It's not Mr. Horowitz or any other individual it is the use of name calling
and disparaging remarks that should be rejected.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey Apfel <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [sixties-l] a plea
> Ted Morgan wrote:
> > List folks should realize
> > there's no real enlightenment to be gained by an "exchange" with David
> > Horowitz on this one [snip] If necessary, perhaps the moderator could
> > a little
> > more pro-active in screening ad hominem attacks, at an earlier point in
> > the discussion.
> I don't understand what you mean that no real enlightenment is to be
> by an exchange with Horowitz on this point. It seems tantamount to saying
> that everyone's mind is made up and that is that. To my mind, the list is
> valuable for precisely the reason that it creates a forum for different
> takes, sometimes wildly different takes, on the era. No historical period
> is so singular and unique--no matter how it "felt" at the time--that new
> insights cannot be gained from sincere interchanges with those with whom
> have profound disagreements.
> David crossed the line with one of his comments using the word "dumb", but
> later semi-apologized for it and agreed to abide by the moderator's rules.
> I think on balance he has done so. Taking issue with "the left", which is
> admittedly his stock in trade, is not an ad hominem attack and ought to be
> debated as what it is: a considered opinion from someone who has had
> If you read the postings over the last few days, you will find a lot more
> heat emanating from Horowitz's critics than from Horowitz himself. It
> seem odd to blame him for this state of affairs. So while I think it
> be sad to lose members who feel frustrated by Horowitz's presence, the
> that they may exit should have no bearing on the continued need for the
> exchange of ideas.
> I've read a lot of Horowitz from Ramparts to Radical Son. While there is
> doubt that he is a skilled polemicist, and can be brutal outside the
> confines of this listserv, that has no bearing here. Plus, while I never
> personally felt the need to ditch Marx for Hayek (never being a Marxist in
> the first instance, I suppose), I find many of his criticisms on point. I
> could be wrong about them being on point, of course, but that is why the
> dialogue is so valuable and needs to continue. If people throttle the
> dialogue, they'll only be underscoring David's point about the left, and
> I'll be left to ponder what that means.
> Jeff Apfel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 14 2000 - 01:23:19 CUT