I must confess that until mid-April 2003, the only Horowitz
that quickly came to mind for me was the notable Russian pianist . . . then
dead for 14 years. And his name was Vladimir, definitely not David. But it was
an email from one of the many pro-war critics who�d read my assiduous
denunciation of Iraq�s invasion and occupation that invited me in sarcastic
tones to click on a cyber address (Front Page Magazine) to something which �a
David Horowitz� had written.
�Baghdad is liberated. In the days to come let us not
forget that if it were not for one man, and one man alone -- George Bush -- the
people of Iraq would not be celebrating in the streets and pulling down
Saddam�s statues today,� the
piece read. That and a whole other accompanying trash one would expect from Ann
Coulter doing her littering catwalk, or any graduates of her political modeling
agency. So I quickly dismissed it . . . but only until Christmas that year when
an ultraconservative client gifted me a copy of �Left Illusions: An
Intellectual Odyssey,� authored by none other than David Horowitz. This
Horowitz had catapulted from a Marxist-Maoist position in the '60s and early
'70s, all 180 degrees to a full-fledged neocon; the type of American political
dream story that brings a smile to our politicians� faces, and warms the hearts
of America�s body politic.
David Horowitz found out, after an evolutionary internal
political hiatus, that writing on behalf of American capitalism, no matter how
predatory or unjust it proves to be, is far more economically rewarding than
penning for those foolish ideals he had espoused while at UC Berkeley and the
�unenlightened� decade that followed. Now all he has to do is turn the silk
lining of his old coat and let the smoothness of the new acquired faith shine
through, taking on anything that smacks of the Left, or anarcho-syndicalism in
the image of Chomsky, or American blacks who might complain, or what he calls Radical
Islam on the book cover and Islamo-Fascism in the text, or his ongoing fight
against that entrenched Left in academe warring against his idea of academic
Although I don�t find Horowitz� mini-tirades intellectually
stimulating, and definitely not challengingly adversarial, I do take a weekly
peek at the choreographed war-dance that takes place at frontpagemag.com against us folks who have
been ridiculously and merciless branded as America-haters. After all, 2 million
daily website visits places this pulpit of neoconservatism at a worldwide rank
approaching the 50,000th high-traffic mark among 100-plus million websites.
And, had you been visiting the site during the past two years, you would have
found his personal blogs directed in great part towards the misgivings of the
Left in academe. But heck, that�s to be expected, for what better way to
promote his last two books, both dealing with treasonous professors of the Left
and his alert virtuosity in the defense of academic freedom, than a reminder of
those very dangerous professors led by William Ayers (University of Illinois,
Chicago), Peter McLaren (UCLA) or any of the other 101 red-spotted
In Saturday�s blog, Horowitz decries the invitation by the
�intellectually corrupt� Department of Romance Languages at Cornell of �lvaro
Garcia Linera, vice president of Bolivia and �God-forgive-us,� a socialist. A
non literary-lecture on �Marxism and Indianism� scheduled for September 3 is too
racist and fascistic for Mr. Horowitz, who constantly reminds us he�s an
advocate for intellectual diversity. Such self-claimed advocacy would indeed be
hilariously funny, if it weren�t so pungently obscene.
The most striking part of this convert to Righteousness is
precisely that advocacy to what he proclaims as the mission of America�s
elementary and secondary schools �to serve American pluralism: to educate a
community of citizens who disagree with each other into a common culture of
tolerance and respect.� As wonderful as that may sound, it�s important to bear
in mind that diversity and pluralism for David Horowitz operate in a political
spectrum of just 90 degrees, from the right to the extreme right; all contained
in a Right angle of social irresponsibility and lack of social justice.
Whether David Horowitz accepts it or not, present day
society is highly unjust not just in the Third World, but all throughout much
of the globe, including the US . . . and that the free market, which is by no
means free, will not bring social justice, nor will the promotion of
philanthropy and charity bring equity and elevate humankind towards ever higher
degrees of equality and the adherence to a universal concept of human rights.
There are several paths to social justice, but Horowitz�s
choice of singular pluralism is not one of them. At least those professors on
the Left he speaks ill of have one of the paths that might get us there . . . if
not the only path.
David Horowitz needs to retranslate �e pluribus unum� and
relearn what pluralism is.
� 2007 Ben Tanosborn
Tanosborn, columnist, poet and writer, resides in Vancouver, Washington (USA),
where he is principal of a business consulting firm. Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org.