Matthew Yglesias » David Horowitz Reprimands Fellow Conservatives to Stop Over-the-Top Criticism of Obama

Apr 2nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm

David Horowitz Reprimands Fellow Conservatives to Stop Over-the-Top Criticism of Obama

Brendan Nyhan observes that it’s mighty strange to see David Horowitz making sense, but here it is:

I have been watching an interesting phenomenon on the Right, which is beginning to cause me concern. I am referring to the over-the-top hysteria in response to the first months in office of our new president, which distinctly reminds me of the “Bush Is Hitler” crowd on the Left.

Man bites dog.

Comments
42

42 Responses to “David Horowitz Reprimands Fellow Conservatives to Stop Over-the-Top Criticism of Obama”

El Cid Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
That’s funny, because Horowitz was on Thom Hartmann’s show pushing, once again, his eternal fear that the presence of any academic speaking leftist or Marxist ideas will make any student just as vulnerable to egotistical authoritarian Marxism as he, Horowitz, was personally.

What we need to do right now is to get universities to stop any professor from teaching what Horowitz thinks is Marxist revolutionism, because, hey, Horowitz was a weak dumbass who fell for it, and got real p***ed off when he thought he’d have his fun times in the revolutionary Black Panthers and a friend of his got killed, and so he apparently thinks all students are just as egotistical, intellectually vulnerable ignoramuses as he was.
blah Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Smart move by Horowitz. There is too much competition in the wingnut hyperbole market.
Keith M Ellis Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Wow. Not what I’d expect from him. He’s not a Limbaugh or a Coulter or a Malkin, but he does use hyperbole.
Ed Smithe Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
The guy is a total fraud. He’s just a bit smarter than the average “Republican” because he can analyze polls.
J Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
COuld you at least have added something swatting down Horowitz’s absurd suggestion that there was some kind of large “Bush is Hitler” contingent?

God good, one anonymous fool submits an ad to a MoveOn.org competition in 2004 and forever “The Left,” a fully homogeneous entity, is seen as equating Bush with Hitler.

Meanwhile young, talentless beneficiary of nepotism Jonah G. is able to write a book called Liberal Fascism and put a Hitler ’stache on a smiley face and it’s all good — he now has an LA Times column.

So, yes Matt, Horowitz had something short in there that made a little sense. But, as usual, it was surrounded by utter nonsense.
Keith M Ellis Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
There’s certainly virtue in Al’s argument.

But I read Yglesias’s “Republicans are trying to destroy the planet” as irony for rhetoric’s sake, and not earnestness. Of course, you could defend a lot of right-wing punditry’s excesses on the same basis.

I guess my concern is that I think there are many fewer people who will take Matt’s claim seriously than will take the average right-wing hyperbole seriously. Sure, some liberals will truly agree and believe that the GOP wants to destroy the planet. But I think those folks are few and far between. Meanwhile, lots and lots of people really believe the things that Limbaugh and Beck and Coulter and Malkin assert. I don’t think there’s parity here.

Not that this necessarily gets Matt off the hook for being hypocritical.
Rob Mac Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Give J a blog or something. He just nails this one to the wall. The key takeaway from Horowitz’s supposed “calm down GOP” screed is, hey, let’s not act like those crazy lefties! It’s one false equivalence after another.

The only thing you could possibly compare the mainstream right-wing meltdown over Obama to is the mainstream right-wing meltdown in the 90s over Clinton.
Keith M Ellis Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
There certainly isn’t.

In his argument, not him. Surely you agree that, putting ideology aside, saying that the GOP wants to destroy the planet is pretty much equivalent to saying that Obama is leading us toward Nazism (or whatever Beck et al are saying today)? Both are over-the-top accusations of very bad intent that tend to inflame anger and reduce dispassionate, rational discourse.

As I said, I don’t think that, ultimately, there’s parity because—as I’m sure you believe—Matt’s rhetoric is more obviously ironic hyperbole that few readers take seriously while, in contrast, many people take similar right-wing hyperbole seriously. Even so, I feel that I can’t completely justify my assertions and that looking at them from the other side, it would appear that I’m giving Matt the benefit of the doubt while doing the opposite to right-wing pundits.

Insofar as the hyperbole on both sides are arguably similar, then insofar as Matt has spoken out against the over-the-top rhetoric from the right, he has a responsibility to himself and his readers to avoid hypocrisy on this matter and avoid using similar hyperbole. Personally, I can’t really be bothered to worry about this supposed hypocrisy because I’m sympathetic to Matt’s positions and point-of-view and easily recognized his statement as bitter irony. But I try to avoid hypocrisy and I, myself, have frequently spoken out against the right’s rhetoric and thus I feel a responsibility to (mildly) complain about Matt’s…

…as unpleasant as it is to agree with Al about anything, to any degree.
Pedro Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“Horowitz’s supposed “calm down GOP” screed is, hey, let’s not act like those crazy lefties!”

But there are crazy lefties, sorry to say… I think a denial of the existence of crazy lefties means you’re a crazy lefty.

I agree with those who are saying Horowitz just senses how popular Obama is and how much the insane-in-the-membrane Rightwing is cocooning with their jihad against an imaginary international reserve currency and their insane budget charts which confidently predict hundreds of years into the future with rainbows in the background and ponies for everyone.
Pedro Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
But yeah Horowitz says something sensible but then goes back to talking nonsense about a conspiracy of Marxist professors intent on indoctrinating college students.
Ryan Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
But there are crazy lefties, sorry to say… I think a denial of the existence of crazy lefties means you’re a crazy lefty.

It’s not their existence that’s at issue, it’s their significance. They don’t have TV shows and radio programs and columns in prominent publications they way crazy righties do. Their influence on the broader discourse is negligible.

As to Horowitz: He’s tried out both ideological extremes in his political lifetime. Wouldn’t it be hilarious if he were now to experiement with Broderism?

(But no, sadly, I don’t think that’s what he’s doing.)
Ryan Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Oh, and re. the Al/Keith Ellis discussion: The irony does matter. It goes to intent. Matt’s hyperbole is ironic, fellow lefties know it’s ironic, and even smart righties (and some, like Al, who pretend not to) also know it. The people Horowitz is talking about, by contrast, are not being ironic when they say Obama is the next Hitler or whatever. Whether they actually believe the charge is another question, but they want their audience to believe they believe it. Their tone is utterly earnest, not sarcastic.
LaFollette Progressive Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
To be fair, Al has a point about the juxtaposition.

However, I feel inspired by David Horowitz to point out that Al is still one of the 101 most dangerous blog commenters in America, and he literally commits treason every time he criticizes our elected leaders.

And if I were to publish these claims along with Al’s true identity and his place of employment, in a book marketed to Democratic partisans, this would of course be exactly equivalent to Matt using ironic hyperbole to criticize all the Republicans and half the Democrats in the Senate. Because everyone uses a bit of over-the-top rhetoric now and then, right?
harold Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Horowitz’s parents were Communists of the Soviet variety. But David seemed to gravitate to Trotskyism early on, perhaps thought the influence of childhood friend Ron Radosh. Uncles played a big part in both of these men’s political histories.

Horowitz’s mother’s younger brother, Harold, a musician, was fan of Trotsky. Horowitz later went on to work as an “assistant” to Bertrand Russell and then as an editor of Ramparts, a backer of the magazine was Mary Peretz) on whose staff was also another Trotskyist, Alexander Cockburn. It’s a small world.

Here is the national review on Radosh (curiously this anecdote is absent from Horowitz’s memoir:

Young Ron’s most important formative influence was his mother’s cousin Jacob Abrams, an anarchist and a legendary figure in American radical history. The subject of a landmark Supreme Court civil-liberties case, Abrams had been deported from the United States for distributing subversive literature. He ended up in Mexico, where he became a fixture in the emigre intellectual community and attempted to help Trotsky defend himself against the conspiracy that would ultimately kill him. After Abrams gave the family a set of plates that had belonged to Trotsky, Radosh used them to serve snacks to his pals in the Stalinist youth movement, who came to include the arch-provocateur David Horowitz-and whose faces paled in horror when they realized which “renegade” hands had once touched them.

Both Horowitz and Radosh ended up as highly paid neo-cons.
Rob Mac Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Still, Ryan, you have to admit that Al actually does have a point. You can wiggle out of it with nuance, but it’s a reasonable point nonetheless. Also, you’re right on at # 16.
Ryan Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
You can wiggle out of it with nuance, but it’s a reasonable point nonetheless.

But what else is nuance for?

Sure, Al has a point, but my point is that the contradiction he highlights is not really much of a contradiction at all if you consider the differences in intent. Intent matters for a lot in evaluating rhetoric morally. Otherwise Jonathan Swift was a would-be genocidaire.
DanG Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I read his essay and he does indeed tell the right to calm down and rachet down their rhetoric. However he really isn’t putting much distance between himself and the loons with this article.

For example, the right should be calmed by the amazing incompetence of the Obama administration – and one of his examples is that the right beat back the “threat” to radio broadcasting. He doesn’t state it was the bogus fear of reinstating the fairness doctrine, but that’s what it is. Quite a victory for them and horrible execution by Obama, wasn’t it?

And did you know the Democrats are now socialist, in the European sense?

That he had a lucid thought is interesting, but let’s not get carried away.
blah Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Al:

Matt says in the prior sentence that the Democrats want to pretend to avoid destruction of the planet while ensuring in practice that it is actually destroyed. Do you think that this statement is also serious, or was it some sort of hyperbole?
fostert Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
When David Horowitz is your voice of reason, you really have a problem. But if Glenn Beck is your voice, I can see why you’d have this problem. When the last sane Republican leaves the party, please turn out the lights. And that means you, Colin Powell.
Ryan Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
That is not apparent to me at all.

Sure it’s not, Al.

Oh, wait, since you’re insensitive to sarcasm, let me rephrase: I DON’T BELIEVE YOU.
Jim Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
“Bush Is Hitler”

Just remember:

anonymous blog commenters on the Left = national cable “news” outlets on the Right.
Tyro Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Maybe I really am more obtuse than others.

isn’t that part of your shtick, though? Saying stuff that’s deliberately obtuse/dishonest in search of attention? And isn’t that the reason a cottage industry grew up over at Washingtonmonthly.com attempting to imitate your shtick to an even more exaggerated degree?
Pete Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Of course, buried in Horowitz’s seemingly restrained “calm down” was a pretty big lie. Once again, he asserts that Obama “wants to shut down talk radio”. Never mind Obama says that he has no interest in reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

It takes stones for Horowitz to appeal for calm while calmly repeating a favorite GOP lie.
Christian Weston Chandler Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Paul Krugman now opposes nationalization! Follow my link to read his latest interview, or go to
http://www.tinyurl.com/krugman-geithner
Harold Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I think Horowitz was always a mole, even in his Panther days. It’s a game with him.
Jeffrey Davis Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Dunno.

Maybe I really am more obtuse than others. It’s just not that clear to me.

Love that “dunno”. Al tugs at his forelock and digs his toe in the dust. Aw, gee, Miss Emma. You shore do know how to make a feller blush.

You consistently make “sounds like” arguments and then get stumped by hyperbole? Weasel.
SLC Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:13 am
Speaking of David Horowitz, his favorite sparring partner, Ward Churchill, just won his case against the Un. of Colorado.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/us/03churchill.html?hp
Aatos Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:31 am
Wow, Horowitz has really gone downhill from the days he deliberately incited protests on college campuses for the express purpose of complaining how impolite the liberals were, or trying to convince African Americans that Republicans really loved them, but just didn’t know how to say it.
vanya Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
In Horowitz’ defense, he has actually known and socialized with African-Americans. I don’t think he’s threatened by a black President the way so many on the right are. I know it’s not fashionable to accuse Obama’s critics on the right of racism, but the fact is most of Obama’s critics on the right are motivated first and foremost by racism. That’s the only explanation that fits the hysterical hyperbole directed against an intelligent thoughtful man who is actually governing from far to close to the center for the liking of most liberals who voted for him.
Rob Mac Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I have not looked into the hearts of all the Republicans who opposed Obama, but there really is absolutely no reason to think the insanity is driven at all by racism. If that is “the only explanation” as vanya says, the what explanation would he offer for the (much much worse) insanity directed against Bill Clinton in the 90s?

Sorry, but mainstream Republicans don’t need to be racist to fight hard and dirty against a Democratic president. That’s just their SOP at this point.
sex shop Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
thanks for all
Ex Girlfiend Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Not that I’m totally impressed, but this is more than I expected for when I found a link on Furl telling that the info is quite decent. Thanks.