Home | Forums | Articles
Democratic Underground
 

Click here to donate to Democratic Underground

In Association with Amazon.com
Visit the DU Bookstore!

DemocraticUnderground.com

 

The Horowitz Hypocrisy
April 26, 2001
by Suze

Tell a friend about this article Tell a friend about this article

I read David Horowitz's response in Salon magazine explaining why he wasn't paying his bill to Princeton for running his reparations ad. It might be interesting to know how/why Horowitz got fixated on the reparations issue as it seems he's the only one in the world talking about it. It seems odd that he would take a position against something no one else is advancing or advocating. Additionally, his position does not come from a scholarly article which has now entered public discourse but rather from an advertisement placed in several college newspapers. Horowitz has told us how many colleges refused the ad (39) but not how many ran it so we don't know how much "public discourse" he was able to "purchase."

Even though he agreed to pay for the ad as a condition of the Princeton paper running it, he decided after the ad ran not to honor his obligation. So that solves the question of who underwrote this endeavor to heighten a cultural divide over an issue that is non-existent. We don't need to wonder if Scaife is behind this one as Horowitz is apparently stiffing them.

In his Salon article Horowitz is offended by being called a racist. He was called that long before the ad was placed. In an effort to understand if the charge was true I read reviews of his books and other articles by him. Just look at one of his "arguments" against reparations: that blacks are playing the victim card, which Horowitz apparently thinks belongs exclusively to conservatives.

His article in Salon argues his position that conservatives on college campuses are the victims of the bullies on the left who want to silence them. It's so odd to read an article by Horowitz and realize that everything he says about "us" I have said about "them." Which is why it was so easy for Horowitz to switch sides. Both sides engage in rhetoric for shock value in an attempt to make a point. At the edges the rhetoric is the same, only the names are changed. I could never understand why they hated Clinton so much. Until the recount. Then I found myself hating Bush that much.

It was interesting today to read the latest debate involving Horowitz. Seems Paul Weyrich wrote an Easter article blaming the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. It offended my sensibilities and sounded a bit like Horowitz, raking up some non-issue sure to divide us for no apparent reason and with no apparent solution short of the one dreamed up by Hitler. I don't have a horse in this race, being neither Christian nor Jewish, so my take is not colored by my religious beliefs.

Then it seems Evan Gahr, a conservative commentator, wrote a response to Weyrich on the American Spectator web site arguing that Weyrich was an anti-Semite and that talk about Jews killing Jesus is inflammatory and dangerous. Gahr sent his article to Horowitz's publication, FrontPage Magazine where he is a regular contributor. It was rejected. The managing editor denies that there is a double standard when it comes to publishing criticism of conservatives like Weyrich.

So the new lesson is if the public just won't talk about your boogie men, make them talk by buying offensive ads in college newspapers (it was not lost on me that he didn't want this boogie man unleashed to the world at large by buying ad space in newspapers of general distribution). Then, when the newspapers say "this is racist" or "this is a non-issue" you can throw a tantrum, accuse them of censorship, and play the victim while you accuse them of playing the victim.

Yes. It truly is as silly as it sounds. Horowitz is free to stifle opposing points of view in his magazine, but he accuses others of censorship when they dare to disagree with him.

While I agree with Salon's apparent position that Horowitz should not be censored, we've seen enough of him now to know he should not be taken seriously. He's engaging in street theater for shock value. Unfortunately, like Rush, there are some conservatives out there who might take him seriously. The danger is that conservatives are generally losers who want to blame someone else for the fact that their Daddy didn't set them up in a business that would make them a millionaire so they could run for president and be adored. They will blame blacks. Or women. Or Jews. Horowitz might have the brain power to think through that, but the proliferation of hate in our society shows that others don't.

Discuss this article
Tell a friend about this article Tell a friend about this article
 
Want to write for Democratic Underground? Click here.

View All Articles

 
© 2001 - 2004 Democratic Underground, LLC
 

Important Notice: Articles published on the Democratic Underground website are the opinions of the individuals who write them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC