Moment of Truth
(For the Anti-American Left)
David Horowitz
Wednesday, April 2, 2003
Every movement has its moment of truth. At an "anti-war" teach-in at
Columbia University last week, anthropology professor Nicholas De Genova told 3,000
students and faculty: "Peace is not patriotic. Peace is subversive, because
peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live – a
world where the U.S. would have no place."
De Genova continued: "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help
defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million
Mogadishus."
This was a reference to the ambush of U.S. forces by an
al-Qaeda warlord in Somalia in 1993. The Americans were there on a
humanitarian mission to feed starving Somali Muslims. The al-Qaeda warlord
was stealing the food and selling it on the black market. His forces killed
18 American soldiers and dragged their bodies through the streets in an act
designed to humiliate their country.
In short, America can do no good, and
nothing that is done to America can be worse than it deserves.
The best that can be said of the crowd of Columbia faculty and students
is that they did not react to the Mogadishu remark (perhaps they did not know
what "Mogadishu" referred to). But they "applauded loudly" when the same
professor said, "If we really [believe] that this war is criminal ... then
we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the
U.S. war machine."
In other words, the American left as represented by faculty and students at
one of the nation's most elite universities wants America to lose the war
with the terrorist and fascist regime in Baghdad. In short, the crowd might
just have well applauded the professor's first statement as well.
The phrase "a million Mogadishus" has a resonance for those of us who
participated in an earlier leftist "peace" movement, during the war in
Indochina. In 1967, at the height of the conflict, the Cuban Communist
leader Che Guevara (still an icon among radicals today) called on
revolutionaries all over the world to "create two, three, many Vietnams" to
defeat the American enemy. It was the sixties version of a call for jihad.
In the late sixties, I was the editor of Ramparts, the largest magazine of
the New Left, and I edited a book of anti-American essays with the same
title, "Two, Three, Many Vietnams." Tom Hayden, a leader of the New Left (later
a Democratic state Ssenator and activist against the war in Iraq) used the
same slogan as he called for armed uprisings inside the United States.
In
1962, as a Marxist radical, I myself had helped to organize the first
protest against the war in Vietnam at the University of California,
Berkeley. At the time, America had only 300 "advisers" in Vietnam, who were
seeking to prevent the Communist gulag that was to come. John F. Kennedy was
president and had been invited to speak on the campus. We picketed his
appearance. Our slogan was "Kennedy's Three R's: Radiation, Reaction and
Repression."
We didn't want peace in Vietnam. We wanted a revolution in
America.
But we were clever. Or rather, we got smarter. We realized we couldn't
attract large numbers of people by revealing our deranged fantasies about
America (although that of course is not how we would have looked at them).
We realized that we needed the support of a lot of Americans who would never
agree with our real agendas if we were going to influence the course of the
war.
So we changed our slogan to "Bring the Troops Home." That seemed to
express care for Americans while accomplishing the same goal. If America
brought her troops home in the middle of the war, the Communists would win.
Which is exactly what happened.
The nature of the movement that revealed itself at Columbia is the same.
When the Mogadishu remark was made, it was as if the devil had inadvertently
exposed his horns and someone needed to put a hat over them before others
realized it. That someone was the demonstration organizer, Professor Eric
Foner, the prestigious head of Columbia's history department.
Actually, when
Foner spoke after De Genova at the teach-in, he failed to find the Mogadishu
remark offensive. Instead, he dissociated himself from another De Genova
comment to the effect that all Americans who described themselves as
"patriotic" were actually "white supremacists."
But the next day, when a reporter from New York NewsDay called Foner, the
professor realized that the Mogadishu remark had caused some trouble. When
asked now about the statement, he said it was "idiotic." He told the
reporter: "I thought that was completely uncalled for. We do not desire the
deaths of American soldiers."
Foner did not say (and was not asked) how he
thought organizing an anti-American demonstration to protest America's war
in Iraq and express the hope that we lose would not encourage the enemy and
possibly lead to American deaths.
Eric Foner is the scion of a family of American Communists (and American
Communist leaders) at that. In the sixties he was an anti-American
Stalinist. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, he wrote a piece in the
London Review of Books saying, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the
horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating
daily from the White House." After receiving much adverse reaction, he wrote
a self-exculpatory piece for the New York Times explaining that his
uncertainty was actually patriotic.
Eric Foner's cover-up reflects a powerful tactical current in the movement
to derail America's war in Iraq. Until now, the largest organization behind
this movement has been "International ANSWER," which thanks in part to the
efforts of the War Room and www.frontpagemag.com has been revealed as a front
for a Marxist-Leninist party with ties to the Communist regime in North
Korea.
According to a comprehensive (but partisan and sympathetic) report in
the New York Times, some factions of the left became disturbed that the
overtly radical slogans of the International ANSWER protests were
"counter-productive." Last fall, they met in the offices of People For The
American Way to create a new umbrella organization called United for Peace
and Justice that would present a more palatable face to the American public.
As it happens, the name of the new organization was similar to that of one
of the two main groups behind the national protests of the anti-Vietnam
movement. It was called the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice and it
was a run by the American Communist Party. (As it happens, the other
organizer of the national demonstrations was the MOBE, which was run by the
Trotskyist Communist Party.)
The groups that People for the American Way assembled to create the new Iraq
protest organization picked Leslie Cagan to be its leader. Cagan is a
veteran of the old Vietnam left – a pro-Castro radical who was still a
member of the Communist Party after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Ms. Cagan's
politics were no less radical and anti-American than International ANSWER's.
But Leslie Cagan understood the problem of too much candor. "If we're going
to be a force that needs to be listened to by our elected officials, by the
media," Ms. Cagan told the Times, "our movement needs to reflect the
population."
In other words, we have to keep our horns hidden. According to
the Times, since that meeting, the left has been hiring Madison Avenue firms
to shape its messages and has been putting up billboards with the slogan
"Peace Is Patriotic" to make its point.
At the Columbia teach-in, Professor Foner had this to say about patriotism.
"I refuse to cede the definition of American patriotism to George W. Bush,"
Foner said, drawing a cheer from the audience. "I have a different
definition of patriotism, which comes from Paul Robeson: The patriot is the
person who is never satisfied with his country."
It's true that Paul Robeson
was never satisfied with his country. He was an icon (and member) of the
American Communist Party who received a Stalin Peace Prize from the
dictator himself.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
The war in America's streets is not about "peace" or "more time for
inspections." It is about which side should lose the war we are now in. The
left has made crystal clear its desire that the loser should be us. Even if
the left had not made this explicit, a "peace" movement directed at one side
makes sense only as an effort to force that side to retreat from the battle
and lose the war. Which is exactly what the Columbia professor said.
If this
is patriotism, what is treason?
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
Editor's note:
"Let Freedom Ring" - Sean Hannity reveals how to triumph over the left - Click Here Now!