The Enduring Dangerous Legacy of the Sixties New Left
The New Left is already pretty old, and for many, quite irrelevant. As many liberals argued during the 2008 campaign, trying to smear Obama by bringing up his friendship with Bill Ayers was as silly and irrelevant as Democrats “waving the bloody shirt” years after the Civil War in campaigns against Republicans, or Democrats running against Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression in the post-World War II era.
Now, however, two articles have appeared that offer a direct challenge to the view that the old theories of the ’60s Left are completely irrelevant in today’s 21st century world. First, writing in his blog at the website of World Affairs Journal, British professor Alan Johnson ties together the anti-Zionism and hatred of Israel of today’s leftists with that originated in the 60s by its earlier brethren. Johnson recalls how 35 years ago this week, two young German leftists were among those who hijacked an Air France jet and flew it to Entebbe, where they and Arab terrorists set about separating Jewish from non-Jewish passengers, and prepared to execute the Jews.
How, he asks, did idealistic New Leftists join with Arab terrorists in an act that mimicked the policies of Hitler’s regime, especially since these leftists all thought of themselves as anti-fascists? Johnson writes:
The answer lies in modern left-wing “anti-Zionism.” But to understand that phenomenon, we must go deeper still, to the worldview cultivated in the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s.
In the decidedly non-calloused hands of this largely student, spectacularly arrogant, but largely know-nothing New Left, an already-authoritarian Marxism became completely unmoored from the working class, the West, and democracy and moored instead to ideologies of the noble savage, fantasies of “Third World Revolution” and an irrational belief in the redemptive power of violence. The New Left saw the world in a very peculiar way. A third world “periphery” was pitted against the metropolitan “center” and “good” oppressed nations were at war with “bad” oppressor nations. “Camp” replaced “class” as the track along which a great deal of left-wing thought would now run.
He goes on to say that “Much of what is said and done by today’s left—including its ‘anti-Zionism’—is unintelligible without grasping that when ‘anti-imperialist struggle’ displaced ‘class struggle’ as the organizing category of thought and the basis of political identity.” After 1967, that outlook quickly became the necessity of branding the Israelis as “the new Nazis,” and the supposedly oppressed Palestinians as the “new Jews.” As Johnson writes:
Increasingly, after 1967, this upside-down left had taken as the ultimate expression of “anti-imperialist struggle” the armed Palestinian, while Israel became the ultimate expression of “imperialism.” Drawing on some older traditions of left-wing anti-Semitism, and influenced by more recent but well-funded Soviet and Arab antisemitic propaganda campaigns, it became left-wing common sense that supporting Israel’s enemies—whatever these enemies actually stood for, however they actually behaved—was an “anti-imperialist” duty.
So if you want to understand what motivates the American supporters of the flotilla, and the participation in the movement of leftists like Alice Walker, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Michael Ratner, the above explains how they think about the present. Thus an academic leader of the movement who spoke at a Berkeley Teach-In, Judith Butler, explained that “Understanding Hamas and Hezbollah as social movements that are on the global left is important.” So, Johnson notes:
Because inside their heads the abstract symbol of evil “Israel” confronts the equally abstract symbol of good “Palestine” they can’t quite bring themselves to condemn Hamas, who must be “anti-imperialists” even as rockets are fired at Jewish school children. And they hold aloft placards reading “We are all Hezbollah“ even as that organization acts as a proxy for an Iranian regime that seeks to wipe Israel off the map.
Johnson, I must state, writes as one who is still on the political Left, and who seeks to work, alongside his Dissent colleague Michael Walzer, for what he hopes will be a “decent left.” Like former German foreign minister Joschka Fisher, he favors what he calls a “decent, anti-totalitarian and social-democratic leftism.” The problem with that is that his group is rather small and without influence. The Left today, such as it exists, has managed to build a movement and to create for itself the mantle of leftism. When one uses the term “the Left,” most people refer to those whom Johnson attacks. They alone have the right to the title, since without them, no Left to speak of exists. The one favored by Johnson and by Paul Berman in our country is nothing but a hope in their minds, and at best, a small circulation magazine.
The second article is by William Voegeli, and it appears in the new issue of the Claremont Review of Books. Voegeli, one of our most astute commentators on politics, has written a lengthy essay in which he seeks to comprehend how the new liberalism is impacted by the views of the now old New Left of the 60s. In particular, he takes up the issue of how liberals in that earlier time did not directly challenge the views of the far Left, preferring instead to view them as slightly misguided comrades in their own political world. Voegeli writes:
[The record] shows that neither then, when it would have counted, nor later, when it would have clarified, did most mainstream liberals offer up anything as direct and definitive as a stern, unqualified denunciation of the New Left, black nationalists, or other activists inspired by them. The more common response was to try to have it both ways, to suggest that the radicals behaved regrettably, at worst, but that the social evils they opposed explained and to some degree justified their conduct. As the years went by, having it both ways meant that this ambivalent response to the radical fringe would be collectively remembered as having been a principled, unyielding one.
Thus, when Bill Ayers became an issue in the 2008 campaign, Voegeli explains:
Some respectable liberals did denounce him and what he stood for. They did so, however, on the narrow, self-serving grounds that extreme leftists had embarrassed less-extreme leftists. Ayers and the Weather Underground “did real harm,” according to Michael Kinsley. ‘Their victims were liberals: the millions of people who…opposed the Vietnam War but didn’t hate their country.” As Katha Pollitt wrote in the Nation, “I wish Ayers would make a real apology for the harm he did to the antiwar movement and the left…. I’d like him to say he’s sorry…he helped Nixon make the antiwar movement look like the enemy of ordinary people.”
In fact, Voegeli even quotes Michael Walzer as admitting reluctantly that while his wing of the movement (in the ’60s they did have some activists in Michael Harrington’s democratic socialist group) did not spell America with a “k,” and did not wave Viet Cong flags at rallies and demonstrations, “we never figured out how to distance ourselves from them.” They did not because it was impossible: they had to attend rallies organized by the mass Left—whose leaders then, like International Answer today, were all anti-American and pro-Communist.
When he gets to the question of the New Left and its influence today, Voegeli provides more evidence for its continued legacy to today’s anti-American activists. Quoting Paul Berman, he notes Berman’s argument that their concept of participatory democracy became the seedbed for SDS’s “degeneration into violence and irrationality,” and its “final embrace of totalitarian doctrines.”
Today, it is that SDS mentality — not that of Johnson and Berman — that makes up the contemporary Left’s ideology. And because the liberals adhered to the doctrine of “no enemies on the Left,” Voegeli adds, the “respectable liberals couldn’t bring themselves to criticize the tame activists, who couldn’t bring themselves to dissociate from the fierce ones.” Thus, Voegeli writes, “the 60’s liberals in academia, journalism and politics fawned over the New Left radicals who delighted in tormenting them.” After all, they thought they had a common enemy with the New Left, even though they opposed their tactics. And, worse than the New Left was the boogeyman of the Right. Hence they had a corollary to their doctrine, that of “no allies on the Right.”
That, of course, has lingered on to our own time. As Voegeli notes, Obama biographer David Remnick chose not to criticize Ayers in his book, preferring only to call him a “punching bag for the right wing.” As I pointed out in a blog I wrote on PJM, Remnick even allowed Ayers to state his own case in the pages of The New Yorker, and did not criticize him at all. Instead, he let Ayers lie about his own past, while writing that Ayers was no threat to the United States in our own time, and to bring up his name was the Republicans’ “vilest hour.”
So Voegeli concludes:
Barack Obama’s Democratic Party is as congenial a home for the 1960s’ rebels and their apologists as William Jennings Bryan’s Democratic Party was for the 1860s’ rebels and theirs. It looks non-judgmentally upon Bill Ayers’s demand, as lethal to constitutionalism as Jefferson Davis’s, that those who deplore a policy enacted by a democratically elected government may rightfully seek to thwart it by asserting all the prerogatives of revolutionaries without surrendering any of the rights of citizens. When the government dropped criminal charges against him because some of its evidence had been obtained by illegal wiretaps, Ayers gloated, “Guilty as hell, and free as a bird. It’s a great country.”
The truth is that today’s liberals never came to terms with the legacy of the New Left, just as many Germans for a long time failed to come to terms with the Third Reich. Voegeli is on the mark when he writes: “The radical fringe wanted to live outside the law and also inside the law. Respectable liberals wanted to let them. They lent a hand by praising the radicals with faint damns, then quickly changing the subject to the extenuating circumstances that rendered the fringe’s deeds kinda-sorta understandable, acceptable, and even admirable.”
The point is well-taken. Ayers’ years of bombing are in the past, but as his involvement with the campaign to delegitimize Israel reveals, “the political dangers of Ayers-ism remain.” To win over the network of radical Islamists who join together with unreconstructed leftists, the issue must be addressed, and the sooner the better.
Absolutely wonderful, Ron. Spectacular. Bravo.
I have been saying on these very pages that we do ourselves a grave disservice by continuing to call leftists, “liberal”. (or “progressive”, or “elite”, or “mainstream”….but I digress).
The liberals barely exist any longer. They certainly have no voice in leftist political strategy.
As for the walking bucket of slime, Ayers, it is not simply that he was deeply involved with a group trying to murder innocent soldiers and their dates at Ft. Dix…it is that he continued to ooze his slimy stealth communism into education, racial warfare, class warfare and plot to tear down America.
If Obama, the candidate was posing as a centrist in order to mask his wildly radical agenda and to bury his associations with tear down the system anarchists, then is association with Ayers was of vital interest to voters and deserved to be vetted. The absolutely wonderful work that Stanley Kurtz was doing at the time was (and even more splendid since) of monumental importance and not the least bit silly or inane.
The Midwest Academy, The New Party, the Woods Foundation and all that they stood for, tried to implement, tried to hide…was of critical importance…and was BURIED INTENTIONALLY by the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party…the lapdog media.
It remains buried to this day by those same people.
And, those actual “liberals” who stand in full pretense as if they care about objective truth, honor, decency…stand in shameful silence as “their side” reaps the benefits of a gang raped information stream.
That benefit…today…distorts the facts, hides material facts, stages phony events, forges documents, photoshops pictures….for one side.
For those who do not stand up for what is right, let their tongues fall silent…tomorrow…when the shoe is on the other foot. Their silence is appalling. About our information stream, about the treatment of Israel, about the treatment of Christians and Jews, about the savagery of our non-leftist countrymen, about America in general.
Their silence fed this monster and does to this day. And they lack the courage and honor to stop feeding it, so it grows.
“I have been saying on these very pages that we do ourselves a grave disservice by continuing to call leftists, ‘liberal’. (or ‘progressive’, or ‘elite’, or ‘mainstream’….but I digress).”
Indeed, that is part of the problem we have with Leftists. We continue to give them credence and legitimacy by calling them a word that has nothing to do with anything they stand for. It’s akin to what’s going on with the debt talks; as long as Republicans accept the premise that America will “default” on its debt if it doesn’t increase its debt limit, then Obama will continue to state that if we don’t incur more debt we will “default”. Here it is I thought the definition of default meant that we had more debt than we could pay back with existing assets, especially liquid money.
The New Left did not spring out of the forehead of the Old Left. Its errors can be traced back to a much older tradition of organic conservatism, for instance German Romanticism, which itself had older roots in the West. I tried to write about that tradition here: http://clarespark.com/2009/11/02/a-ride-through-the-culture-wars-in-academe/. Don’t miss Dmitri Volkogonov’s paragraph on “Zionists” who stand for all those modern forces that stand against their collectivism. But the Reds did not invent collectivism either. Organic conservatives can be found throughout the political spectrum.
In the late 60s my father watched an interviewer questioning Daniel Berrigan and he remarked that the interviewer “praised him with faint damnation.” In the 1968 my mother was among the NY City teachers’ union members (my father by then a sympathetic assistant principal) led out on strike by Albert Shanker, a genuine liberal who stood up to the far Left which featured antisemitic placards saying “Hitler should have burned you all”, anti Jewish poems on the radio, leaflets against Israel right out of the Soviet anti-Zionism campaign. Shanker, by the way, stood shoulder to shoulder with the black sanitation workers with Martin Luther King in the weeks before he was murdered and he later organized the mainly Hispanic health workers in NY. This muscular liberalism is a thing of the past as Ron Radosh so clearly points out. The conservatives in NY incidentally did not support the teachers, many of whom had been fired by the newly empowered local districts in African-American neighborhoods for “poisoning the minds of Black school children”. They were led by people such as Sonny Carson who was a predecessor of Al Sharpton, now a darling of the Democratic Party and a welcome interviewee of the media including Fox despite his terrible actions against Korean grocery store owners and his participation in the Tawana Brawley frame up of innocent public officials. The conservatives, meanwhile, too locked into their distaste for unions and bloated bureaucracy, were enthusiastic about de-centralization (which could have been a good idea with different local leadership) and failed to support Shanker. As for the example of Germany, a good place to look is before the Nazi take over, at the Weimar Republic buffeted between the Communist street bullies (who called democratic socialists “social fascists”) and the Brownshirts; a liberal government unable to assert itself. Barry Rubin’s recent PJ media article on traditional liberalism and its demise in the Democratic Party is a useful addition to Radosh’s excellent arguments as is Voegli’s review in Claremont Review of a book of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s letters.
“as lethal to constitutionalism as Jefferson Davis’s, that those who deplore a policy enacted by a democratically elected government may rightfully seek to thwart it by asserting all the prerogatives of revolutionaries without surrendering any of the rights of citizens.”
Excellent article! I’ve been in the middle of this for a long time. As I was saying the other day, from experience, all hippies weren’t Marxists and the Marxists sure as hell weren’t hippies. Hippies may have confused freedom with licence but many of them, especially those listening to The Beatles, were appalled at the “come the revolution” and “carrying pictures of Chairman Mao” types. Some have even grown up to be conservatives, in the new meaning of that word. That is, conserving what’s best of classical liberalism.
Pajamas writer Mary Grabar did a great study for USA Survival which explains why Ayers and other former Weathermen-cum-educators still matter. Ayers wields enormous influence in the field of teacher training and K-12 curriculum policy, holding positions of authority and keynoting at national education conferences. The thought that he is embraced and celebrated by many educators-in-training and their teachers is terrifying. I assume I shouldn’t put a link in a comment, but Mary’s report is called: “The Extreme Make-Over of William Ayers: How a Communist Terrorist Became a ‘Distinguished’ Professor of Education.”
The degree to which Israel-obsessed anti-Semitism has fused with liberal activism among post-Seventies activists amazes me, and I attribute it to what these kids (and not-so-young) are learning in school. Some of the PBS programming for schools on the subject of the Middle East is troubling. Sophisticated troubling.
Ayers matters because he walked from a charge of attempted murder on a technicality. He’s no more innocent than O J Simpson, and it’ll never be ‘over’.
I think my brain just sprung. Ugh.
Though, I dispute that “camp” has replaced anything, it has always been a big factor as thumbing through old issues of Mother Jones will show.
“British Professor”
That’s a pretty long blog post by the British Professor to avoid the two most important words, “Soviet Union.”
The “leftists” are following the party line, whether they know it or not. Party line sounds like a soft joke, it is not to the believers and those in their peripheries of influence and discourse. All the leftist hate is directly traceable to Soviet anti-zionist propaganda, which served domestic anti-semitic purposes, and more, for foreign damnification of the defeaters of Soviet allies, power, and weaponry (their second biggest dollar earner), those Jews again. Any analysis avoiding the Soviet Union is mostly wasteland.
Great article.
Liberals are to Leftists as so-called Moderate Muslims are to Radical Muslims. Both Liberals and Moderate Muslims are weak-voiced enablers of violent totalitarians.
As a 60′s teenager I was too busy practicing rock and roll and rejecting the poisoning coming in waves from lunatic Leftists. The same people so committed to destroy our country, is today in power. What is wrong with American???
during the 60s, the more radical you were, the more cool you were. Liberals were those who wished they could shuck it all and become cool too.
Remember Phil Ochs’ song “Love Me, I’m a Liberal!”? It poked fun at the mere progressive from the point of view of a cool radical folksinger.
That is the dynamic that even today keeps liberals from ejecting the radicals amongst them.
It so high school.
Mr. Smith, Please Go Back to Washington!
. . . In the jaded twenty-first century, there’s little chance of another Mr. Smith going to Washington and exposing the inherent evil in America’s capital by exposing himself or herself to character assassination. Any thinking individual would consider what has been done and is in process of being done to Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, et al. and do a re-think.
Even worse, the motivations of the current assassins aren’t financial gain which can be remedied by pay-offs. Their motivations are more akin to sedition for which there is no easy remedy.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5004)
A great article, Mr. Radosh, that brings to the fore what I consider one of the major obstacles that confront those who believe that the defeat of the Obama Administration is imperative to the preservation of our democratic Republic: the lack of a sharp vernacular term of identification for those “leftists” who are driving their evil agenda .
The Terms “left”, “leftist”, “left-leaning”, are vague, vacuous, imprecise, fuzzy and non-pejorative They carry no bite. Yhey do not define the radical quotient. They create no mental image of threat. Liberal Christians are leftists, “social activists”, but object to being called Socialists. Bill Clinton is left-leaning but his administration was conservative-leaning. Bill Ayers is quite openly and aggressively a Communist – his website shows a Red Star rising over the arc of the globe – but is described as a Leftist. Is differentiation not important here? Our diminutive term of reference should reflect the level of the danger.
The terms used for Leftists 60 years ago were simple and straightforward: Red, Commie, Pinko. Two things cause today’s journalists and commentators, on both sides, to avoid these terms: fear of being called McCarthyite, and the success of the efforts of the academic Socialists to impose non-judgmental, non-critical “political correctness” on all dialog and commentary, social, political, professional and editorial.
You have long and deep experience of neo-communism as do Roger Simon, David Horowitz, and many other valiant defenders of our free-enterprise, free speech nation. You are wordsmiths, all. I continue to be dumb-founded by the refusal to call the man whose childhood mentor was an ILA firebrand, whose patron was Bill Ayers throughout his rise through Chicago Politics, whose strategies are straight out of Saul Alinski, what he is: a committed Communist in the Lenin/Stalin/Castro/Mao mould. To call him a Red is not vilification, though his supporters would shout “Smear.” It Is the simple truth and this is no time for pussy-footing. Take the Red out of the White House! ( Oops- is that racial?)
“I continue to be dumb-founded by the refusal to call the man whose childhood mentor was an ILA firebrand, whose patron was Bill Ayers throughout his rise through Chicago Politics, whose strategies are straight out of Saul Alinski, what he is: a committed Communist in the Lenin/Stalin/Castro/Mao mould.”
There’s crazy and then there’s PJM crazy. RR must feel right at home, going from the loony left to the loony right without stopping for sanity.
Joseph:
I am sure all of us crazies at PJM would enjoy reading your brief and objective description of Barrack Obama’s background and leftist accomplishments. (Please, no regurgitating “Dreams from My Daddy.” )
One minor correction; As Mr. Voegeli points out, it was the Republicans who “waved the bloody shirt” about Democrats for several decades after the American Civil War. And as non-revisionist historians know, the Southerners who fought tooth and nail to keep slavery legal, and (with the Dred Scott decision) extend it to “non-slave” states and territories, were for the most part Democrats. As were the majority of the “copperheads”, the Northern subversives who supported the Confederacy, with methods up to and including sabotage and violence.
Democratic perfidy didn’t stop with Appomattox, either. In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden, the Democratic candidate for President opposite Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, tried to “win” the election by bribing electors to change their votes in the Electoral College. Enciphered telegrams from Tilden adviser Manton Marble to Democratic operatives J.N.H. Patrick and William T. Pelton (Tilden’s nephew), when decrypted by several newspapers showed that Marble had been the “go-between” in the bribery attempts.
Prior to this, Marble and Tilden had falsely claimed that the Republicans had bribed electors to cast their votes for Hayes, and demanded that he and his VP be impeached, and Tilden sworn in as POTUS. Once their own bribery attempts were exposed, most people concluded that they should have left well enough alone.
Perhaps the Republicans who “waved the bloody shirt” then, and those who distrust the “moderation” of the Democratic Party’s leadership now, both have a point. Leopards rarely change their spots.
clear ether
eon
“Ayers and the Weather Underground “did real harm,” according to Michael Kinsley. ‘Their victims were liberals: the millions of people who…opposed the Vietnam War but didn’t hate their country.” As Katha Pollitt wrote in the Nation, “I wish Ayers would make a real apology for the harm he did to the antiwar movement and the left…. I’d like him to say he’s sorry…he helped Nixon make the antiwar movement look like the enemy of ordinary people.””
Wow. Just…wow. That’s the equivalent, in effect, of saying “Hitler gave fascism a bad name.”
That’s all well and good. Decent people have for decades struggled to understand what makes the average leftist tick. But there’s no need to lend quasi-philosophical underpinnings to what motivates them; it only complicates the issue. Just say it like it is: all leftists are intellectually insane while the killers among them also qualify as psychopaths.
“So if you want to understand what motivates the American supporters of the flotilla…”
Same thing that motivated Stalin when he allied with Hitler…expediency.
They have the same enemy (namely us), so American commie traitors naturally ally with the Muslim crazies, even though they have nothing in common except their hatred for America, and the West. It’s an old story, oft retold.
“I’d like him to say he’s sorry…he helped Nixon make the antiwar movement look like the enemy of ordinary people.”
Spare me, Libtard.
It wasn’t Dick Nixon who created the Draft or got the United States into a no-can-win war that was 100% none of our business…it was liberal scum like you who did that.
Nixon ended the draft (the Democrats 20th century version of slavery) and got us out of the war liberal Democrat halfwits put us into.
That’s why Dick Nixon is one of my favorite modern presidents…and the Vietnam War is just one of thousands of reasons why I loathe Democrats and liberals.
Clear and convincing as allways,Mr.Radosh.The great masses of the peoples including western peoples supporting anti-American and anti-Israel “imperialism” demonstrate collectivistic,totalitarian state of mind.That is I think not only the result of Leftism`s sliping down the under-deweloped world but growing collectivism feeling,called globalization,that is the source of capitalism-hate according to Ayn Rend.
‘Judith Butler, explained that “Understanding Hamas and Hezbollah as social movements that are on the global left is important.”’
Bah!
The only thing folks need to understand is that the Muslims who make up Hamas and Hezbollah are the scum of the earth, and so are the Western lefty renegades who support them.
Thousands and thousands of Americans (not to mention tons of other folks, Israelis et al, who are friends of ours) have been murdered in cold blood by Arab Muslim imperialist/colonialist terrorists (like the quasi-human degenerate trash who make up Hamas and Hezbollah), and any American who supports their totally illegimate cause(s) is a traitorous swine (no offense to pigs).
Terrorist-loving traitor lefties all oughta be shot down like the dogs they are. After a fair trial, of course (a trial that lasts about twenty seconds will suffice).
And, don’t bother chiding me for engaging in anti-lefty hate speech. Consider it stipulated that I hate their guts.
The New Left doesn’t have much public weight. They already sit in policy and management echelons in ALL civic institutions: Law, Education from nursery school through graduate schools, the Courts, Congress and even the Military. It goes without saying the Media and Hollywood. Having successfully insinuated themselves into government supported and financed social programs since the election of 1960. Remember that election, the first US presidential election after the launch of Sputnik? Won for the Democratic candidate after a bizarre vote count in Cook County CHICAGO. Since when the “barefoot soldiers” of the revolution in the elite universities of the West and East Coast of America began their “long march” to their triumph of today after the presidential election in CHICAGO, to put the finishing touches to their revolution.
Delayed from the desired date 2000 because of that “vast right-wing conspiracy”. Remember that word conspiracy used by one of the powers in the Demcratic Party,no less than the spouse of the then Democratic President, whose favourite child was a centrally controlled health care program, and Now the Secretary of State for the present Democratic President, out of Chicago.
Reasonable people do not believe the worst of other humans. Will not, cannot fathom there are people,in expensive clothes with smooth manners, so full of hatred and malice they destroy everything they get their hands on, using any means at their disposal. Not openly in the full light of day, but covertly. They bring their plague via the gaps ignored by people with practical restraints, who trust their public figures. Plague borne by rats that destroyed massive numbers of the population and led to sea-Change of societies.
The model/template for the New Left was the plague that in the 20th century destroyed countless millions of persons with the germs carried by the Founding Fathers of the Old Left in their ideology called Socialism and Communism. Because the New Left knows that words – such as Hope and Change – do matter, they now call themselves Progressives, having hidden their true faces earlier as Democrat and Liberal.. Socialist and Communist being dangerous words with which to identify themselves.
Now,however, having the levers of the mightiest government in the world in the hands of their puppet, and their army within the very halls of government, they need no longer hide their faces or their true aims. They, as their puppet President is wont to say, have in effect won, Haven’t they?
Have they? America is not, even with the brainwashing of the past half century, Europe or Asia, or Russia. America is and always has been the last best hope of mankind. Is she still?
Jews have always been and always will be an easy target.
Again more analysis of the left. We know who and what they are. We should also know that the election of 2012 will not happen peacefully or honestly.
So what will you all do to protect America and vanquish the left? When will somebody here have the stones to say what they think we need to do going forward to fight and eliminate the left?
…. smearing Obama by observing upon patronage by Bill Ayers was silly and irrelevant ….
Sure it was.
It illustrated not one bit who and what Obama was — and is.
…. Ayers’ years of bombing are in the past ….
Sure they are.
Who in Hell’s name needs to dirty his fingernails with bomb-making materials when the unexploded bloody bomb that be-squats and be-manures 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does all your dirty work?
And much of islamanazism’s?
There are everyday`s conditions giving rise to liberal leftists becides “left Founding Fathers”` folowers conspiracy. These conditions create the state and mass trade and social organizations of the welfare state.Look at University campuses.
The big elephant in the room not being discussed is the USSR influence. They were the originators of all the propaganda used by the PLO and the CPUSA and other fellow travellers to use a ‘moral equivalence’ argument to discredit the west and liberty based society.
As a former counter culture left wing anti-establishment child of the 60′s I still can’t get over the movements transformation from anti-government in the name of freedom into the front line cheerleaders for Big Brother/Nanny State government and truly subversive behavior in favor of controlling almost every aspect of peoples lives. From what we can buy, read, watch, say, do, and yes, even how many squares of TP should be used to wipe our butts with. To quote Arlo Guthrie of Alice’s Restaurant fame, “there’s only one party giving lip service and attempting to bring about smaller government”. I can’t help but think Scoop Jackson must be looking down from heaven with great sadness at what has become of the party he belonged to. I know it saddens me, and for the first time at age 60 I voted Republican and I can’t ever imagine myself voting for what passes for Democrats now, ever again.
I believe it was Republicans in the 1880s who were accused of “waving the bloody shirt”–attempting to refight the Civil War by painting Democrats as all Confederate traitors.
I believe that over the long term inflation will ne a problem but over the short term it appears that deflation is a bigger issue.