Rating: 
Summary: Horowitz gives a description of a political psychosis
Review: Much of the detailed points about this book have already been made. So I'll keep it short.One of the symtoms of a psychosis is detachment from reality. This has been the case of the Left at least since 1917. In more mundane terms, we have the popular definistion of insanity as trying exactly the same thing that didn't work a dozen times before and expecting a different result. Horowitz exposes how the Left hides and denies its flaws, failures, catastrophes, crimes, and criminal associations (Black Panthers) all in the false hope of advancing their utopian vision. He illustrates continual denials by the Left of of solutions for situations that would be absolute no-brainers for a neutral observer (AIDS in the early 80s). In other words, he shows how the members of the Left have produced a mountain of corpses and then waved bloody hands about while denying their responsibility.
Rating:
Summary: New Insight into the Leftist Mindset
Review: Observing the catastrophic misdeeds and failures of the revolutionary left from Robespierre's time to the present, former left-wing activist David Horowitz reflects, "One might conclude from these facts that the Left is now no more than a historical curiosity, and the intellectual tradition that sustained it for two hundred years is at an end. But if history were a rational process, mankind would have learned these lessons long ago, and rejected the socialist fallacies that have caused such epic grief." Instead, what exists in many arenas in American life today is the wolf of radical leftism in sheep's clothing, now calling itself "liberal" or "progressive" or "populist" or anything other than what it actually is. Horowitz reveals that in the past twenty years the hard left has come to permeate academia, government bureaucracy, and the Democratic Party. Far from being a "historical curiosity," the radical left is alive and well, travelling incognito. Horowitz gives a marvelous example of its tenacity in discussing the "liberal" reaction to the recent passage of the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). CCRI officially bars racial discrimination in public employment, education, and contracting. In so doing, it effectively outlaws affirmative action. The ACLU and NAACP went to court to have CCRI declared unconstitutional. Ironically, these groups argued that CCRI - a law banning discrimination - was discriminatory. The paradox begins to make sense once one recognizes that the ACLU, the NAACP, and American "liberals" in general no longer hold that the concept of equality means equality before the law and equality of opportunity. To them, as to the Bolsheviks and Stalinists who went before, equality means equality of outcome. With an Orwellian wink, the "liberal" opponents of CCRI are really saying they want to force California to discriminate in order to end discrimination, in the interest of racial justice. In an especially perceptive section, Horowitz examines the left's view of the right, and vice versa. People on the left often ask themselves how anyone can not be progressive and not be concerned with social justice and their attempts to better the world. Leftists conclude it is because "their conservative opponents are prisoners of a false consciousness that prevents them from recognizing human possibility . . . opposition to progressive agendas grows naturally from human selfishness, myopia and greed." People on the right look back at the leftists and ask, "How is it possible for progressives to remain so blind to the grim realities their efforts have produced. How can they overlook the crimes they have committed against the poor and oppressed they set out to defend?" Horowitz suggests that this conflict of visions is rooted in a simple difference: the right attempts desperately to understand the left, but the left makes no comparable effort to understand the right. Indeed, it acts - in bad faith - to ignore and suppress scholarship and opinions that are critical of the left's ideology and historical legacy. Names such as von Mises, Hayek, Kirk, Sowell, Kristol, and Strauss are virtually unknown to the left and are systematically omitted from university curricula. In contrast, names like Marx, Heidegger, Galbraith, Chomsky, Foucault and other leftist intellectuals, while not household terms, are certainly familiar to the educated conservative. Some people may wonder, why did Horowitz become a conservative, that is, why did he go from one political extreme to the other? In answer, Horowitz would probably deny that his brand of conservatism is "extreme" in any meaningful sense of that term. Essentially, Horowitz became a man of the right because conservatives adhere to two core principles -- the free market and limited government -- which history has vindicated as superior to socialist economic planning and Leviathan state power. Having been raised to believe that the path to communism led to justice, peace and plenty, Horowitz was a leftist. A lifelong process of learning made him a conservative. The Politics of Bad Faith is a memorable exploration into the reasons behind that transformation.
Rating:
Summary: New Insight into the Leftist Mindset
Review: Observing the catastrophic misdeeds and failures of the revolutionary left from Robespierre's time to the present, former left-wing activist David Horowitz reflects, "One might conclude from these facts that the Left is now no more than a historical curiosity, and the intellectual tradition that sustained it for two hundred years is at an end. But if history were a rational process, mankind would have learned these lessons long ago, and rejected the socialist fallacies that have caused such epic grief." Instead, what exists in many arenas in American life today is the wolf of radical leftism in sheep's clothing, now calling itself "liberal" or "progressive" or "populist" or anything other than what it actually is. Horowitz reveals that in the past twenty years the hard left has come to permeate academia, government bureaucracy, and the Democratic Party. Far from being a "historical curiosity," the radical left is alive and well, travelling incognito. Horowitz gives a marvelous example of its tenacity in discussing the "liberal" reaction to the recent passage of the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). CCRI officially bars racial discrimination in public employment, education, and contracting. In so doing, it effectively outlaws affirmative action. The ACLU and NAACP went to court to have CCRI declared unconstitutional. Ironically, these groups argued that CCRI - a law banning discrimination - was discriminatory. The paradox begins to make sense once one recognizes that the ACLU, the NAACP, and American "liberals" in general no longer hold that the concept of equality means equality before the law and equality of opportunity. To them, as to the Bolsheviks and Stalinists who went before, equality means equality of outcome. With an Orwellian wink, the "liberal" opponents of CCRI are really saying they want to force California to discriminate in order to end discrimination, in the interest of racial justice. In an especially perceptive section, Horowitz examines the left's view of the right, and vice versa. People on the left often ask themselves how anyone can not be progressive and not be concerned with social justice and their attempts to better the world. Leftists conclude it is because "their conservative opponents are prisoners of a false consciousness that prevents them from recognizing human possibility . . . opposition to progressive agendas grows naturally from human selfishness, myopia and greed." People on the right look back at the leftists and ask, "How is it possible for progressives to remain so blind to the grim realities their efforts have produced. How can they overlook the crimes they have committed against the poor and oppressed they set out to defend?" Horowitz suggests that this conflict of visions is rooted in a simple difference: the right attempts desperately to understand the left, but the left makes no comparable effort to understand the right. Indeed, it acts - in bad faith - to ignore and suppress scholarship and opinions that are critical of the left's ideology and historical legacy. Names such as von Mises, Hayek, Kirk, Sowell, Kristol, and Strauss are virtually unknown to the left and are systematically omitted from university curricula. In contrast, names like Marx, Heidegger, Galbraith, Chomsky, Foucault and other leftist intellectuals, while not household terms, are certainly familiar to the educated conservative. Some people may wonder, why did Horowitz become a conservative, that is, why did he go from one political extreme to the other? In answer, Horowitz would probably deny that his brand of conservatism is "extreme" in any meaningful sense of that term. Essentially, Horowitz became a man of the right because conservatives adhere to two core principles -- the free market and limited government -- which history has vindicated as superior to socialist economic planning and Leviathan state power. Having been raised to believe that the path to communism led to justice, peace and plenty, Horowitz was a leftist. A lifelong process of learning made him a conservative. The Politics of Bad Faith is a memorable exploration into the reasons behind that transformation.
Rating: 
Summary: America's Future Denied
Review: One of the United States' many cultural factions is the one Horowitz represents so well - those who would like nothing better than to turn the clock back to that wonderful time in U.S. history when minorites "knew their place" and women were (supposedly) content to tend "home and hearth" while the dominant white male "hunted and gathered" in the U.S. economic marketplace. If the U.S. is to be the open-minded, multicultural attempt at political paradise many of us on the "radical left" would like it to be then there must be room for toleration of Horowitz' viewpoints expressed in this book and the author's right to express them. I would venture that the author of "The Politics of Bad Faith" would not extend the same courtesy to dissenters from his viewpoint - that would negate the premises he argues in this book - but I would advise those who wish to keep abreast of the great variety of political thought in America to read this book (a cheaper solution might be to listen to the Rush Limbaugh show on radio).
Rating: 
Summary: A Very Interesting Book Though Difficult at Times
Review: The book is an indictment of Socialists/Marxists, especially academic types who seem to caught up more in rhetoric than in reality, and who will not any responsibility in examining the fruition of their ideas in the old U.S.S.R, N. Korea, Cuba, etc.. There is also a chapter indicting the gay activist lobby for actively preventing the education, laws, etc.. that could have greatly reduced the spread of A.I.D.S and other S.T.Ds. This is, in my opinion, the best written chapter in the book. It is a scathing, but well-argued, piece. I found some of the chapters hard to follow, especially the ones where a lot of knowledge is assumed about the philosophy of various left-wing types in the 1940s, 1950s, etc.. The chapter dealing with the religious roots of Jewish socialism, I think, doesn't quite seem to fit in with the topic and isn't that convincing. Also, the author doesn't deal with the fact that the socialists are now using countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands as their model. In any case, this is a great book.
Rating:
Summary: This is great reading....
Review: The letters in the center of the book are some of the best thought out repudiations of leftist thought. I note that those on the left consistently rate this book poorly, which just goes to prove one of Horowitze's central thoughts--those who don't agree with the left are simply nonpeople. The connections to the religious at the end are very useful as well.
Rating:
Summary: The Cold War Goes On?
Review: The most important thing that can be said about this book is that it is correct about everything, i.e., communism and the extreme left seem weird or stupid after the failure and collapse of The Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba etc. Mr. Horowitz seems concerned though that small and perhaps influential pockets of communists still remain(particularly in colleges and universities) and so he wages a noble cold war against the last of a dying breed. While one has to wish Mr. Horowitz well in his campaign for which he is so brilliantly suited one also has to wonder if he shouldn't turn his passion more to the more current enemies on the left, namely, the Democrats. After all, most of us do seem to understand that big gov't communism/socialism is bad but sadly less than a majority seem to understand that big gov't Democracy that brings us Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and, almost, Hilarycare, is very bad too. Today the Democrats are the left, and yes they do threaten to morph into socialist and communists but still it seems wiser to fight the enemy that is rather than the enemy that was. So, while you do have to love and support Mr. Horowitz, more targeted,and perhaps more relevant, books might be: Capitalism and Freedom, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and, Understanding The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans.
Rating:
Summary: Another Horowitz Winner!
Review: This already interesting read is made even greater by the conclusive chapter on Gays/AIDS/bathouses. Very close to "Radical Son" as one of the great political books of this decade.
Rating:
Summary: Marxism understood
Review: This book did not just illuminate my mind, but touched my soul. An excellent writer like Horowitz can move those of us who are destined to ponder, (and are sometimes plagued by), the great questions of good, evil, Man, God, religions, philosophies, and their effects, to new dimensions of consciousness. I myself have never been attracted to Marxism, and could never understand anyone who was. To me, it never made any sense, seemed self-evidently repulsive, morally abhorrent, and opposed to everything in which I believed, having been raised on the Bible and then reading Ayn Rand. Until now, I never understood the minds of those who by Marxism's illusions are seduced, nor the heart of its core beliefs. I now know how radicals think, and have a deeper understanding of the other side, rather than a mere instinctive recoil. That my instincts have been right, will come as no surprise to conservatives and many moderately minded people, but will be denied by hard core liberals, which is one of Horowitz's central points: "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Liberals today still deny, obfuscate, distort, and twist their own perceptions in order to revive the socialist dream, even after the Nazi, Soviet, and worldwide Marxist disasters of the past two centuries. That the very ideas of socialism are malevolent, and responsible for the atrocities, not merely the failures of the implementers, is what Horowitz wants to stress. Those who predicted the obtained results long before they happened were not listened to--von Mises, Hayek, others. Outrageously, these and other classical thinkers(Smith, Friedman) are not required as part of college curriculums, but the Marxists, de Man, Gramsci, Foucoult, and their ilk rule in liberal arts departments. Why? Horowitz explains that if intellectuals were not blinded by their mystical, ego-bound delusions that they are the messiahs of the world, they would have recognized, not just the unpragmatism of socialism, but the evil of it long ago. There can never be equality of condition, even in a totalitarian state, because the equalizers must necessarily be exalted above the equalized, and pointing a gun, all the way. It was an Evil Empire! Anyway, Horowitz tells a particularly insightful story, having grown up as the child of disaffected Jews who became "revolutionary internationalists", living in New York. One not insignificant moment in his life was realizing the emptiness and emotional void at his father's funeral, which was attended by a handful of long time "comrades," who hardly knew him as a man at all, only as a Communist. In telling the story of his own conversion from radicalism, Horowitz goes deep into the minds and beliefs of those with whom he used to share the Marxist dream. I personally thought the chapter on the religious roots of socialism particularly fascinating. One cannot talk about the Left and the origins of their ideology,(it is still Marxist socialism, masquerading under the benign-sounding names of "progressivism", "liberalism," "feminism", "egalitarianism") without also talking about Judaism, non-Jewish Jews, and "exile." Rabbi Daniel Lapin's book, "America's Real War," also helps illuminate the Left today. I found Horowitz's chapter on what really happened when the AIDS epidemic hit particularly reavealing. It was another shocking example of how saving "the revolution" was more important to liberals than saving lives.
Rating:
Summary: should be mandatory reading for all college students
Review: This book gives an excellent historical perspective of the fall of communism. It also provides good documentation of the leftist slant in higher education today. Von Mises and Hayek, who predicted precisely the inevitable totalitarian results of communism, are invisible, while the pitiful, discredited hacks who championed communism are required reading. The book is somewhat repetitive, but one could argue that the main points need repetition, and Horowitz repeats them with style. I just wish he had focused a bit more on the less drastic forms of socialism.
|
