler and which were still operating inside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe through the early 1950s.” This typical Chomsky distortion of what actually took place is as bold a lie as the Communist propaganda the Kremlin distributed in those years, from which it is cynically cribbed.
Having equated America with Nazi Germany, in strict imitation of Stalinist propaganda themes, Chomsky extends the analogy through the whole of his fictional account of the episodes that made up the Cold War. According to Chomsky, establishing a Nazi world order with business interests at the top and the “working classes and the poor” at the bottom was America’s real postwar agenda. Therefore, “the major thing that stood in the way of this was the anti-fascist resistance, so we suppressed it all over the world, often installing fascists and Nazi collaborators in its place.”
Claims like these give conspiracy theories a bad name.
It would be tedious (and would add nothing to our understanding) to run through all of Chomsky’s perversely distorted cases, which follow the unscrupulous model of his account of the Gehlen network. One more should suffice. In 1947 a civil war in Greece became the first Cold War test of America’s resolve to prevent the Soviet empire from spreading beyond Eastern Europe. Naturally, Chomsky presents the conflict as a struggle between the “anti-Nazi resistance,” and U.S.-backed (and “Nazi”) interests. In Chomsky’s words, these interests were “U.S. investors and local businessmen,” and — of course — “the beneficiaries included Nazi collaborators, while the primary victims were the workers and the peasants …”
The leaders of the anti-Communist forces in Greece were not Nazis. On the other hand, what Chomsky calls the “anti-Nazi resistance” was in fact the Communist Party and its fellow-traveling pawns. What Chomsky leaves out of his account, as a matter of course and necessity, are the proximity of the Soviet Red Army to Greece, the intention of the Greek Communists to establish a Soviet police state if they won the civil war, and the fact that their defeat paved the way for an unprecedented economic development benefiting all classes and the eventual establishment of a political democracy which soon brought democratic socialists to power.
Needless to say, no country in which Chomsky’s “anti-fascists” won, ever established a democracy or produced any significant betterment in the economic conditions of the great mass of its inhabitants. This puts a somewhat different color on every detail of what happened in Greece and what the United States did there. The only point of view from which Chomsky’s version of this history makes sense is the point of view of the Kremlin, whose propaganda has merely been updated by the MIT professor.
A key chapter of Chomsky’s booklet of lies is called “The Threat of A Good Example.” In it, Chomsky offers his explanation for America’s diabolical behavior in Third World countries. In Chomsky’s fictional accounting, “what the U.S.-run contra forces did in Nicaragua, or what our terrorist proxies do in El Salvador or Guatemala, isn’t only ordinary killing. A major element is brutal, sadistic torture — beating infants against rocks, hanging women by their feet with their breasts cut off and the skin of their face peeled back so that they’ll bleed to death, chopping people’s heads off and putting them on stakes.” There are no citations in Chomsky’s text to support the claim either that these atrocities took place, or that the United States directed them, or that the United States is in any meaningful way responsible. But, according to Chomsky, “U.S.-run” forces and “our terrorist proxies” do this sort of thing routinely and everywhere: “No country is exempt from this treatment, no matter how unimportant.”
According to Chomsky, U.S. business is the evil hand behind all these policies. On the other hand, “as far as American business is concerned, Nicaragua could disappear and nobody would notice. The same is true of El Salvador. But both have been subjected to murderous assaults by the U.S., at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and many billions of dollars.” If these countries are so insignificant why would the United States bother to treat them so monstrously, particularly since lesser atrocities committed by Americans — like the My Lai massacre — managed to attract the attention of the whole world, and not just Noam Chomsky? “There is a reason for that,” Chomsky explains. “The weaker and poorer a country is, the more dangerous it is as an example [italics in original]. If a tiny, poor country like Grenada can succeed in bringing about a better life for its people, some other place that has more resources will ask, ‘why not us?’”
It’s an interesting idea. The logic goes like this: What Uncle Sam really wants is to control the world; U.S. control means absolute misery for all the peoples that come under its sway; this means the U.S. must prevent all the little, poor people in the world from realizing that there are better ways to develop than with U.S. investments or influence. Take Grenada. “Grenada has a hundred thousand people who produce a little nutmeg, and you could hardly find it on a map. But when Grenada began to undergo a mild social revolution, Washington quickly moved to destroy the threat.” This is Chomsky’s entire commentary on the U.S. intervention in Grenada.
Actually, something quite different took place. In 1979, there was a coup in Grenada that established a Marxist dictatorship complete with a Soviet-style “politburo” to rule it. This was a tense period in the Cold War. The Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan, and Communist insurgencies armed by Cuba were spreading in Central America. Before long, Cuban military personnel began to appear in Grenada and were building a new airport capable of accommodating Soviet bombers. Tensions over the uncompleted airport developed between Washington and the Grenadian dictatorship. In the midst of all this, there was another coup in 1983. This coup was led by the Marxist minister of defense who assassinated the Marxist dictator and half his politburo, including his pregnant minister of education. The new dictator put the entire island — including U.S. citizens resident there — under house arrest. It was at this point that the Reagan administration sent the marines in to protect U.S. citizens, stop the construction of the military airport and restore democracy to the little island. The U.S. did this at the request of four governments of Caribbean countries that feared a Communist military presence in their neighborhood. A public opinion poll taken after the U.S. operation showed that 85 percent of the citizens of Grenada welcomed the U.S. intervention and America’s help in restoring their freedom.
There was no “threat of a good example” in Grenada and there are none anywhere in the world of progressive social experiments. There is not a single Marxist country that has ever provided a good example in the sense of making its economy better or its people freer. Chomsky seems to have missed this most basic fact of 20th century history: Socialism doesn’t work. Korea would seem an obvious model case. Fifty years ago, in one of the early battles of the Cold War, the United States military prevented Communist North Korea from conquering the anti-Communist South of the country. Today Communist North Korea is independent of the United States and one of the poorest countries in the world. A million of its citizens have starved in the last couple of years, while its Marxist dictator has feverishly invested his country’s scarce capital in an intercontinental ballistic missile program. So much for the good example.
In South Korea, by contrast, there are 50,000 U.S. troops stationed along the border to defend it from a Communist attack. For 50 years, nefarious U.S. businesses and investors have operated freely in South Korea. The results are interesting. In 1950, South Korea, with a per capita income of $250, was as poor as Cuba and Vietnam. Today it is an industrial power and its per capita income is more than 20 times greater than it was before it became an ally and investment region of the United States. South Korea is not a full-fledged democracy but it does have elections and more than one party and a press that provides it with information from the outside world. This is quite different from North Korea whose citizens have no access to information their dictator does not approve. Who do you think is afraid of the threat of a good example?
Communism was an expansive system that ruined nations and enslaved their citizens. But Chomsky dismisses America’s fear of Communism as a mere “cover” for America’s own diabolical designs. He explains the Vietnam War this way: “The real fear was that if the people of Indochina achieved independence and justice, the people of Thailand would emulate it, and if that worked, they’d try it in Malaya, and pretty soon Indonesia would pursue an independent path, and by then a significant area [of America's empire] would have been lost.” This is a Marxist version of the domino theory. But of course, America did leave Indochina — Cambodia and Thailand included — in 1975. Vietnam has pursued an independent path for 25 years and it is as poor as it ever was — one of the poorest nations in the world. Its people still live in a primitive Marxist police state.
After its defeat in Vietnam, the United States withdrew its military forces from the entire Indo-Chinese peninsula. The result was that Cambodia was overrun by the Khmer Rouge (the “reds”). In other words, by the Communist forces that Noam Chomsky, the Vietnamese Communists and the entire American left had supported until then. The Khmer Rouge proceeded to kill 2 million Cambodians who, in their view, stood in the way of the progressive “good example” they intended to create. Chomsky earned himself a bad reputation by first denying and then minimizing the Cambodian genocide until the facts overwhelmed his case. Now, of course, he blames the genocide on the United States.
Chomsky also blames the United States and the Vietnam War for the fact that “Vietnam is a basket case” and not a good example. “Our basic goal — the crucial one, the one that really counted — was to destroy the virus [of independent development], and we did achieve that. Vietnam is a basket case, and the U.S. is doing what it can to keep it that way.” This is just a typical Chomsky libel and all-purpose ruse. (The devil made them do it.) As Chomsky knew then and knows now, the victorious Vietnamese Communists are Marxists. Marxism is a crackpot theory that doesn’t work. Every Marxist state has been an economic basket case.
Take a current example like Cuba, which has not been bombed and has not suffered a war, but is poorer today than it was more than 40 years ago when Castro took power. In 1959, Cuba was the second richest country in Latin America. Now it is the second poorest, just before Haiti. Naturally, Chomskyites will claim that the U.S. economic boycott is responsible. (The devil made them do it.) But whole rest of the world trades with Cuba. Cuba not only trades with all of Latin America and Europe, but receives aid from the latter. Moreover, in 1970s and 1980s the Soviet Union gave Cuba the equivalent of three Marshall Plans in economic subsidies and assistance — tens of billions of dollars. Cuba is a fertile island with a tropical climate. It is poor because it has followed Chomsky’s examples, and not America’s. It is poor because it is socialist, Marxist and Communist. It is poor because it is run by a lunatic and sadist. It is poor because in Cuba, America lost the Cold War. The poverty of Cuba is what Chomsky’s vision and political commitments would create for the entire world.
It is the Communist-Chomsky illusion that there is a way to prosperity other than the way of the capitalist market that causes the poverty of states like Cuba and North Korea and Vietnam, and would have caused the poverty of Grenada and Greece and South Korea if America had not intervened.
The illusion that socialism promises a better future is also the cause of the Chomsky cult. It is the illusion at the heart of the messianic hope that creates the progressive left. This hope is a chimera, but insofar as it is believed, history presents itself in terms that are Manichaean — as a battle between good and evil. Those who oppose socialism, Marxism, Communism embody worldly evil. They are the party of Satan, and their leader America is the Great Satan himself.
Chomsky is, in fact, the imam of this religious worldview on today’s college campuses. His great service to the progressive faith is to deny the history of the last 100 years, which is the history of progressive atrocity and failure. In the 20th century, progressives in power killed 100 million people in the attempt to realize their impossible dream. As far as Noam Chomsky is concerned these catastrophes of the left never happened. “I don’t much like the terms left and right,” Chomsky writes in yet another ludicrous screed called “The Common Good.” “What’s called the left includes Leninism [i.e., Communism], which I consider ultra-right in many respects … Leninism has nothing to do with the values of the left — in fact, it’s radically opposed to them.”
You have to pinch yourself when reading sentences like that.
The purpose of such Humpty-Dumpty mutilations of the language is perfectly intelligible, however. It is to preserve the faith for those who cannot live without some form of the Communist creed. Lenin is dead. Long live Leninism. The Communist catastrophes can have “nothing to do with the values of the left” because if they did the left would have to answer for its deeds and confront the fact that it is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Progressives would have to face the fact that they killed 100 million people for nothing — for an idea that didn’t work.
The real threat of a good example is the threat of America, which has lifted more people out of poverty — within its borders and all over the world — than all the socialists and progressives put together since the beginning of time. To neutralize the threat, it is necessary to kill the American idea. This is, in fact, Noam Chomsky’s mission in life, and his everlasting disgrace.
Yes, he rewrote history, particularly the history of Muslim and Arab rapacity and bigotry, and he pandered a lot. But the pandering was in large part diplomacy and far less than conservatives were predicting, and far less than the pandering that characterized his previous attempts to mollify the Muslim world. He most pointedly did not apologize for American actions after 9/11, or seek to find excuses for the terrorist attacks in our policies and behavior before 9/11. On the contrary, he deliberately opened the wound of 9/11 to justify America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“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.
I have been watching an interesting phenomenon on the right, which is beginning to cause me concern. I am referring to the over-the-top hysteria in response to the first months in office of our new president, which distinctly reminds me of the “Bush is Hitler” crowd on the left.
Speaking of this crowd, have you seen any “I am so sorry” postings from that quarter as Obama continues and even escalates the former president’s war policy in Afghanistan and attempts to consolidate his military occupation of Iraq?
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.
When conservative talk-show hosts criticize the Democrats’ foot-dragging on the war, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle complains they are promoting hate and endangering his life. When conservatives like myself deplore the sympathies shown by many “antiwar” activists to America’s enemies — a sympathy documented by Michelle Goldberg in Salon’s own pages — Joe Conason accuses me of attempting to incite patriotic mobs against all critics of the war. This is the way postmodern defenders of political dialogue attempt to shut down discussion.
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.
On July 16, Frontpage Magazine ran a story about the “Wichita Massacre,” the brutal execution of four white youth by two criminal brothers who happened to be black. It was our second look at this tragic incident, which took place at Christmastime two years ago. We ran it as a special feature — this time on the occasion of the trial of the perpetrators — because it crystallized for us a national hypocrisy on race. This hypocrisy regards the murder of blacks by whites as an indication of the existence of a characteristically American racism and therefore banner news, while the far more prevalent murder of whites by blacks is routinely considered to be without racial overtones and — as in the Wichita case — not to be newsworthy at all.
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.
University of California regent Ward Connerly’s new “Racial Privacy Initiative,” which last month qualified for the March 2004 ballot, would bar the California government from asking citizens what their race is. These days, even the government admits it’s hard to tell anyone’s race. One of the nation’s hottest movie stars, “XXX” hunk Vin Diesel, militantly refuses to reveal his racial background, except to say he’s “multicultural.” But if Diesel wanted to attend most universities or apply for any kind of government assistance, he’d be forced to break his silence and check a box, or boxes.
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.
U.S. President Barack Obama delivers a speech in the Grand Hall of Cairo University June 4, 2009. 
