Talk:David Horowitz (ex-Marxist)

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

David Horowitz lied about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, claiming that it was unamerican and supported and ratified by Josef Stalin. The truth is that the USSR, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Ukraine and two other countries abstained from the ratification vote in the U.N. General Assembly.

Do you know of a citation showing where Horowitz said this? --Sheldon Rampton 01:30, 27 Aug 2004 (EDT)

I'm not really in a position to make a judgement on whether Horowitz would be generally regarded as a neo con but I'm a little wary of classing all conservative activists in that category (one of the points covered in the SW article on neo-cons). While I understand that Hitchens broke with the left over Iraq/war on terror I'm not persuaded that necessarily makes him a neo-con. I wouldn't claim to have followed all his recent statements but the bits I have heard of him I wouldn't have thought put him in the same league as Wolfowitz, Perle etc. Anyone else have a take on this?--Bob Burton 14:52, 11 Mar 2005 (EST)

but horow calls him a neocon

There is an article by Horo (do a google hitichi+horo) and i believe it was written in 2000 -- where Horo states how far he has come, etc. And then see this: Antidotto

David Horowitz in the Wikipedia: "Horowitz's transition from a left-wing to a right-wing position is said to be shared in common by many other neoconservatives. Horowitz, for his part, strongly rejects the "neoconservative" label."

Raimondo calls Horowitz a neocon

But Raimondo has ideological reasons. He wishes to differentiate between the prowar right and the antiwar right, and it is easier if neocons are dismissed as righty poseurs.

...what about Horowitz's call to jail the antiwar movement? Again, speaking of the anti-war "left,", Horowitz has come out of his closet and is now openly advocating police state measures against those who are actively opposing this war:
"Understand this, and you will understand that people who use the language of war need to be isolated and regarded with care. Understand this, and you will understand that those who describe America as Hitler Germany can be dangerous, and need to be watched."
Isolated -- in what sense? Horowitz is, I believe, deliberately ambiguous: he's speaking in code, but the real meaning of his weasel words is clear to his increasingly frenzied followers, and ought to be clear to everyone else by now: the man longs to lock up his political opponents. There can be no doubt, in any case, that he wants the antiwar movement and the Left in general to be "watched" -- by state agencies.
Old Commies never change -- although they sometimes shift their allegiances, their authoritarian style rarely follows suit.
What really needs to be watched, however, is a "conservative" movement that is fast morphing into the closest thing to American fascism we have yet seen. Aren't there any princpled old-fashioned conservatives out there -- you know, the type who believe in limited government -- willing to put the neo-authoritarians in their place?
"Justin Raimondo, Horowitz's Road to Fascism", Antiwar dot com, Jul 11, 2005

In Raimondo's defense, he is not denying neocons place within conservatism. He is making the distinction between contemporary conservatism and classical conservatism. A distinction I have been more than happy to point out recently; but I also have ideological reasons...a will to fracture the myth:

The Big Circus Tent of Republican Inclusiveness.

--Hugh Manatee 10:43, 15 Jul 2005 (EDT)