David Horowitz, the ex-Communist turned neoconservative, has decided to take on “the thankless task of keeping conservatives from behaving like liberals, acting like unpatriotic sore losers and attacking the legitimacy of the new commander-in-chief.” First, he decides to offer conclusive evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was not responsible for the current financial crisis. And what evidence is this? A report issued by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which claims that the CRA had nothing to do with the crisis and that what we need to do now is to find more “areas of cooperation between government and the private sector” to effectively combat poverty! Of course, for the federal government statist regulations are never the problem, so it should be no surprise that this report attempts to exonerate Washington. But Horowitz blithely offers it up, as if this is all that needs to be said to definitively end the debate.
Next, he denounces a “fringe group of conservatives” who are contesting whether Obama is a legitimate US citizen and thus able to become president. Never does Horowitz analyzes their arguments. He just dismisses the issue as a “technicality” (read: a constitutional prohibition) and calls those who advance it “seditious” and “unhinged.” He goes on to state that these claims are “quite radical” because they seek to invalidate an electoral process that is the “bulwark of our unity as a nation.” But what if the process elected someone who is constitutionally prohibited from becoming president? Isn’t the Constitution also a “bulwark of our unity?”
I met David Horowitz last year when he came to Emory. He was kind and good-natured and I have nothing against him as a person. But articles like these are emblematic of a broader mindset, one ingrained in most neocons: that the state, or its metaphysical embodiment “the people,” is always right and only a traitor would think otherwise.Published in