Re: [sixties-l] "Stalinist"? -- To David Horowitz

From: David Horowitz (
Date: 09/29/00

  • Next message: "[sixties-l] missing country joe"

    I will ignore the insults in this letter to state clearly my intentions. I
    joined this list to find out what people are thinking. I have spent twenty
    years trying to engage the left in serious discussion of who we were and what
    we did, beginning with an article that appeared in the Nation in 1979 that I
    had called "Left Illusions" and the Nation retitled "A Radical's
    Disenchantment." My autobiography Radical Son is full of serious argument with
    the left (and, to be sure, a few polemics with those who have personally
    attacked me). In these years I have found a few (but very few) leftists
    willing to discuss these matters soberly and respectfully. Ninety-percent of
    my experience is that when I raise an issue I am vicious and personally
    attacked, and then when I respond in kind (I am not about to be intimidated by
    such tactics), the other side suddenly becomes the "victim" of my "abuse." I
    think anyone reading the exchanges on this thread will see that I generally if
    not always wait for the attack and respond in kind, that whenever someone
    addresses an issue in a serious manner, I am prepared to respond in kind as
    well. I invite you or anyone else to pick issue. Ask a question for example.
    That would a civil way of beginning. But I'm not holding my breath.
    John Campbell McMillian wrote:
    > Colleagues,
    > Once again, you've played into the hands of Horowitz and (surprise!)
    > nothing terribly useful or productive has come out of it.  Let
    > me ask you all this: why do you think Horowitz is on this list?
    > To learn something about the 1960s?  To promote some of the ideals of the
    > 1960's, including tolerance, civil rights, particpatory democracy,
    > civic initiative, and the liberalization of American culture?   To examine
    > the historiography of the period?  To draw attention to the latest
    > scholarly resources for studying the 1960's?
    > No, no, no and no.  He's here to cause trouble, inflame passions,
    > and whine and complain to a captive audience.  And - I'm sorry to say it
    > again - there's still way too many people on this list who are revealing
    > themselves as suckers for  playing right into his hands.  Can we please
    > all follow Marty's lead, and let his posts pass without comment. (Or - if
    > you get slandered or insulted or mis-represented by Horowitz, take solace
    > in the fact that almost no one here takes him seriously, and get on with
    > our lives?)
    > It's perfectly clear by now that Horowitz has all the emotional maturity
    > of a grade-school bully, but I'm sure if we all ignore him for long
    > enough, he'll go away.
    > Best,
    > John McMillian

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 09/29/00 EDT