Re: [sixties-l] a plea

From: monkerud (
Date: Wed Jun 14 2000 - 06:18:56 CUT

  • Next message: "[sixties-l] Re: misuse of list"

    Yes, my mind is made up, thanks. Little to be gained from yelling or being
    yelled at. Anyone who didn't know the facts were distant from them or had
    their heads in the clouds. I haven't seen anything to come out of the
    exchange from a person considered a "turncoat" to the movement. Reminds me
    of those who named names ... why put them down now, after all these years,
    my friends ask. I recalled when DH and other of his friends backed Ronald
    Reagan ... if that isn't turning out ideas on their head, I don't know what

    Do I want to debate and get listenings from Danny Quayle? No. Especially if
    he sounded to me like he was grining an ax. Beating a dead horse, you may
    have heard of these terms.

    There's discussion and argumentation and flaming and destructiveness.
    Actually we all should be signing up on the right wing web sites and list
    servs and taking others like DH on. They are all over the Internet while
    our voice is barely heard. Let's raise it against those we oppose, not some
    wolf in lamb's clothing who appears to ony want to disrupt.

    (And now we get another account of guilt from a death that DH perhaps feels
    responsible for... feel sorry for him, despite my mind being already made

    best, Don

    >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 be
    >> 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 gained
    >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 you
    >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 second
    >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 would
    >seem odd to blame him for this state of affairs. So while I think it would
    >be sad to lose members who feel frustrated by Horowitz's presence, the fact
    >that they may exit should have no bearing on the continued need for the free
    >exchange of ideas.
    >I've read a lot of Horowitz from Ramparts to Radical Son. While there is no
    >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 - 06:07:54 CUT