Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism

НазваниеLiberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism
Размер0.98 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   44

If Eric Foner wants to claim he is patriotic, doesn't he have to do something to show he supports America, someday? Why is it assumed that patriotism is an unmeasurable quality? Is Eric Foner more or less patriotic than Irving Berlin? Berlin wrote the great patriotic song "God Bless America." He donated all profits from the song in perpetuity to the Boy Scouts of America - an organization so patriotic it removed President Clinton as honorary president. Berlin served in World War I and entertained the troops in World War II with a play he wrote for the troops, This Is the Army. He greeted prisoners of war returning from Vietnam at the White House, playing "God Bless America."33 If only Berlin were around today, he could write us a new song for the war on terrorism, something like "Good-bye Walla Walla, I'm Off to Smash Allah."

Meanwhile, Foner compared the malevolent terror of Islamic ter­rorists to "rhetoric" from President Bush. He defended Soviet atroci­ties.34 He is still defending proven Soviet spy Julius Rosenberg. If only Foner could see beyond what is bad for the United States, he might see that fighting terrorism and Communism might be good for people of other nations, too. In a long tradition of patriotism, in 1941, Foner's father was fired from his job as a state college teacher under the New York State law that prohibited state-supported teachers from engaging in seditious or treasonous speech. (Inasmuch as this happened in New York State while Joe McCarthy was still a young circuit court judge in Wisconsin, the New York Times referred to Foner's firing as a "pre-McCarthy Red scare.")35 Isn't someone who opposes his own country less patriotic than someone who loves his country?

While consistently rooting against America, liberals have used a fictional event forged of their own hysteria - "McCarthyism" - to pre­vent Americans from ever asking the simple question: Do liberals love their country?

In McCarthy's day, a battle against communism hung in the balance even more than the battle against terrorism hangs in the balance today. Time and again, in all crucial matters of national self-defense, the Democratic Party has shirked the honor of leading this country in war, be it cold or hot. Such a party must not be allowed in the Oval Office. That was McCarthy's central point a half century ago; and it's even more obvious today. America's enemies change, but the treason remains the same.

A full accounting of the left's perfidy throughout the second half of the twentieth century is incalculable. Will and Ariel Durant could not document it (Story of Civilization, eleven volumes). But it is impossible to understand their naysaying in the war on terrorism today, their vicious wrath, and even their maniacal defense of Bill Clinton, without a brief review of their treachery at the onset of the Cold War.

In the early fifties, ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers said, "In this century, within the next decades, [it] will be decided for genera­tions whether all mankind is to become Communist, whether the whole world is to become free, or whether, in the struggle, civilization as we know it is to be completely destroyed." It had been his fate, he said, to have been "in turn a witness to each of the two great faiths of our time" - God and Communism.36 Communism, he said, is "the vision of man without God." It was man's second oldest faith: "Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil 'Ye shall be as gods.'" These were the "irreconcilable opposites - God or Man, Soul or Mind, Freedom or Communism."37

Liberals chose Man. Conservatives chose God. The struggle be­tween the two great faiths was the subtext of every great political con­flict in America in the second half of the twentieth century. It was this conflict that fueled the Chambers-Hiss hearings, "McCarthyism," Viet­nam, Watergate, and the elites' abiding hatred for Ronald Reagan. At the end of the century, and against the odds, the free world won.

It was a crushing defeat for liberals. Not because liberals were necessarily Communists, though many were, but because they had been morally blind to Communism. Democratic administrations con­tained archipelagos of Communist spies, but Democrats had never, not once, responded with genuine anger to Soviet espionage. Liberal elites defended traitors. In response to the Soviet threat, the Democrats con­sistently counseled defeat, supplication, and retreat.

Indeed, they spent most of the Cold War jeering at phrases like "Soviet threat." They said Communist advances were inevitable and Communist dictators were "agrarian reformers." No one "lost" China. Detente - not victory - was the best the free world could hope for. Phrases like "captive nations" and "freedom fighters" were invariably put in derisive quotes. As long as the Soviet Union thrived, the "inevi­tability" argument fell within the range of patriotic behavior. If Soviet domination really was inevitable, liberals were just being brutally frank messengers. But then Reagan won the Cold War. It turned out Communism's triumph wasn't inevitable after all. The left's teleological argument for Communist domination was a lie. Liberals were either dupes or traitors in the greatest battle of the twentieth century.

In his own way, Nixon was as crucial as Reagan in defeating Soviet Communism. Nixon exposed the Truman and Roosevelt admin­istrations as having appointed known saboteur Alger Hiss to positions of influence within the government. The Hiss case marked the point at which liberals became conscious of themselves as a conspiracy. There was no turning back. Nixon showed the American people that liberals had failed to meet the challenge of Communist espionage in the high­est reaches of government. No matter how many Harvard men spoke on Hiss's behalf, liberals could not stave off the moment of truth. Natu­rally, therefore, they engaged in lying to ward off Nixon's exposure of Hiss, just as they would again a half century later to save Clinton.

The Republican Party would fail to meet other challenges - there was a reason for liberal political hegemony in the decades preceding the Hiss affair. But with the Hiss case, Nixon created a new universe. He had exposed liberals as dupes of totalitarianism. The Democratic Party could never be trusted again in the same way. Democrats and Republicans ceased being viewed as uniformly American. For this, liberals would never forgive Nixon. Watergate would be the left's ulti­mate revenge against him for telling the truth about Hiss. To rehabili­tate Hiss, they would destroy Nixon. As the New York Times put it in Hiss's obituary: Hiss's reputation seemed "to wax and wane with each new turn in the fortunes of Mr. Nixon."38

While reacting with unblinking ennui to Soviet spies in high gov­ernment office, Democrats engaged in drama queen theatrics over "McCarthyism." The myth of "McCarthyism" is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times. The portrayal of Senator Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't cowering in fear during the McCarthy era. They were sys­tematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Every­thing you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis'. They scream about the dark night of fascism under McCarthy to prevent Americans from ever noticing that liberals sabotaged their own country. As Whittaker Chambers said: "Innocence sel­dom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does."39

At the time, everyone knew liberals were lying. But after a half century of liberal mythmaking, it would be Judgment Day for liberals on July 11, 1995. On that day, the U.S. government released a cache of Soviet cables that had been decoded during the Cold War in a top-secret undertaking known as the Venona Project. The cables proved the overwhelming truth of McCarthy's charges. It was a mind-boggling discovery. Professors would be forced to retract their theses about the extent of Soviet espionage. Alger Hiss, Julius Rosenberg, even Ameri­can journalist I. F. Stone were exposed as agents of Moscow. And yet, most people reading this book are hearing about the Venona Project for the very first time. The release of decrypted Soviet cables was barely mentioned by the New York Times. It might have detracted from stories of proud and unbowed victims of "McCarthyism." They were not so innocent after all, it turns out.

Soviet spies in the government were not a figment of right-wing imaginations. McCarthy was not tilting at windmills. He was tilting at an authentic Communist conspiracy that had been laughed off by the Democratic Party. The Democrats had unpardonably connived with one of the greatest evils of the twentieth century. This could not be nullified. But liberals could at least hope to redeem the Democratic Party by dedicating themselves to rewriting history and blackening reputa­tions. This is what they had done repeatedly throughout the Cold War. At every strategic moment this century, liberals would wage a cam­paign of horrendous lies and disinformation to dull the discovery that the American people had made. They had gotten good at it.

There were, admittedly, a few rare and striking exceptions to the left's overall obtuseness to Communist totalitarianism. The Democratic Party was certainly more patriotic then than it has become. Throughout the sixties, the Democrats could still produce the occasional Scoop Jackson Democrat. John F. Kennedy's pronouncements on Communism could have been spoken by Joe McCarthy. His brother Robert worked for McCarthy. For all his flaws, President Harry Truman was a com­pletely different breed from today's Democrats: He unquestionably loved his country. Through the years, there were various epiphanic moments creating yet more anti-Communist Democrats. The Hitler-Stalin Pact, Hiss's prothonotary warbler, Stalin's show trials, and Aleksandr Solzhe-nitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago - all these had their effect.

But after World War II, the Democratic Party suffered from the sort of pusillanimous psychosis that seized all of France after World War I. The entire party began to lose its nerve for sacrifice, heroism, and bravery. Beginning in the fifties, there was a real fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. By the late sixties the contest was over. The anti-Communist Democrats had lost. In 1972, George McGovern, dar­ling of left-wing radicals, was the Democratic presidential candidate. SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) leader and Chicago riot insti­gator Tom Hayden became a Democratic state senator in California. In 1968, Staughton Lynd said of Tom Hayden: "On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday he was a National Liberation Front guerilla, and on Tues­day, Thursday, and Saturday, he was on the left wing of the Demo­cratic Party."40 Black Panther Bobby Rush would go on to become a Democratic congressman. Todd Gitlin, a former president of SDS, would soon be a university professor and frequent op-ed columnist for the New York Times.41

This was the new Democratic Party. By the time of the 1991 Gulf War, only ten Senate Democrats voted with President Bush to use troops against Saddam Hussein. If the old Democratic Party was merely obtuse, the new Democratic Party was a beachhead of domestic anti-Americanism.

Clinton was the left's last best hope for proving they could too handle the presidency. Having tricked the American people into en­trusting a Democrat with the White House - on a bare plurality vote - they had to defend him from any lie, any felony, any repre­hensible, contemptible conduct he threw their way. When Clinton first showed his fat, oleaginous mug to the nation, the Republicans screamed he was a draft-dodging, pot-smoking flimflam artist. Had the Republi­cans turned out to be right again, it would have sounded the death knell for the Democratic Party. So the Democrats lied. Through their infernal politics of personal destruction, liberals stayed in the game for a few more years.

Unless we fight for proper treatment of history and counter the nonsense images of McCarthy, no history can be safe from the liberal noise machine. Schoolchildren will be taught that all of America cringed with terror at Ken Starr, whose evil designs on the nation were frustrated only through the sacrifice of brave liberals. People will have vivid images of the pounding boots of Starr's subpoena-servers and the Gestapo-like wails of alarms as Ken Starr arrived to kick in the doors of innocent Americans and storm through their bedrooms. It will be the Reign of Terror under Ken Starr.

Bill Clinton will be revered in history books as the George Wash­ington of his day who, along with patriots Larry Flynt and James Carville, "saved the Constitution." He will be honored with a memorial larger than the Washington Monument (though probably with the same general design). People will believe that. And liberals will continue unabashedly invoking a lie in order to shield their ongoing traitorous behavior.

The credibility of democrats on national defense is now at stake as it has not been since McCarthy's day. Democrats are on the precipice of securing their reputation as the Chamberlains of our time. In fact, today's appeasers are worse than Neville Chamberlain: Chamberlain didn't have himself as an example. In the latest round of liberal demoralization techniques, they are once again rooting against America. You would think the most destructive terrorist attack in the history of the world would call for something new, but liberals have simply dusted off the old cliches from the Cold War and trotted them out for the war on terrorism. The only patriotic liberal in the world is Tony Blair, and he's in England.

Every once in a while their tempers get the best of them and, like Dr. Strangelove trying to restrain the Nazi salute, liberals say what they really mean. Their own words damn them as hating America. One week before the first anniversary of 9-11, Reuters ran a photo of Ground Zero with a caption that said, "Human rights around the world have been a casualty of the US 'war on terror' since September 11."

Arguably, thousands of Americans dying hideous deaths is a more comment-worthy "casualty" than any alleged death of "human rights" around the world. Also, was it really necessary to put "war on terror" in quotation marks?

As the country was beginning to contemplate war with Iraq in the summer of 2002, a Hollywood cast of mostly has-beens and never-beens calling their cause "Not in Our Name" issued a statement imploring "all Americans to RESIST the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration." America's war on terrorism, they said, was "unjust, immoral, and illegitimate." The devastation of Sep­tember 11 was dismissively compared to "similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam." Among the signers were "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, Ed Asner, Susan Sarandon, Casey Kasem, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Edward Said, Ben & Jerry's Ben Cohen, Kurt Vonnegut, and noted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. It was a group nearly indistinguishable from those who had enthusiastically backed the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Liberals spent most of the war on terrorism in a funk because they didn't have enough grist for the anti-war mill. They nearly went stark raving mad at having to mouth patriotic platitudes while burning with a desire to aid the enemy. Having to suppress their glee at possible fail­ure, they posted droll rambling narratives with no apparent point on the nation's op-ed pages. Liberals write essays like little kids making up a melody. They meander along, issuing contradictory snide remarks about Bush, until they run out of energy and finally conclude with some incongruous, throaty peroration. Is fighting terrorism worth "tearing up the Constitution"? And boo hoo hoo - we have to get the French on board. Just as liberals went into a panic when Ronald Reagan referred to Russia as an "evil empire," they were in a state of frenzy over Bush's "axis of evil" speech. If liberals were half as indignant about Osama bin Laden as they were about President Bush, their objections might rate more with real Americans.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   44


Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconBooks on the Cold War

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconIn the decade after the end of the cold war

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconCold War Development of Scalar Interferometry

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconEast Asia in the Post-Cold War Era

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism icon1 New Approaches to Cold War: History and Current International Politics

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconThe Otherworld War (The Multiverse War) Cover Blurb

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconPaper presented at the International Conference on The History of the Cold War, Cortona, Italy, October 5–6, 2001

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconWar and peace? An agenda for peace research in geography. Nick Megoran, Newcastle University. Needs – engaging war. Maybe as crit geop section Abstract

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconAnTir/West war was lots of fun! The fighting was great! The results of the war met with an unfortunate accident so we can only assume AnTir won! (of course, we can as easily assume the West won!)

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconBiography
«terrorism, war, internal and external security» "terrorisme, guerre, sécurité intérieure, sécurité extérieure", unanimously awarded,...
Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2014
обратиться к администрации
Главная страница