Getting Some Business Out of the Way, or The (Much) Shorter Version of What Happened Last Night
- No pies.†
- No streaking.
- Lots of heckling and a few protest signs.
- Horowitz did not convince me of the necessity for a Hoosier Academic Bill of Rights (HABR).
The Longer Version, In Which I Realize that Horowitz is a Depressing & Irrelevant Individual
Fellow Feministers, please don’t regret that you missed the Horowitz lecture, unless of course you were in the mood for some neoconservative political theatre. Please read on to experience vicarious cringing, laughter, and sadness.
I left my office about forty minutes before the show was scheduled to start. I got there in time to take a look around the IU Auditorium, went out for a smoke, chatted with the protesters (who didn’t seem all that talkative and weren’t nearly as cute as Horowitz seemed to think they were), and finally took my seat. Glancing around the gathering crowd I couldn’t help but notice the large senior contingent; what do I know? Maybe they felt, at 60+ years old, that the prof in their continuing education elective looks just a bit too French for their tastes.
I should have known something was up when a couple anemic campus conservatives strolled up to the podium. (At least “anemic” when compared to Horowitz, but more on that later.) The first one to speak, My Gov. Mitch’s spawnnette, said, “Please be respectful while Mr. Horowitz is speaking.” I found this funny, because every rational person, and even a few of the irrational ones, knew what was going to happen.
As soon as Horowitz was visible, he started reveling in his victimhood. “There is a campaign against me [by] campus fascists,” was one of the first things he told the crowd after much hoo-hawing and boo-bahing. I found this slightly ironic when he followed it up by saying, “I want these people removed if they don’t shut up,” pointing to the Iraq War opposition group that had set up shop at the rear of the audience.
I can understand Horowitz’s concern. All those pies and streakers; it does point to a “wave of violence on college campuses.” Well no, actually, it doesn’t. You must realize that there is no “top” to “go over” when you’re Li’l Davy; the theatrics are in full bloom constantly. Evidence only gets in the way of the entertainment, and facts hardly ever bring applause and dopamine-releasing agreement, anyway. What does bring applause apparently is ordering the security guys around: “Arrest anyone who opens their mouth; take their name and give it to the Dean.” Then some words about suspension, or something, I was too busy cracking up at this point to care.
So this gave him a nice segue into his explanation as to why the Modern Left is fascistic.‡ Since the whole lecture went downhill from here, I’ll just share some of my favorite quotes, organized by topic. Those statements that are paraphrased are presented in italics.
- Horowitz on the IU Blacklist. There is a blacklist at this school. There are no visible conservatives. Universities should be more like FOX News.
Then, when called on it during the Q&A, he tacitly recanted: “The blacklist is not a list of names.” He went on to describe how it is a set of ideas. I initially considered the charge of blacklisting conservative academics to be a slander against the university, but I’m not so sure because it was such a blatantly obtuse thing to say. Horowitz displayed a beautiful ignorance about Indiana University – especially when he tried to guess the number of professors. On top of that, he didn’t cite a single case within Indiana to support the HABR, which is fundamentally an issue for this state.
- Horowitz on Our Failing Public Schools. It’s the Left’s fault that over half of the students in schools serving large urban areas drop out. The schools are run by the teacher’s unions, and the party that supports them is a racist party.
I’m going to need some of you educators to chime in on this one: “Teacher’s unions are run by Socialists. [Groaning in the back of the crowd.] They absolutely are.”
- Horowitz on Liberals. Horowitz refuses to call those on the left side of the aisle “liberals”. Instead he prefers the following terms of endearment: leftists, fascists, national socialists, racists, Democrats.
And in a reference to this Lenin title, Horowitz remarked, “Progressivism is an infantile disorder.”
- Horowitz on What Real Liberals Are Like. “Lieberman.”
- Horowitz on Homosexual Activism. “I am the most vocal conservative defending homosexuals.”
- Horowitz on Lookism. Horowitz actually went on a raving tangent that had nothing to do with Iraq! This one was on what he sees as a new form of contrived discrimination: lookism.
He debunked the existence of such a thing by presenting the counterexamples Oprah Winfrey (who “has a weight problem”, but is “the richest woman in the country”) and Michael Jackson (“a strange human being”; “[you] don’t know if he’s white or black”).
I’m not sure how this fits into his lecture on academic freedom. Perhaps he’s arguing that mainstream concerns for discrimination are misappropriated. I agree, there is little talk of women’s rights, worker’s rights, etc. on television, unless there’s one of those big frivilous lawsuits where a poor widdle corporation has to pay millions for screwing people over.
During the whole lookism tirade, I couldn’t help but think that he has some self-loathing in the looks department. Sure, he’s jolly and made those conservakids who introduced him look like little sticks, but he’s not a disgusting looking person. Taking the lecture as a whole, I know he’s kicking around some ugly thoughts in his brain. I’m guessing, from the mean-spiritedness coming out of him, that Horowitz will live into his late nineties, after finally achieving the status of Most Hateful Grandpa in the Universe.
- Horowitz on Marxism. Marxists have never created wealth, because they don’t know how. All they do is redistribute the wealth created by Capitalists.
Recall that Horowitz is a Marxist scholar, and claims that academic freedom is close to his heart because of the criticism he received as a leftist university student. I contacted my friend Ed Nelson, an expert in Marxist theory, and here is an abridged version of his reply:
Horowitz is a fool. Marx, and the people who agree with his views generally never claimed that “Marxists” create wealth, any more than Adam Smith claimed that “Adam Smith-ians” create wealth.
Marxists don’t generally use the word “wealth” but the more accurate term “new-value”. The source of all new-value comes from only two sources; 1) nature; 2) human labor power acting on nature. A capitalist can invest until the cows come home, but at some point, labor must create new-value, or there is nothing to invest in. Folks like Horowitz, who know better, try to confuse profits, wealth acquired from capitalist exploitation of the working class, with new-value created by labor in general.
Ed also pointed me to some sites that address the concepts of wealth and surplus value in Marxist theory.
Finally, I’d like to make a few suggestions and observations that came out of my experience last night. Horowitz is not a racist; he’s a racial fetishist. There’s a difference.
A modest proposal to campus liberals: Instead of searching for a lefty speaker to spout the analogous radicalism that Horowitz did, let’s urge the Union Board to give the same amount of money that Horowitz received, including travel costs, to UNICEF or Doctors Without Borders.
When countering him, don’t treat David like Ann Coulter. Make your protests silent, and fill up whatever venue he’s in with like-minded people. Chanting at him only feeds his ego-driven belief that he’s the victim of some Socialist cabal. Be polite and leave when the performance is over.
If you’re so inclined, bring him flowers and offer him a hug. I think he needs it.
†Please note that I left after Horowitz announced he would only take four more questions. I was not afforded the pleasure of being one of those four brave souls. Therefore, nothing here reflects any of the long-winded, substance-free answers Mr. Horowitz bestowed upon the crowd of approximately 500 people (a leftist estimate).
‡Note to conservatives: If you perpetuate this myth that somehow Americans who voted for Kerry are fascists, you will continue to alienate your peers and embolden liberals.
Similar Posts:
- Ripping Off Jill by piny June 21, 2006
- Now Where Did I Put Those Binder Clips…? by piny April 21, 2006
It’s so telling that the person who thinks there is some kind of leftist indoctrination going on in universities also has these idiotic, absurd radical right wing beliefs. He wants radical right wing fanaticism to have an “equal” place at universities with reasonable ideas that are supported by evidence. that’s his idea of balance – just flood the universities with lunatic fringers.
Universities should be more like FOX News.
i’m not sure if you’re saying he said this or if you’re making a point, but yes, that’s what he wants. he wants universities to be full of people like him, and like Fox, who spread righty propaganda without concern for truth.
teachers unions are run by socialists
so we’re back to red baiting, are we? it’s convenient to accuse union leaders of being “socialists” when you are trying to destroy union power.
my governor (i live in california) is calling teachers, nurses, firefighters (etc) “special interests” because they have unions, and the unions have power. unions do give money to democrats, that’s one part of why the right wants to destroy them and make new laws (like arnie wants) so that they can’t give money to campaigns. but he’s not stopping powerful interests on the other side of the labor issue (giant corporations, etc) from giving him tons of dough.
okay, going off on a tangent…but it’s all connected. it’s all part of an effort to absolutely destroy the left.
Sounds like the Campus Republicans should ask for their money back.
The funny thing is that the IU College Republicans only invited him. The Union Board (a nonpartisan planning group) actually paid him. Their budget comes directly from tuition fees, I believe.
I stand by my proposal, though. Liberals on the campus here don’t need blowhards to tell them why they believe what they believe. Although Al Franken would be funny….
I would add to your response to Horowitz about Marxism. The capitalist class does not create wealth, they appropriate the wealth created by working class, through the capitalist monopoly ownership of the major means of production and raw materials. Therefore, the working class is quite good at creating wealth. To prove this, just ask the executives and CEO (and Horowitz can pitch in) of General Motors to “create” 100,000 new automobiles by themselves. Then stick the monstrosity that the come up with right up Horowitz’s point of view.
I’m a first-time visitor here, referred by a link from RawStory.com. I really enjoyed this breakdown of the event. (Considering your colorful descriptions, it seems appropriate to tie together the word “breakdown” with Horowitz.)
I especially love Ryan’s simple but altogether apt comment here. “Liberals…don’t need blowhards to tell them why they believe what they believe.” This is going to be my new mantra. It answers so many of the things that haven’t made sense to me the past few years: Why has Fox News emerged? Why has right-wing radio perpetuated? How come liberals don’t have the same machine working to spew propaganda and party talk?
Indeed. Liberals rely on the truth and rationality of their beliefs and convictions. We DON’T need anyone working overtime to tell us what to think.
You (Ryan) know from my responses to your comments at Hoosier Review that I was equaly disappointed in Horowitz’ lecture. I actualy think this is a fairly generous post on your part: most of what he offered in the way of arguments and postiions amounted, as far as I could tell, to simple name-calling. The whole lecture was a giant straw man — something to the effect of “Stalin killed a bunch of people in the name of bettering the world, so anyone who’s a leftist will end up inadvertantly killing more people in the end.” How that means we need the police watching our classrooms to enforce “balance” in universities – and this couched as a “free speech” agenda! – is beyond me.
I did want to set the record straight a bit on Marx, though. This is one of the few things Horowitz had to say that he actually got right. As a former closer reader of Marx himself, though, Horowitz must have known he was being disingenuous in the way he presented it.
Marx himself said that Socialism wouldn’t be able to create wealth as rapidly as Capitalism. It was crucial to his theory of the progression of history that the world first go through a Capitalist phase before proceding to Socialism because Socialism supposedly wouldn’t be able to industrialize the world quickly or efficiently enough. This is, in fact, why, on the foundation of the Soviet Union, many western european socialists/marxists predicted that it wouldn’t last. The revolution was supposed to have happened first in Germany, or maybe England. Early on in the Soviet Union there was an ideological crisis on exactly this point. The “trotsyite heresy” was just this: Trotsky believed in a doctrine of “perpetual revolution” which was taken, on some interpretations, to mean that maintaining the revolution could propel Russia past the stages in deveopment that it had missed. Maos “Great Leap Forward” is another example. Read any party publications from China from that period, and it will be easy to see that what they were trying to “leap over” was capitalism. Again, the problem was how to square the party’s marxist ideology with Marx’ claim that capitalism (which had never really developed in the way he meant in China or Russia) must necessarily precede socialism.
Your friend Ed Nelson is taking advantage of imprecise wording – either from Horowitz himself or your paraphrase. What Horowitz meant, in any case, was that the capitalist system creates wealth and that socialists, whose system doesn’t really create wealth so much as maintain an existing level of it, then come along and redistribute that wealth. On that point, Marx wouldn’t have disagreed with him.
Of course, all this depends on how much stock you want to put in Marx as the mouthpiece of “marxism.” The theory has evolved A LOT in the last 170 years. (Each new version as oppressive as its predecessor…)
Hilarious review of Horowitz, but somewhat lacking in self-awareness. My favorite: you laugh about Horowitz’s suggestion that your buddies at the teachers’ unions are socialists — not worthy of comment other than ridicule — and then quickly pull your other buddy Ed Nelson the Marxist out of your pocket to clarify and support Marxism.
Great stuff, and perfect for a Canadian.
Here’s a response to gaymafioso:
Nice try- but what, exactly, do you think Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Maureen Dowd, moveon.org are? If you’re right, then why do left-wingers feel the need to disrupt Horowitz’ speeches? Surely you don’t consider shouting over a speaker so he can’t be heard confidence in one’s beliefs? People who are truly confident in their facts allow the other side their say and then respond to what they’ve heard.
The fact is, all walks of the political specturm have their insecure hangers-on, their “groupies.” If you think the left is immune to this, then man, you just ain’t been watchin’.
Harry says:Hilarious review of Horowitz, but somewhat lacking in self-awareness. My favorite: you laugh about Horowitz’s suggestion that your buddies at the teachers’ unions are socialists — not worthy of comment other than ridicule — and then quickly pull your other buddy Ed Nelson the Marxist out of your pocket to clarify and support Marxism.
I don’t understand. How is questioning the veracity of a claim about teacher’s unions being run by socialists contradicted by the Ed Nelson stuff? And it seemed to me like Ryan was actually asking people to “chime in” on the issue of teacher’s unions and socialists, rather than dismissing it.
Another reader pulled in via rawstory….nice site and recap on the Horowitz “lecture” at IU. Funny how this wacky guy wants the government to regulate the marketplace of ideas. If conservative ideas are so good, why wouldn’t people naturally choose to accept those over liberal concepts? And another thing…….why isn’t there a conservative arts degree to match a liberal arts degree? Perhaps because the value point is learning more, not less?
Anyway, Horowitz, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are fighting a losing battle. Their GOPayola Party has held complete control of our government and media for 5 years. Under any measure, are we (the US and the world) better off? Of course not. They have no ideas; just taxcuts for their class and social policies designed to divide and distract. It’s a loser’s game that will be repudiated soon (why do I feel like the 1st Mate on the Titantic that gets no satisfaction out of knowing he told the Captain he ought to slow down and steer clear of the icebegs on the starboard side?).
Anyway, if you’re looking for some more great commentary on Horowitz, check out: http://www.billmon.org He’s got this joker’s number.
Why is anyone paying Attn. to this man outside of his non-thinking supporters? Why are people paying to see him? His ideas are rediculous, and he has a limited following. He’s a shrill voice pushing harsh, judgment that few Americans like.
He is hardly representative of the enemy that does threaten moderats/liberals and progressives.
By focusing on him we focus on an easy target, that makes us feel oh so superior.
We’ll start winning when we stop wasting time paying attention to this guy and his ilk and start doing the hard work to counter the powers that can do us great harm.