David Horowitz On A Witch Hunt
My studies over the years have put me in touch with a lot of different people. Over the course of several years I teamed up with a colleague who is truly a conservative. He is Catholic, a professor of Philosophy with an academic curriculum vitae that is "old school," with a work history of working and teaching at some well credentialed academic settings, including Boston College. His politics are as conservative as they come. He is against gay anything. He is anti-abortion, anti-feminist (for the most part), Republican and has worked (or been associated with) for the Massachusetts Christian Colaition, Massachusetts Citizens for Life and other conservative organizations. However, he is not like most of the conservatives that I have run into... and he will acknowledge that I am not like most liberals that he has run into.
The difference between the two of us and the political ideology of the conservatives and liberals is that we actually work at understanding a problem, the issues involved, the particular personalities involved, and are willing to look at the views of the other side... and we stay away from extremes.
Today's conservatives are captives of the ultra-conservative Christian Right that does not care to think things through. They can quote the Bible but do not have a grasp of the Constitution and what really makes America great. But these members of the Christian Right do not have a grasp of the history of their own religion, and seem to want to re-write history for the development of America as well. They actually have a tape that purports to demonstrate how the United States was founded strictly on Christian values and the Bible, ignoring the reliance of the framers of our Constitution on ideas emerging out of the Enlightenment. Such things as free speech, freedom of religion, free association, privacy, rights to self-defense, rights to legal representation and a fair trial, the obligation of the government to serve the people... these are ignored by the non-thinking members of the ultra-conservative religious right. And when they talk about religion, they only mean their version of Christianity.
These folks have string views against Catholicism, even though the Christian doctrines of their churches are derivatives of Catholicism. They ignore the fact that the ultra-conservative churches have a history of having revival camps that had church services at one end of the camp with booze and prostitution at the other end during the Great Revival of the late 1800s. They also ignore the number of scandals among the leaders of the Christian evangelicals, like those involving Jim Baker and Tammy Faye Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, the power grabs of Jerry Falwell, and the outrageous claims of Falwell, Roberts, Jones, Robertson, etc.
But the left also has its extremes. Ted Kennedy is often touted as the :leader of the left", but in reality Kennedy is only on the left. The real whackos of the left include those that protest everything for the sake of protesting. They condemn everything the US government does for the sake of condemning the government. Most have never served a day in public service, are staunch believers in extreme conspiracy theories, and do not possess accurate knowledge of history. The leaders of the etxreme left come and go, and practically none can carry on a dialogue without violating the principles of the Constitution in some sense. Among the leaders of the extreme left we can point to at the moment are Al Franken and Michael Moore, both of whom should stick to writing, producing films or television and entertaining us.
The reality of our nation is that MOST of us are somewhere in the middle. We don't mind paying our taxes as long as we are getting the services that those taxes are supposed to be paying for in the process. Most of us want a strong military and up-to-date military technology, but are tired of getting screwed by the defense industry corporations and a government that cannot figure out how to but toilet seats, hammers, ashtrays and other essentials for a reasonable price. Most of us want to limit the expense of welfare to those that really need it, but want to make sure that the poor and needy are provided services. We want education to be strengthened, but we want the politics left out of our schools. We want crime, drugs and terrorism to be dealt with by our law enforcement, intelligence and other government agencies, but we want our rights to remain intact in the process. We want jobs, industry, prosperity, but we also want clean air, fresh water, parks, forests, and an environment that will be around for our future generations.
Most of us want energy conservation, but not at the cost of making the oil wealthy even more rich and powerful. Most of us would overlook a little graft in our government on the basis that graft is inevitable in human events, but we don't want graft, greed, power-brokering and influence peddling to be the norm. We want all interests to be represented fairly instead of being closed out of government by the lobbyists. Most of us just want a fair shake in the process of living out our lives.
Now, all that being said, we have to look at the problems that some people create while touting themselves as authorities on the issues.
One of those idiots that have surfaced out of the ultra-conservative side of the world is David Horowitz, who has recently released a book called "The Professors: 101 Most Dangerous Academics. In the book he has actually identified 101 professors of college that he finds to be dangerous because of the so-called leftist views.
What really freaks anyone of intelligence that has the notion to do some research regarding Horowitz is that Horowitz was a card-carrying leftist of the extreme version during the 1960s. So, as we examine his current stances on issues, we find him on the extreme right side of the equation. The only conclusion we can draw is that Horowitz is an extremist. The fundamental problem with extremists is that they are ALWAYS extremists. We see this in the religious right in the US, the religious right in Iraq, the fascists of the world, the dictators of the world, the communists of the world, etc.
But I happened to catch an interview with Horowitz on the Hannity & Colmes show while flipping through the channels. Even the ultra-conservative Hannity and the vitriolic Colmes could not get Horowitz to produce one single shred of factual evidence that could support the claim that Professor Harry Targ of Purdue University was dangerous. Horowitz danced around the questions posed to him, cited opinions Trag has expressed against the current Bush administration, and tried to relate texts and assigned readings in a particular course as evidence of the dangers Targ represents. But even Hannity was astute enough (not his strong suit in my view) to ask if a college professor was supposed to provide an experience that offered different views of the world. The point was that Targ had other assignments that offered other world views and ideas as well as the ones targetted by Horowitz.
If we go down the list, we can find other professors on Horowitz's list that have done nothing dangerous except express ideas and challenge students to think. While I have seen potentially dangerous professors on the various campuses where I have studied and taught, offering different world views is not necessarily dangerous... except to those that are on a witch hunt and hold only to extreme views.
In my view we can put Horowitz on the list of folks that love to rant and rave without really doing adequate research. Among the many on that list I would inlcude Ann Coulter, Doug Patterson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, Rush Limbaugh, Morton Downey (Jr), Muary Povich, Jerry Springer, Judge Judy and, of course, David Horowitz. But all of them get the attention of the media and are making a lot of money entertaining us... and hunting down their own witches.
The difference between the two of us and the political ideology of the conservatives and liberals is that we actually work at understanding a problem, the issues involved, the particular personalities involved, and are willing to look at the views of the other side... and we stay away from extremes.
Today's conservatives are captives of the ultra-conservative Christian Right that does not care to think things through. They can quote the Bible but do not have a grasp of the Constitution and what really makes America great. But these members of the Christian Right do not have a grasp of the history of their own religion, and seem to want to re-write history for the development of America as well. They actually have a tape that purports to demonstrate how the United States was founded strictly on Christian values and the Bible, ignoring the reliance of the framers of our Constitution on ideas emerging out of the Enlightenment. Such things as free speech, freedom of religion, free association, privacy, rights to self-defense, rights to legal representation and a fair trial, the obligation of the government to serve the people... these are ignored by the non-thinking members of the ultra-conservative religious right. And when they talk about religion, they only mean their version of Christianity.
These folks have string views against Catholicism, even though the Christian doctrines of their churches are derivatives of Catholicism. They ignore the fact that the ultra-conservative churches have a history of having revival camps that had church services at one end of the camp with booze and prostitution at the other end during the Great Revival of the late 1800s. They also ignore the number of scandals among the leaders of the Christian evangelicals, like those involving Jim Baker and Tammy Faye Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, the power grabs of Jerry Falwell, and the outrageous claims of Falwell, Roberts, Jones, Robertson, etc.
But the left also has its extremes. Ted Kennedy is often touted as the :leader of the left", but in reality Kennedy is only on the left. The real whackos of the left include those that protest everything for the sake of protesting. They condemn everything the US government does for the sake of condemning the government. Most have never served a day in public service, are staunch believers in extreme conspiracy theories, and do not possess accurate knowledge of history. The leaders of the etxreme left come and go, and practically none can carry on a dialogue without violating the principles of the Constitution in some sense. Among the leaders of the extreme left we can point to at the moment are Al Franken and Michael Moore, both of whom should stick to writing, producing films or television and entertaining us.
The reality of our nation is that MOST of us are somewhere in the middle. We don't mind paying our taxes as long as we are getting the services that those taxes are supposed to be paying for in the process. Most of us want a strong military and up-to-date military technology, but are tired of getting screwed by the defense industry corporations and a government that cannot figure out how to but toilet seats, hammers, ashtrays and other essentials for a reasonable price. Most of us want to limit the expense of welfare to those that really need it, but want to make sure that the poor and needy are provided services. We want education to be strengthened, but we want the politics left out of our schools. We want crime, drugs and terrorism to be dealt with by our law enforcement, intelligence and other government agencies, but we want our rights to remain intact in the process. We want jobs, industry, prosperity, but we also want clean air, fresh water, parks, forests, and an environment that will be around for our future generations.
Most of us want energy conservation, but not at the cost of making the oil wealthy even more rich and powerful. Most of us would overlook a little graft in our government on the basis that graft is inevitable in human events, but we don't want graft, greed, power-brokering and influence peddling to be the norm. We want all interests to be represented fairly instead of being closed out of government by the lobbyists. Most of us just want a fair shake in the process of living out our lives.
Now, all that being said, we have to look at the problems that some people create while touting themselves as authorities on the issues.
One of those idiots that have surfaced out of the ultra-conservative side of the world is David Horowitz, who has recently released a book called "The Professors: 101 Most Dangerous Academics. In the book he has actually identified 101 professors of college that he finds to be dangerous because of the so-called leftist views.
What really freaks anyone of intelligence that has the notion to do some research regarding Horowitz is that Horowitz was a card-carrying leftist of the extreme version during the 1960s. So, as we examine his current stances on issues, we find him on the extreme right side of the equation. The only conclusion we can draw is that Horowitz is an extremist. The fundamental problem with extremists is that they are ALWAYS extremists. We see this in the religious right in the US, the religious right in Iraq, the fascists of the world, the dictators of the world, the communists of the world, etc.
But I happened to catch an interview with Horowitz on the Hannity & Colmes show while flipping through the channels. Even the ultra-conservative Hannity and the vitriolic Colmes could not get Horowitz to produce one single shred of factual evidence that could support the claim that Professor Harry Targ of Purdue University was dangerous. Horowitz danced around the questions posed to him, cited opinions Trag has expressed against the current Bush administration, and tried to relate texts and assigned readings in a particular course as evidence of the dangers Targ represents. But even Hannity was astute enough (not his strong suit in my view) to ask if a college professor was supposed to provide an experience that offered different views of the world. The point was that Targ had other assignments that offered other world views and ideas as well as the ones targetted by Horowitz.
If we go down the list, we can find other professors on Horowitz's list that have done nothing dangerous except express ideas and challenge students to think. While I have seen potentially dangerous professors on the various campuses where I have studied and taught, offering different world views is not necessarily dangerous... except to those that are on a witch hunt and hold only to extreme views.
In my view we can put Horowitz on the list of folks that love to rant and rave without really doing adequate research. Among the many on that list I would inlcude Ann Coulter, Doug Patterson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, Rush Limbaugh, Morton Downey (Jr), Muary Povich, Jerry Springer, Judge Judy and, of course, David Horowitz. But all of them get the attention of the media and are making a lot of money entertaining us... and hunting down their own witches.
posted by Jim Downey at 9:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home