LEFT ILLUSIONS

by David Horowitz

Copyright 2003
Spence Publishing Company, Dallas TX
ISBN 1-890626-51-1

Note: Left Illusions is available on the  Spence Publishing website.



David Horowitz's book Left Illusions is a uniquely eye-opening look into the radical left. Why? Because David was one of the founders and principle players in the New Left movement since its inception in the 1960s. He is an American, raised by his actively Communist parents on marxist doctrine in a communist neighborhood and environment, a recognized intellectual and influential writer in the New Left movement, and an activist who depended on the socialist agenda of the Democrat party to further the goals of his movement. As the Village Voice wrote, "Other writers of the New Left figured larger in the awareness of the general public, but no one in those days figured larger among the leftists themselves."

But it all came crashing down when he saw the failure of that movement in history and practice, and witnessed all the hypocrisy and brutality manifested in the application of its doctrine.  Left Illusions is that story complete with commentaries that run Horowitz's course from New Left to Conservatism. And it exposes the New Left movement for what it is from the inside: a radical, misguided, and deceptive attempt to undermine our culture and government and its inherent (and unprecedented) liberties and tolerance to forward a failed experiment in utopian socialism. This is an important lesson for all Americans, so I encourage you to get this book and I've listed some excerpts to illustrate that this is not a wild "conspiracy theory" but an indictment from within the New Left movement itself and from the mouths of its own.


INTRODUCTION: The Life and Works of David Horowitz

By 1969 the great hopes of the 1960s Left had disintegrated in futile acts of violence and extremist rhetorical postures. Horowitz was gradually coming to realize that social engineers could not reshape human nature. But his loyalty to the cause prevented him from recognizing the implications of his thoughts. He now reflects, "I pretty well realized even at that time that you couldn't sit everybody down and re-educate them... This meant that you couldn't remake the world as the left intended without totalitarian coercion. ...When I look at my former comrades today, it is as though all that has happened to them and all they have witnessed have had no effect on their expectations or illusions or real life choices."

-Introduction by Jamie Glazov, page xvii

On the Left's injustice:

...no one among them really cared about the murder of [Betty Van Patter], even though they were people who made a point of their "social conscience", because the murderers were their political friends. ...[Horowitz] realized that it was the enemies of the left who had been correct in their assessment of [Betty's murderers] the Panthers... The Panthers were not victims of police repression because they were political militants. They were common criminals who were dangerous to others. It was the "revolution"...which protected them from the consequences of their deeds.

    [Horowitz] recognized a familiar historical reality being played out in the events of his own. Real human flesh and blood had been sacrificed on the altar of utopian ideals. A collusive silence followed. ...He was willing, further, to connect what had happened to him to the crimes his parents' generation of the left had defended, and thus to accept the fact that there was no "new" left, and that his generation of radicals had repeated their parents' guilt: ..."Our injustice, albeit mercifully smaller in scale, was as brutal and final as Stalin's."

In pursuing answers to Betty's death, Horowitz discovered that the Panthers had murdered more than a dozen people... To Horowitz surprise, the mainstream press also protected the killers; local media refused to cover the story. ...Notwithstanding the media blackout and the silence of the Panthers' supporters, the details of their crimes have surfaced over the years principally as a result of Horowitz's efforts.

-Introduction by Jamie Glazov, page xviii-xxi

On the Left's resurgence:

"To be reborn, the left had only to rename itself in terms that did not carry the memories of insurmountable defeat, to appropriate a past that could still be victorious." Thus leftists now call themselves "progressives", "post-modernists", and even "liberals". ...[Horowitz] argues that the negative result of two hundred years of socialist efforts means that from its beginnings the modern revolutionary left cannot be regarded as a "progressive" force, but one that is destructive and reactionary.

-Introduction by Jamie Glazov, page xxvii-xxxii


LEFT ILLUSIONS

"The world is cursed by ignorance, and the task of progressives is to set everybody right."

-2. Idols, page 13

The Left's Legacy:

A summary expression of [1960s] utopian regrets can be found in Steven Talbot's PBS documentary, "1968: The Year That Shaped a Generation." ...Talbot himself is a veteran of this movement that promoted itself as an avatar of "participatory democracy" but closes off debate over its own history in a way worthy of the Communist regimes it once admired.

"I experienced King's assassination as the murder of hope," writes Talbot... In fact, no white spokesman of the New Left...still regarded King as his leader in the year before King was assassinated. At the time, the black heroes of the New Left, like Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, Huey Newton, and the martyred Malcolm X, were prophets of separatism and violence. ...The political agendas of the black radicals who pushed King aside were "black power" and revolutionary violence, both of which King explicitly rejected.

With King dead in April and [Robert] Kennedy in June, the stage was set for what Talbot calls "the inevitable showdown" in Chicago in August. ...In a year when any national action would have attracted a hundred thousand protestors, only about three thousand actually showed up in the Chicago rumble. That was because most of us realized there was going to be blood in the streets and did not see the point of it. ...By fomenting a riot that destroyed the presidential aspirations of Hubert Humphrey, [the New Left] dealt a fatal blow to the anti-communist liberals in the Democratic Party and paved the way for a takeover of its apparatus by the forces of the political left... In 1974, a new class of Democrats was elected to Congress, including anti-Vietnam activists like Ron Dellums, Pat Schroeder, David Bonior, and Bella Abzug. ...Within three months of losing military aid, the anti-Communist regimes in Saigon and Phnom Penh fell, and the communist genocide began. The mass slaughter...was the real achievement of the New Left and could not have been accomplished without [their] sabotage of the Humphrey presidential campaign and the anti-communist Democrats.

As [David Horowitz's] cover line [on the leftist magazine Ramparts] said, "Alienation is when your country is at war and you want the other side to win." This represented what we actually believed...

-9. Telling It Like It Wasn't, page 72-79

The Left's Justice:

There was plenty of injustice in the system we opposed. But it had created procedures and institutions designed to redress grievances, correct injustices, and put checks on the power of government. In rejecting our radical agendas, our opponents had always stressed the importance of "process" and following rules, even when the issues seemed obvious. As radicals, we were impatient with order and had contempt for process. ...We were going to eliminate "checks and balances" and let the people decide.

As a result, we had no justice. There were no means to redress the crimes committed by the Panthers or other tribunes of the people - in America or anywhere else. There was no institutional recourse, and no moral standard, to which we were committed. And there was no rationale to create them. ...As progressives, we had no law to govern us, other than that of the gang.

Socialists believed that private property divided human beings, making some rich and some poor, some oppressors and others oppressed, and was the root cause of social conflict. Socialists proposed to abolish property and unite people in the state. But the abolition of property was really the abolition of private association and civil society, and of the bourgeois rights they underpinned. Socialist unity could only be achieved as a totalitarian solution. ...the class of people that decided who would be made equal, and at what rate, would - by the very fact of that power - become a new ruling caste. The quest for equality would create a new inequality.

If we [leftists] really cared about liberty and justice, we would have to give up our superior status as revolutionary opponents of "bourgeois" order, and enter the universe of its morality and thought.

-10. Questions, page 89-92

The Left and Jews:

I began to review events of the past to which I had paid little attention before, like the expulsion of the Jews from the civil rights movement in 1966. Jews had funded the movement, devised its legal strategies, and provided support for its efforts in the media and in the universities - and wherever else they had power. More than half the freedom riders who had gone to the southern states were Jews, although Jews constituted only 3 percent of the population. It was an unprecedented show of solidarity from one people to another.

When Israel was attacked in 1967 by a coalition of Arab states calling for its annihilation, the same black leaders threw their support to the Arab aggressors, denouncing zionism (the Jewish liberation movement) as racism. Rarely had a betrayal of one people to another been as total or as swift.

[Marx] had built his entire theoretical edifice on a concept - class - which was pointedly free of ethnic and national characteristics, in order to formulate the idea of socialism as a community liberated from these distinctions. Socialism would "solve" the Jewish question by eliminating Judaism, along with all other ethnic and national identities.

-10. Questions, page 95-98

Anti-Vietnam Efforts:

As our opposition to the war grew more violent and our prophecies of impending fascism more intense, I had taken note of how we were actually being treated by the system we condemned. By the decade's end, we had (deliberately) crossed the line of legitimate dissent and abused every First Amendment privilege and right granted us as Americans. ...I thought to myself: if we did this in any other country, the very least of our punishments would be long prison terms and the pariah status of traitors. In any of the socialist countries we supported - from Cuba to North Vietnam - we would spend most of our lives in jail and, more probably, be shot. And what actually happened to us in repressive capitalist America? Here and there our wrists were slapped (some of us went to trial, some spent months in jail), but basically the country tolerated us. And listened to us.

These events confronted me with a supreme irony: the nation I had believed to be governed by corporate interests, a fountainhead of world reaction, was halted in mid-course by its conscience-stricken and morally aroused populace; the forces I had identified with progress, once freed from the grip of U.S. "imperialism", revealed themselves to be oppressive, predatory, and unspeakably ruthless. ...My experience has convinced me that historical ignorance and moral blindness are endemic to the American left, necessary conditions of its existence. ...In the effort to achieve a historically bankrupt fantasy - call it socialism, call it "liberation" - it undermines the very privileges and rights it is the first to claim.

-12. My Vietnam Lessons, page 112-115

Ultimate Socialism:

In 1961, Khruschev boasted that the socialist economy would "bury" its capitalist competitors, and that by 1980 the Soviet Union would overtake the United States in economic output and enter the stage of "full communism", a society of true abundance whose principle of distribution would be "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs". ...For two hundred years, the promethean project of the left has been just this: to abolish property and overthrow the market, and thereby to establish the reign of reason and justice embodied in a social plan.

Mikhail Bakunin, Marx's arch-rival...described the political life of the future that Marx had in mind: "This government will not content itself with administering and governimg the masses politically... There will be a new class, a new heirarchy... the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe unto the mass of ignorant ones!" ...The totalitarian state was not an aberration of the progressive spirit, but its consummation. The radical project is a war against nature.

-14. The Road to Nowhere, page 129-147

Socialism belongs to a social stage based on the simple economy of small groups, a stage that had to be overcome in order to realize the great wealth-making potential of the market system. Far from being a progressive conception, the socialist ethic is atavistic and represents the primitive morality of pre-industrial formations: the clan and the tribe. ...It's values - equality, cooperation, unity - are the survival codes of small, vulnerable groups with knowable goals and shared interests.

-33. The Meaning of Left and Right, page 338

On Racism:

In recent decades, anti-white racism has, in fact, become a common currency of the "progressive" intelligentsia.

Where my views have changed is in the appreciation I now have for America's constitutional framework and the commitment of the American people to those ideals. America's unique political culture was indeed created by white European males, primarily English and Christian. It should be obvious to anyone with even a modest historical understanding, that these antecedents are not incidental to the fact that America and England are the nations that led the world in abolishing slavery and in establishing the principles of ethnic and racial inclusion. Moreover, we are a nation besieged by peoples "of color" trying to immigrate to our shores to take advantage of the unparalleled opportunities and rights our society offers them. ...This was once the common self-understanding of all Americans and is still the understanding of those who have resisted the discredited and oppressive worldview of the "progressive" left.

-15. Memories In Memphis, page 156-157

It is an interesting and important feature of modern liberalism that not only is its moral posture almost irrelevant to the facts, but it is also a pressure on the facts. ...there is a psychological payoff. The more racism you are able to see, the better you can feel about yourself. In discovering racism, even where it may not exist, you are able to realize your own virtue and its self-reward.

But liberal denial and liberal confusion over race persist. ...Every survey of public attitudes on race shows that over the last sixty years there has been a dramatic decline of racist attitudes among white Americans. ...in 1940 only 1 percent of blacks were middle class (defined as having twice the income of the poor). The figure is now 49 percent. ...[A recent poll asked],  "In order to give minorities more opportunity, do you believe race or ethnicity should be a factor when deciding who is hired, promoted, or admitted to college...?" Ninety-four percent of whites interviewed answered this question negatively...86 percent of blacks also answered this question negatively and 88 percent of Hispanics. ...74 percent of blacks have incomes above the poverty line, and don't live in inner cities or "ghettos". ...In 1940, 87 percent of blacks were poor and lived in places like Harlem and Watts. ...Are whites forcing some blacks to live in inner cities, while allowing the vast majority to escape?

The [Detroit} News conducted an investigation of the [affirmative action] program results at seven Michigan universities, which revealed that among black students who were freshman in 1994, only 40 percent got their diplomas after six years. Sixty percent had failed or dropped out. "We're throwing them out after taking their money and they're getting nothing out of it," summed up a history professor at Ferris State University who helped to start one of the programs designed to keep minority students in college.

-16. Liberals and Race, page 162-169

In America today, no racial prejudice, whether in institutions or individuals, can withstand exposure to the public light. ...In this millenium, there is no reason to be a victim. But in order not to be one, you have to stop thinking like one first.

-18. Racism and Free Speech, page 193

The Left's Bias:

The same radicals who launched the social and political eruptions of the 1960s have now become the politically-correct faculties of American universities. ...Their goal remains the destruction of America's national identity and, in particular, of the moral, political, and economic institutions that form its social foundation.

In the heyday of Stalinism, the accusation of "class bias" was used by communists to undermine and attack individuals and institutions with whom they were at war. ...The identical strategy is alive and well today in the left's self-righteous imputation of sexism, racism, and homophobia to anyone who dissents from its party line.

For maintaining my commitment to the ideals of the civil rights movement that King led, I have been attacked many times by the very people who betrayed those ideals. Among these attacks was a letter from the award-winning Berkeley novelist, Ishmael Reed, who suggested that I was obsessed with blacks but did not really care what happened to them. ...I wrote him back: "I have three black granddaughters for whom I want the absolute best that this life and this society have to offer. My extended black family...understands that whatever I write on the subject of race derives from a profound desire for justice and opportunity for everyone in this country..."

-15. Memories In Memphis, page158-160

Conservatism vs. Liberalism:

To be a conservative in America from my perspective is to defend where possible and restore where necessary the framework of values and philosophical understandings codified in the American Founding. ...individualism; the idea of rights that are derived from "Nature's God" and therefore inalienable; the conservative view of human nature and the philosophy of limited government that flows therefrom; and the recognition that property rights are the foundation of all human liberties.

"E Pluribus Unum" - out of many, one... It is this American culture, not a racial or ethnic heritage, that we need to preserve. ...The idea of the melting pot is an American idea. The left, however, has never been interested in a melting pot... [The left's] agenda is the deconstruction of America's national identity and culture... The multiculturalist narrative is not about the assimilation of minorities into the crucible of American freedom, but their liberation from American "oppression".

Under the smokescreen of ethnic inclusion, the left has injected an anti-American curriculum into the American educational system which it hopes will alienate America's youth from their heritage. ...Under the smokescreen of "diversity", the left has rewritten America's laws and subverted its Constitution. ...It is perfectly diabolocal: in the name of diversity and inclusion, the left has set out to destroy the framework of individualism and the rule of law that make diversity and inclusion possible.

-19. Conservatives and Race, page 198

Shortly after Peter Collier and I first entered the conservative world, I had a lunch with Norman Podhoretz, who warned me, "When you were on the left, you got away with everything. Now that you're on the right, you'd better be careful, because they won't let you get away with anything."

-26. Michael Lind and the Right Wing Cabal, page 287

Liberal Academia:

Not only are the overwhelming majority of college professors fashionably "liberal" and Democratic Party partisans, most faculties also feature a strong contingent of  hard leftists whose...concentrated numbers allow them to dominate (and even define) entire academic fields.

[One senior professor of an academic department:] "We had several candidates [for a scholar of ancient history] but obviously the most qualified one was from Stanford. Yet he didn't get the job. So I went to the chair of the search committee and asked him what had happened. 'Oh,' he said, 'you'[re absolutely right. He was far and away the most qualified candidate and we had a terrific interview. But then we went to lunch and he let out that he was for school vouchers.' " In other words, if one has a politically incorrect view on K-12 school vouchers, one must be politically incorrect on the Ming Dynasty, too. This is almost a dictionary description of the totalitarian mentality. ...This attitude also reflects the priorities of an entrenched oligarchy, which fears to include those it cannot count on to maintain its control.

These agendas were originally imported into the university by radicals acting as self-conscious disciples of an Italian marxist named Antonio Gramsci. As an innovative Stalinist in the 1930s, Gramsci pondered the historic inability of communist parties to mobilize workers to seize the means of production and overthrow the capitalist ruling class. Gramsci's new idea was to focus radicals' attention on the means of intellectual production. He urged radicals to acquire "cultural hegemony", by which he meant to capture the institutions that produced society's governing ideas. This would be the key to controlling and transforming society itself.

-21. Missing Diversity, page 215-218

A tenured sociologist named Richard Zeller [of Bowling Green State University] decided to propose a new course on the subject of political correctness... In particular, was the idea of political correctness itself at odds with academic freedom? The idea for the course was prompted by testimonies Zeller had received from students about professors who had used grade pressures to force them to agree to progressive shibboleths... Zeller submitted the course for approval...but they voted to reject it. ...Dr. Kathleen Dixon, director of women's studies, a field generally known for its ideological rectitude and exclusion of dissent, told the Bowling Green student newspaper: "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." What could be more Orwellian?

-23. The Era of Progressive Witch-Hunts, page 237

The Left's McCarthyism:

...the Motion Picture Academy honored Elia Kazan, a theatre legend who had been blacklisted for nearly half a century by the Hollywood left. ...Kazan's most celebrated film, On The Waterfront, scripted by another disillusioned Communist, Budd Schulberg, depicts a longshoreman who "snitches" to a congressional committee that is investigating organized crime... It is a thinly veiled commentary on Kazan's and Schulberg's experiences in the left.

This tainting and ostracism of sinners is, in fact, the secret power of the leftist faith. It is what keeps the faithful, faithful. ...This is why Alger Hiss kept his silence to the end, and why, even thirty and fifty years after the fact, the memoirs of leftists are so elusive and disingenuous when it comes to telling the hard political and personal truths about who they were and what they did. ...This is far from obvious to those who have never been insiders.

-27. Defending Christpher Hitchens, page 292-293

The AIDS Tragedy:

This is the twentieth anniversary of the onset of the AIDS epidemic in America. ...[When] effective public health methods might have contained its spread to new communities, more than 90 percent of those affected were white homosexuals living in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, IV drug-users in the same locations, and a tiny cohort of hemophiliacs and immigrants from Haiti. ...What you will not read is how proven public health methods were opposed by AIDS activists... What you will not read is any evaluation of AIDS campaigns...that activists demanded in place of proven methods. Yet the harrowing figures released on this anniversary show these billion-dollar , politically correct campaigns have failed miserably to contain the epidemic...

It was the gay radical left that defined promiscuous anal sex with strangers in public urban environments - the primary cause of the epidemic - as "gay liberation". It was this agenda of sexual liberation that caused the gay movement to think nothing of the massive epidemics of amoebiasis, rectal gonorrhea, syphilis, and hepatitus B that swept through the gay communities in the decade preceding AIDS, producing astronomical infection rates and depleted immune systems along the way.

[Gay radical Edmund] White told one [gay] audience that "gay men should wear their sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war against a sex-negative society." ...Camille Paglia pointed out some years ago the obvious truth: "Everyone who preached free love in the 1960s is responsible for AIDS. This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from heaven - absurd. We must face what we did." Michael Callen explained... "a small subset of gay men managed to create disease settings equivalent to those of poor Third World countries in one of the richest nations on earth."

The gay community tragedy lay in the fact that those who pioneered in the establishment of gay rights had become seduced by the radical illusion that they could also change the world - including the laws of nature. ...The chief obstacle to any change in this unhappy tale is the media. AIDS is without question the worst reported story in the history of American journalism.

-32. An American Killing Field, page 330-335

The United States:

"No nation before ever made diversity itself a source of national identity and unity." ...This creed is the culmination of an evolution that extends backwards in time to Jerusalem, and Athens, and Rome. It encapsulates lessons that were accumulated through practice and acquired by faith, that are inscribed in the teachings of sacred tradition and the institutions of secular law. These traditions (as it happens, Judaeo-Christian traditions) and these institutions (in fact, bourgeois-democratic institutions) have led us to the truths that are self-evident, and on which our freedom finally depends.

-33. The Meaning of Left and Right, page 340

The Middle East:

... Jordan is a state whose ethnic majority is Palestinian Arabs. On the other hand, the Palestinians of Jordan are disenfranchised by the ruling Hashemite minority. Despite this fact, in the years following Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, the Palestinians displayed no interest in achieving "self-determination" in Hashemite Jordan. ...The idea that the current conflict is about "illegally occupied territories" is only one of the many Arab deceits - now widely accepted - that have distorted the history of the Middle East wars.

The PLO was created at a time the West Bank was not under Israeli control but was part of Jordan. The PLO, however, was not created so that the Palestinians could achieve self-determination in Jordan, which at the time comprised 90 percent of the original Palestine Mandate, including the West Bank. The PLO's express purpose, in the words of its own leaders, was to "push the Jews into the sea". ...The PLO was not even created by Palestinians but by the Arab League, the corrupt dictators who ruled the Middle East and had attempted to destroy Israel by military force in 1948, in 1967, and again in 1973. ...In 1970, Jordan's King Hussein massacred thousands of PLO militants. But the PLO does not call for the overthrow of Hashemite rule in Jordan and does not hate the Hashemite monarchy. Only Jews are hated.

The reason there are Palestinian "refugees" is that [none of the twenty-two Arab states], except Jordan, will allow them to become citizens. ...In Jordan, Palestinians already have a state in which they are a majority, but which denies them self-determination. Why is Jordan not the object of the Palestinian "liberation" struggle? ...If a nation state is all the Palestinians desire, Jordan would be the obvious solution. (So would settling for 95 percent of the land one is demanding - the Barak [Oslo Accord] offer rejected by Arafat.) ...[The Oslo Accord] concessions confronted Arafat with the one outcome he did not want: peace with Israel. Peace without the destruction of the "Jewish Entity".

There is a famous "green line" marking the boundary between Israel and its Arab neighbors.That green line is also the bottom line for what is the real problem in the Middle East. It is green because plants are growing in the desert on the Israeli side but not on the Arab side. The Jews got a sliver of land without oil and created abundant wealth and life in all its rich and diverse forms. The Arabs got nine times the acreage, but all they have done with it is to nurture the poverty, resentments, and hatreds of its inhabitants.

-39. Why Israel Is The Victim, page 397-407
 

 Back to home