In a recent article on HNN Professors Eric Foner and Glenda Gilmore worry that academic freedom is being eroded. While they address the McCarthyite tactics of the right, I think there may also be another interesting story here.

I work with the Commonweal Institute, a moderate/progressive think tank. My work with Commonweal involves research into right-wing organizations. This research entails checking the affiliations of conservatives cited in news stories, articles, op-ed pieces, books and articles. The people and organizations Foner and Gilmore mention share interesting connections.

The piece mentions Campus Watch, which is part of the Middle East Forum. If you visit the website of Cursor's Media Transparency, an organization that investigates right-wing foundations, you will discover that the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation fund the Middle East Forum.

Next the piece mentions William J. Bennett. Many of Bennett's activities are funded by the far-right Heritage Foundation, which in turn is funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Richard Mellon Scaife, Joseph Coors's Castle Rock Foundation and the Olin Foundation, among others.

Next mentioned is the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Turns out this group is funded by ... wait for it ... the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Scaife, Coors, Olin and a few others.

Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, mentioned next, is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, which is funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Olin, Coors and the Smith Richardson Foundation. Mrs. Cheney was also chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, which received funds at the time by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and Olin.

Every One of Them?

So it turns out that every single right-wing source mentioned in their article owes some portion (if not all) of their livelihood to a very small core group of funders. In my experience, this is not atypical among conservative opinion-makers. It appears that the majority of the conservative experts and scholars writing newspaper op-ed pieces, books and magazine articles, and even the organizations that generate the "talking points" and position papers used by TV pundits and radio talk show hosts, are directly funded by, or work for organizations supported by this core group of funders.

This pattern of concentrated, interlinking financial backing is not found when you look into who is funding people and organizations that would not describe themselves as "conservatives".

So What?

Foner and Gilmore cite several apparently unconnected people and organizations as being part of "a broader trend among conservative commentators, who since September 11 have increasingly equated criticism of the Bush administration with lack of patriotism." Readers of the article might come away with the impression of a number of independent conservative "voices" concerned with what is being said on campus.

But is this true? All the voices cited originate from organizations funded and coordinated by a core group of wealthy individuals and organizations. Any scholar finding what appears to be a broad trend should be aware that the deliberate creation of an illusion of broad trends is a tactic used to influence the public by the conservative movement that is funded by this core group.

Some History of the Conservative Movement

In 1971 the National Chamber of Commerce circulated a memo by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell among business leaders which claimed that "the American economic system" of business and free markets was "under broad attack" by "Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic." Powell argued that those engaged in this attack come from "the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians."

According to the Powell memo, the key to solving this problem was to get business people to "confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management" by building organizations that will use "careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing only available in joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations." It helped immeasurably, Powell noted, that the boards of trustees of universities "overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system," and that most of the media "are owned and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the free enterprise system to survive."

Powell wrote that these organizations should employ a "faculty of scholars" to publish in journals, write "books, paperbacks and pamphlets," with speakers and a speaker's bureau, as well as develop organizations to evaluate textbooks, and engage in a "long range effort" to correct the purported imbalances in campus faculties. "The television networks should be monitored in the same way that textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance." Powell said that this effort must also target the judicial system.

The "Four Sisters"

In 1973, in response to the Powell memo, Joseph Coors and Christian-right leader Paul Weyrich founded the Heritage Foundation. Coors told Lee Edwards, historian of the Heritage Foundation, that the Powell memo persuaded him that American business was "ignoring a crisis." In response, Coors decided to help provide the seed funding for the creation of what was to become the Heritage Foundation, giving $250,000.(1)

Subsequently, the Olin Foundation, under the direction of its president, former Treasury Secretary William Simon (author of the influential 1979 book A Time for Truth), began funding similar organizations in concert with "the Four Sisters"--Richard Mellon Scaife's various foundations, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Olin Foundation and the Smith Richardson Foundation--along with Coors's foundations, foundations associated with the Koch oil family, and a group of large corporations. (In this article, I will refer to this group of funders as the "Four Sisters Funding Group" or FSFG.)

Following Powell's long-term plan to "build a movement," FSFG has funded and built a network of think tanks, advocacy organizations, and expanded into media, lobbying, and other areas. The work was slow but effective. As Christopher DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute, told a group of conservative business people, "things take time. It takes at least 10 years for a radical new idea to emerge from obscurity."

Creating "Conventional Wisdom"

Now, after 30 years of effort, this core FSFG has built a comprehensive ideological infrastructure. There are now over 500 organizations, with the Heritage Foundation at the hub, all funded by this core group. David Callahan's 1999 study, $1 Billion for Ideas: Conservative Think Tanks in the 1990s, found that just the top 20 of the organizations spent over $1 billion on this ideological effort in the 1990s.

The right-wing movement's messages are orchestrated and amplified to sound like a mass "movement" consisting of many "voices." Using "messaging"--communication techniques from the fields of marketing, public relations, and corporate image-management--the movement appeals to people's deeper feelings and values. Messages are repeated until they become "conventional wisdom." Examples include lines like "Social Security is going broke" and "public schools are failing." Both statements are questionable, yet both have been firmly embedded in the "public mind" by purposeful repetition through multiple channels. This orchestration has been referred to as a "Mighty Wurlitzer, " a CIA term that refers to propaganda that is repeated over and over again in numerous places until the public believes what it's hearing must be true.

As a study by the People for the American Way, has put it: "The result of this comprehensive and yet largely invisible funding strategy is an extraordinary amplification of the far right's views on a range of issues. The various funding recipients do not march in ideological lock-step, but they do promote many of the same issues to their respective audiences. They have thus been able to keep alive in the public debate a variety of policy ideas long ago discredited or discarded by the mainstream. That, in turn, has been of enormous value in the right's ongoing effort to reshape American society. The success of the right-wing efforts are seen at every level of government, as a vast armada of foundation-funded right-wing organizations has both fed and capitalized on the current swing to the right in Congress and in the state legislatures."

The Money Comes With Strings

The FSFG money comes with ideological strings attached. Their think tanks are not independent; their organizations must espouse their ideology. "Cato, for example," as Gregg Easterbrook pointed out in an article in the Atlantic in 1986, "flatly states that it will not release any study that calls for a government program. The institute's president, Edward Crane, says that he receives one or two commissioned reports each year that are 'inconsistent,' and he does not publish them. The analyst Jonathan Stein lost his job at [the Center For Strategic & International Studies] CSIS several months after he published a book highly critical of Star Wars, the study of which is worth millions to think tanks that toe the line. (CSIS denies there was any connection.) "

The core group that controls this movement is now attacking even Republicans who would previously have been considered "conservatives" for inadequate ideological purity. Members of the moderate wing of the Republican Party are derided by the radical right as nothing more than RINO's -- Republicans In Name Only. The FSFG is funding efforts to drive these moderates out of office and out of the party.(2)

The Movement is Coordinated

Currently the core of the "conservative movement" meets weekly with representatives of the FSFG. As Eric Alterman has revealed:

Their weekly agenda was hammered out every Wednesday at a meeting chaired by Grover Norquist, a rightwing Leninist who believes in an ever-shifting tactical alliance.… Among those who attend the invitation-only meetings are spokespeople and representatives of NRA, the Christian Coalition, the Heritage Foundation; corporate lobbyists, the top people from the Republican party and the Congressional Republican leadership, and chief White House aides. Trusted rightwing journalists and editors also attend, though the meetings are off the record.

While the ostensible purpose of the meeting is to share information and coordinate strategy, they also give Norquist the opportunity to act as an ideological enforcer. When one member of the Bush administration worried to a New York Times reporter that the administration's plan to repeal the estate tax would cripple charitable giving, he was publicly warned by Norquist that this was "the first betrayal of Bush", and was gone not long afterward. When a conservative pundit named Laura Ingraham criticised a fellow conservative in the House of Representatives for overzealousness, she was immediately informed by Norquist to decide "whether to be with us or against us". She was no longer welcome at the meetings.

David Brock, in his book Blinded By the Right, described from inside this "movement" how different parts of the right-wing web and their funders interacted during the attempt to remove President Clinton from office. Brock writes that funding was supplied by Richard Mellon Scaife, Federalist Society (funded by Scaife) lawyers and judges working behind the scenes assisting Special Prosecutor Ken Starr and supplying information to (Scaife-funded) American Spectator magazine.

A Case Study

Often it is possible to discern how the timing of a "Mighty Wurlitzer" chorus relates to a planned conservative policy initiative. A recent example is the flurry of articles that hit the press starting in late November, originating from the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform and the Tax Foundation, which claimed that the poor do not pay enough income taxes. The Wall Street Journal even referred to the poor as "lucky duckies." The paper did not mention that poor people do pay Social Security taxes. The publicity appears to have been timed to the release of the president's latest tax-cutting program.(3)

The Effect on Society

The core right-wing web of organizations funded by the FSFG has increasingly been able to set the public agenda, shifting national and local politics consistently to the right and away from the mainstream public interest. As a result, right-wing ideological premises and arguments dominate public-issue debate, with big money using this communications infrastructure to drown out other voices, virtually creating a one-dollar-one-vote society. "As one investigative journalist stated years ago in a pioneering investigation of the conservative philanthropy of Richard Scaife," wrote Sally Covington in a 1997 study, "layer upon layer of seminars, studies, conferences, and interviews [can] do much to push along if not create, the issues, which then become the national agenda of debate.... By multiplying the authorities to whom the media are prepared to give a friendly hearing, [conservative donations] have helped to create an illusion of diversity where none exists. The result could be an increasing number of one-sided debates in which the challengers are far outnumbered, if indeed they are heard from at all."

The Right's Attack on Academia

So how does all this relate to the attack on academic freedom which Foner and Gilmore complained about?

It turns out that many of the most important attacks are part of a campaign organized by conservative foundations, as a study by report by the National Committee on Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) found. In a section entitled, "Targeting the Academy" the report discusses right-wing attacks on academia, including "political correctness" campaigns, efforts to use alumni contributions to advance a conservative agenda, efforts to take over or de-fund the National Endowment for the Humanities and to de-fund the National Endowment for the Arts. These attacks follow the pattern outlined in the Powell memo -- attack the patriotism of liberals and attempt to convince trustees of colleges and universities to remove them, replacing them with ideological "conservatives."(4)

The FSFG supports organizations like Accuracy in Academia, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the National Association of Scholars, the Madison Center for Educational Affairs (their "Collegiate Network" links over 70 student newspapers), the Institute for Educational Affairs and others. These organizations work to transform academia toward the right's ideological agenda.

Why Do They Hate America?

Daniel Pipes has accused scholars like Foner and Gilmore of hating America. His attacks follow the plan laid out in the Powell memo and in William Simons's book, A Time For Truth. Like Powell and Simon, Pipes accuses liberal faculty of anti-American bias and wants trustees to remove or silence them. "Why do they hate America"? Because, the phrase implies, they are like the terrorists, who also hate America. A search on Google for the term "they hate America" turns up over a million uses. So what Foner and Gilmore encountered is a well-funded campaign to pursue an ideological agenda.

Conclusion

By looking at the backgrounds of the conservative sources cited in Foner and Gilmore's article on freedom of speech on campus, we have discovered another story. What Foner and Gillmore took to be a number of voices signifying, in their words, "a broader trend among conservative commentators, who since September 11 have increasingly equated criticism of the Bush administration with lack of patriotism," is really only the tip of an iceberg of organizations, funded by a core group coordinating a right-wing agenda to put a chill on more than just academic speech. Academics should be on guard because the activities of these organizations follow a pattern designed to mislead the casual reviewer.

1.See Jerry Landray, From The Powell Manifesto: How A Prominent Lawyer's Attack Memo Changed America.

2. See http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html#moderates.

3. See:

Heritage Foundation, May 8, 2001 http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=4327
Americans for Tax Reform, May 7, 2002 http://www.atr.org/caucus/article050702.html
Tax Foundation, November, 2002 http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html

The Wurlitzer:
Nov. 20, 2002 http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002937
Nov. 26, 2002 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39211-2002Nov25&notFound=true
Nov. 26, 2002 http://slate.msn.com/id/2074666/
Dec. 3, 2002 http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021203-415124.htm
Dec. 4, 2002 http://www.naplesnews.com/02/12/perspective/d856951a.htm
Dec. 10, 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/taxnotes30th_anniversaryspeech_dec10_2002.pdf
Dec. 15, 2002 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59577-2002Dec15&notFound=true
Dec. 16, 2002 http://slate.msn.com/id/2075483/
Dec. 21, 2002 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/12/21/duckies/
Jan. 7, 2003 White House proposes tax changes: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/kd3739.htm
Jan. 9, 2003 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/01/09/ED210726.DTL
Jan. 14, 2003 http://slate.msn.com/id/2076725/
Jan. 16, 2002 http://slate.msn.com/id/2077089/
Jan. 20, 2003 http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002938
Jan. 20, 2003 http://slate.msn.com/id/2077201/

4. See: People for the American Way's report, Buying a Movement, including a case study of the Yale Endowment and a case study of the right-wing movement's efforts to influence university undergraduates.

Steven Sesnick - 5/14/2006

Rather than some organized conspiracy to unseat tenured six-figure earning liberal professors who don't have to worry about trivialities like not being able to get into law school or a certain career because they're white and affirmative action has no room for them, I think students are just sick and tired of going to school to learn and instead hearing unprofessional professors throw little side comments into their lectures to show how cool and anti-establishment they are...but the joke's on them because the last time I looked the Democratic party was just as much of an establishment as Enron, Microsoft and Burger King.

Sharon Boone - 7/19/2004

The same bunch behind the "stolen" election of 2000, 9-11, and other assorted "mysteries" that American Citizens are thought to be too stupid to understand. The "Puritans" in the WH are steady at work making rules that they will never obey! Rules are for us not them! Hypocrites ALL!

Erle W Machiavellean - 6/28/2004

A scant nine months later, and what's happening? Convicted felons are going door-to-door in an effort to register voters for Democrats. No kidding. After hearing about it, I Googled and confimed it in an Associated Press article at http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-23-felon-voter-drive_x.htm: "A Democratic group [America Coming Together] crucial to John Kerry's presidential campaign has paid felons — some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary — to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in at least three election swing states....in major metropolitan areas in Missouri, Florida, Ohio and perhaps in other states among the 17 it is targeting in its drive."

Erle W Machiavellean - 6/28/2004

Erle W Machiavellean - 6/28/2004

From http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/voterights.htm:

"Civil rights, including the right to vote, are suspended when a person is convicted of a felony. A felon may have his or her civil rights restored by obtaining a full pardon, conditional pardon, or restoration of civil rights from the Governor of Florida."

R F - 5/7/2004

While your post was devoid of fact, it was utterly lacking in truth. The Nazis, my good friend, were the National SOCIALIST party. The Second World War is a fantastic example of what happens when Leftists are in charge of most of the governments worldwide.

If you'd like some interesting reading examine the Nazi Party platform ca 1920. At the time the organization was still called the NSDAP. You will recognize that most of the Nazi Party platform of the 20's thru 45 is the Democratic Party platform of 1972-Present. You can't lie your way out of the truth, as it can be verified.

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachauscrapbook/25Points.html
http://www.portal-ns.com/thecensure/25.htm
http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html


The DNC stuff makes for some dry reading, but the theme of healthcare funded by those who work given to those who do nothing is consistant, as is the environmental stuff and the anti-business theme.

Don't take my word for it. Do your own damned research!

ThinkTank - 1/5/2004

atleast that is what Mussolini said. And it makes sense when you compare how american corporations are taking ever more power away from government regulators through the GOP.

ThinkTank - 1/4/2004

nevermind that you can't actually prove your case against him, or that he has acted like a good scholar and author in the face of your smear campagin and UPDATED his book. You know like good authors do. Unlike people like you and Lott who continue to say there is no problem with "More Guns, Less Crime."

sam baldwin - 12/29/2003

Entire Political Science Departments at major Universities have no Republican or conservative Professors and we read this type of article. This article only shows that the education community is ruled by left wing radicals for only radicals would not be concerned about a lack of diversity.

Vince P - 12/21/2003

Your comments sound emotive and hysterical. These are not qualities that make a good argument according to my Philosophy Professors at a "top ten" University.

Vince P - 12/21/2003

"Does funding source affect truth, Dave?" What planet do you live on?

Hugh High - 12/12/2003

Having read the Johnson/Stephens dialogue, and then the contribution of D. Greene, I am amazed that many writing on HNN, e.g. Johnson and Greene, have chosen to write prior to carefully reading what Mr. Stephens wrote. One of the things one learns in law school is to carefully read. Perhaps that is not a skill normally picked up in graduate study in history. There are few substitutes for careful reading (or, where applicable, carefully listening to the arguements of others, and particularly those with opposing views of one's self. ) That is a hallmark of scholarship, after all.

Joseph Caramello - 10/25/2003

The National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP} was founded by a confused locksmith and sometimes railway employee called Anton Drexler. Its most prominent member before the arrival of Adolph Hitler was a former World War One army captain called Ernst Rohm who was to become in 1921 the founder of the Sturmabteilung (the infamous storm troop formations). In 1924 Hitler was in Landsberg Prison serving what turned out to be a nine month sentence for treason for his attempt to overthrow the government during the Beerhall Putch of 1923. At this point neither Hitler or the fledging Nazi party were composed of or had any influence with wealthy right wing industrialists. The relationship between the Industrialists and the Nazis came much later. While I do not take issue with your post, it is much more convincing when it is as historically accurate as possible.

Erle W Machiavellean - 9/25/2003

If felons are allowed to vote, the majority will vote for Democrats. No doubt about it.

Mike Hickerson - 9/9/2003

The previous poster enunciated all the repetitive echo-phrases so clearly associated with every right wing diatribe that compares taxes to slavery and total elimination of government as freedom. Such comic extremes are easily siezed upon and the average right wing joe enjoys his sound bites over easy, thank you very much. To continue to spread such endemic half truths is not only intellectually coy but smug; right wingers have assumed ,via the very principles enunciated in the article, a mantle of righteousness that allows them to think of themselves as a majority. They never bother to look any further than that "sounds good to me" approach so miss the big picture,that the ultimate desire of those foisting this "learning" on the public have clearly and plainly announced their desire to shrink the power and effect of government to the point where it will be beholden to the corporations to accomplish anything at all. We used to call this fascism--a rule of the corporate state, but in the topsy-turvy realspeak of neoconservatives, we now call this "freedom", and I don't mean French Fries.

Shannon - 7/16/2003

I wonder if you would prefer Communism in your name...

Jack Woods - 6/9/2003

Your article states,"The core right-wing web of organizations funded by the FSFG has increasingly been able to set the public agenda, shifting national and local politics consistently to the right and away from the mainstream public interest."

Do you really think that the mass of the public are so brain dead that they can not think for themselves. If you do then they were just as brain dead in the 60's and 70's to move from a conservative agenda to a liberal one. Attacks on liberals are no more sinister today than attacks on conservative were in the decades I cited. You premis is that the mind set of the "Masses" is for sale. Who bought them in the 60's and 70's and why does this mind set shift back and forth during the centuries.
Maybe you should start looking at the mind set of each decade for what it is. A thought process preticated on the standard of living of the classes at the time. When the masses are fighting to make ends meet the are more conservative because they are trying to hang on to what they have. When they have extra time and money on their hands they can afford to look out for the interests of others less fortunate. In fact I would venture to say that the massses would be far more liberal if they were allowed to keep more of there income. They could then "Choose" to be more concerned about what's happening to other's instead or being concerned on how to pay the mortage or put their kids through college without mortaging the farm for the rest of their lives.
Stop feeling so picked on and accept the fact that someone can have a different opinion than you. In fact at times the majority of people may disagree with you. Also remember, a conservative has just as much right to say you are unpatriotic for what you say as you have to accuse them of the same thing.

Mel - 6/1/2003

Looks to me your wrong and Elizabeth is right using Your source. What one needs to do is Read the actual suits and one finds that the first suit filed was voters not operatives and activists as you imply. As the readers can see the first to file a suit was in Fact Bush.
Spin again!
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000timeline.html

November 8, 2000

One day after Election Tuesday, the first lawsuit (Fladell v. Palm Beach County Canv. Bd. (PBCCB) ), is filed in Florida by Palm Beach County voters who, alleging voter confusion over the county's butterfly ballot, are seeking to set aside all presidential votes in the county and order a new county-wide election. Defendants include the PBCCB, Bush, Cheney, Gore, and Lieberman.

NAACP President Kweisi Mfume notifies Attorney General Janet Reno of the reported irregularities and minority vote dilution African-American voters in Florida may have encountered on election. He asks Reno to investigate the charges.



November 9, 2000

Concern by Florida voters and both parties grows over the controversial butterfly ballot. Palm Beach County voters file more voter lawsuits by challenging the constitutionality of the ballot and the presidential vote. U.S. Attorney General Reno attempts to defer to state officials over the legality of the ballot.

see Rogers v. Election Canv. Comm'n of Florida

see Horowitz v. LePore

see Elkin v. LePore



November 10, 2000

The Democratic and Republican parties attempt to show distance from the controversy. Governor Bush tells reporters he is making "low key" preparations for the White House in the midst of recount litigation.



November 11, 2000

On a Saturday, the Bush campaign files a federal lawsuit in Miami (Siegel v. LePore) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt all manual recounts.


Also let us not forget this piece of information purging of the voters and you know what it isn't okay! If your guy or my guys wins with this type of illegal behavior this is not most people would consider the American way. Most Americans believe in fair play and what happened with the 2000 Coup was not right period! The USSC picking the President was not right and no matter how many times the people on the right try to spin it as okay it's not going to work the facts fail you. Yes, us voters will remember this in 2004 and I'm someone that didn't vote for Bush or Gore!

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=182&row=1


Thousands of people came to the electoral office to vote only to find out that they were felons.

Originally we thought it was 57,000 people that were purged. Now I got the info from DBT that there were 94,000 people in this list. 91,000 were innocent. If those people have voted, Al Gore would most likely have received the 537 votes that he needed to win. What makes the story so sad and rotten is that the Secretary of State of Florida, Katherine Harris, has agreed that innocent people were removed, but they dragged their feet and have used this same list in this election.

Matthew - RI - 5/25/2003

You go to great lengths to discuss the great right-wing conspiracy, but I don't see your mention of the great Liberal conspiracy to indoctrinate America's youth to their own causes.

This is why moderates like me fail to take either fringe seriously, though I find the left far more dangerous to our society than the right.

Dave Thomas - 5/25/2003

Hey Dan,

The men in the little white suits are here for you. What a nut.
Have you taken a history class since high school or are the paralells you see straight from your most recent viewing of the History Channel?

Lance Gritters - 5/13/2003

I would totally agree that the use of any inflammatory language, i.e. traitor, commie, anti-American, does very little to resolve disputes. My point, as I mentioned in my comments, was that I see the Hitler/fascist comparison a lot on this site. As a graduate student in history, I would like to know what specific "parallels" exist between 1932-1937 and today? I think it is safe to say that: a)you can find parallels between any historical time frame/figures if you want to b)Stalin was also "not a great guy". And people will also use the converse of many of your "popular epithets" disparagingly - unintellectual, conservative, capitalist, uneducated.

dan - 5/8/2003

"because the vast majority of the news media (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.) is left wing"

Please to offer some reasoning for this statement.

HINT: "Liberal" does not ACTUALLY mean "not Republican enough."

dan - 5/8/2003

O'Reilly is middle of the road??? WOW!

dan - 5/8/2003

Where have you been.

Since the late '80s, "liberal" has been defined as "not Republican enough." No other definition need apply...

dan - 5/8/2003

"Hitler and fascism seem to be two of the favorites. "

You forgot some other popular epithets:

Communist/Commie/Comrade
Socialist
Stalin
coward
traitor
intellectual
educated
liberal
baby killer
gun grabber
anti-American
anti-Constitution

At least a)people generally agree Hitler was not a great guy
and b) there are very real parallels between 1932 - 1937 and today

You may not see them, but that does not mean they don't exist.

dan - 5/8/2003

"If such an Constitutional Amendment is not in the cards, then all who run for the Presidency must play by the same set of rules. "

Sure, blame the victim. Gore, unfortunately, did not have a brother purging voting lists of legally registered, but hopelessly black and Democratic, voters. Nor did he have a Supreme Court in his pocket to appoint him, nor a system to exclude legal ballots while accepting illegal absentee and military ballots.

The problem with the Democrats is that they can't even get their elected politicians into office...

Lance Gritters - 4/24/2003

Why is it that people can not disagree about political issues without resorting to inflammatory language to make their point? Hitler and fascism seem to be two of the favorites. Note: just because there are individuals with more conservative opinions than you does not make them fascists. Nor is there any great "fascist conspiracy" to take away your freedoms. I am often left with the unfortunate conclusion that people who utilize this type of language are scared that they can not make their point on the merits. So they need to make some scary comparison...usually Hitler and the fascists because there is a perception that they are associated with the political right. I guess that is why liberals don't make the same scary comparisons to Stalin and communism. The problem with these comparisons (besides being historical and factual fantasies)is that you do not persuade. The only people who don't chuckle at these desperations are people who think just like you. It is not that both sides of the political spectrum don't engage in this type of unintellectual behavior. But on this web site it appears to be especially germane to point this out to the political left. Bush is not Hitler, fascism is not going to take over your life, conservatives are not engaged in some cladenstine conspiracy to to ruin the world as you know it. People have different political views...always have and always will. Trying to make anyone with different political opinions than yourself into some historical figure or party that is widely hated does a diservice to your potentially constructive opinion. It also creates an extremlely hostile environment preventing honest and rationale discourse.

Jerome Chavez - 4/22/2003

Another right-wing attack dog funded by these foundations is David Horowitz. He is a former New Leftist who has made a career of demonizing the left, and given credibility by his former credentials as an editor of Ramparts, before moving to the Far Right. He even claimed that he alone founded the New Left. His groups include the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and frontpagemag.org, had many others before that too. His money can be found on mediatransparency.org, mainly from the Bradley Foundation also. That's why he can buy anti-reparation ads in college papers and circulate pro-war pamphlets with little to no popular support.

Dave Johnson - 3/21/2003

http://www.fordfound.org/program/program_main.cfm">This is what you call "liberal?"

Orson Olson - 3/20/2003

Bill Willers claims to be "frightened."

But any overall comparison I've encountered notes that the top ten conservative outfits spending amounts to only a small fraction of the number one liberal one--the Ford Foundation.

Fear ideas if you must, but Willer's reaction strikes me as silly!

Mike Mullen - 3/15/2003

Mark Bernadiner,

You say supporting Iraq is pro fascist, but isn't supporting the Bush administration right now PRO FASCIST?!! If there's any fascism going on, it's within the American Government. Unfortunately, Dubya is an extreme right-wing
fascist president and all of the sudden, protesting war is considered not patriotic. That's bullshit. A true patriot will say "I love America and I disagree with the fact that the president is anxious to hurt the economy by going to war and hurting our relationship with many of our allies." Thoughts?

Mike

Dave Thomas - 3/8/2003

Historians are irrelevant outside the classroom because we unobjectively skew the past to fit our political dogma on the left and right. We should stick to our jobs and leave politics to the politicians.

Jack Stephens - 3/4/2003

Ms. Greene,
I have not said anything whatsoever about "hating America."
You impute to me things I have not said, just as Mr. Johnson imputs to Pipes and the others things they have not said.
I challenged Mr. Johnson to substantiate his accusations. He has shown himself unwilling or unable to do so.
Your own comment about "a kind of war" is specious, overheated nonsense.

Rae Buckley-Marsh - 3/4/2003

It's certainly true that talk radio is predominantly right-wing, but I believe that's because the vast majority of the news media (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.) is left wing. Conservatives have made talk radio successful because they have no other place to get news that doesn't have a leftward-leaning bias.

Bill Willers - 3/3/2003

To Dave Johnson:

Your "Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors" is the best overview I've seen.

Two months after 9-11 the American Council of Trustees and Alumni published "Defending Civilization: How our universities are failing American and what can be done about it", a reaction against workshops and seminars that had taken place in the wake of the attack. It was essentially a blacklist identifying some 150 academics who were looking into reasons why anyone would hate the U.S. so such a degree. All one needed to do to be listed was go beyond the simplistic "They hate us because we're free" and look into connections to U.S. foreign policy. Lynne Cheney is a principle there, as are William Bennett and Senator Joseph Lieberman. This activity by Lieberman has not been discussed anywhere. If you've not seen this I'll email you a copy.

The profile of rightwing foundations that you listed also support organizations pressing for "free-market environmentalism" a central goal of which is to privatize the public domain ... roughly a third of the nation's territory. Notably the Foundation for Research in Economics and the Environment (FREE) and Political Economy Research Center, both in Bozeman, Montana. The privatization process is now well underway as Gale Norton has reported that nearly 72 % of positions in the U.S. Park Service are to be "outsourced" to the private sector. One group gives seminars to federal judges on free marketeering and has claimed that a third of the federal judiciary has taken or applied for their seminars.

I taught an "environmental issues" course for years. In the late 90's, a rightist (whose name escapes me at the moment) funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation wrote a critique of regional environmental courses and flunked most of them for failing to consider economics suffuciently. I still have a copy of that report. The President of the U of Wisconsin System was clearly frightened and sent a memo to the entire system requesting "balance".

Hope I haven't been to wordy here. I would like to get some more of your reports. This attempt to take control of the Academy is frightening.

Bill Willers

dan - 2/25/2003

Funny, to knowledgeable people, it is Conservatives that appear to disdain the Constitution.

Maybe that is becasue most liberals have actually read the document...

ivan weinel - 2/24/2003

These kinds of discussion threads should be protected by something like those safety locks you can have put on your auto ignition to only allow drivers that pass a breathalyzer to turn the key. Only folks who have bothered to read the material under discussion should be allowed to rattle on their keyboards and waste the time and electrons required to filter out the resulting noise. Read the article!!!

The memo by Powell that served as the focus of the article specifically stated in English that a goal of such a movement was to TARGET ACADEMICS in order to change the ideological composition of college faculties.

Is that clear enough for you to fathom the use of the word TARGET in the article in question? It was a QUOTE; please don't offer defenses for the motivations of these people, as they have made it abundantly clear to anyone that can read plain text that they feel no need to apologize on their own account.

Victor Spooner - 2/22/2003

Where the money comes from for A.N.S.W.E.R.: Donations from ordinary people, not a handful of rich conservatives!

What a crock of shit the above comment is. Have you taken a look at who the steering committee is? Completely socialist/broad-agenda-anti-american.
Go through the signatories/supporters: almost 70 id themselves as communist/socialist/greens (all the same thing). The remainder are all broad-agenda anti-american groups and individuals. Look up some of the supposedly unafiliated "ordinary" names via search engines: majority are anti-US, pro-left activists of one stripe or another.

Tell the truth about what you are about: you hate this country and most Americans.

Jim Aknee - 2/22/2003

Can you imagine Bush critizing Germany for their peace stance. Germany was the supposed evil axis of two world wars and having been taught a supposed lesson by us and our allies are now damned for their peace stance.

France too is suddenly enemy as well as any U.S. citizen who believes in free speech and peace through equal justice. Welcome to the Brave New World of 1984. Very illumiating.

Ralph E. Luker - 2/21/2003

You are being childish again.

geocity-dajpage - 2/19/2003

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.” —Benito Mussolini
Bush is a fascists and associatins of Fascism with the Republican party have been accurate since Ronald Reagan. It's even recently been discovered that George Dubya's Grandfather Prescott Bush was over his head in financing Hitler's war through Jews working for his steel industry in Auschwitz. Fascism is behind all the Republican Privetizing bullshit we've been voting against and getting anyway. America is in serious danger of becoming a fascist state if it isn't already one, and we have Republican/Notsee's to thank.

Deborah Greene - 2/19/2003

Mr. Stephens is either being disingenous or lost his grip on reality a long time ago. Does he really believe universities are filled with scholars who "hate America?" Those who make such absurd declarations do so to justify any actions they might want to take to silence those labeled "America haters." Those who resort to charging their enemies with "hating America" have abandoned the realm of reasoned debate and declaring a kind of war on them.

Richard Henry Morgan - 2/19/2003

What exactly does it mean to be "targeted"? Or is that just an expression deployed to stifle criticism?

Dave Livingston - 2/18/2003

Ralphie,

Tell me, is it smelly as well as dark in that corner in which you're sulking?

Gary Robeson - 2/17/2003

>And I can remember when liberals raised hell with anyone who dared to advertise with Limbaugh.

Your memory is not so impressive: the first ever national boycott of Limbaugh advertisers has just begun this month. Check out cursor.org.

I listened to Limbaugh daily in 1988-99. There were no liberals with any power complaining about him at the time, and there were certainly no national boycotts.

So hey Mike, help out by avoiding Limbaugh advertisers !

Gary Robeson - 2/17/2003

Labeling is much easier then thinking, yah sure.

But what are we to do when the same words refer to fundamentally different things?

I mean, if Americans calling themselves "conservatives" advocate positions you disagree with, and you hear a challenging argument that sounds a lot like those distasteful positions, is it truly dishonest or lazy to say they are "conservative?" Even if the positions are mostly contradictory to classical conservatism? ( like Republican deficit spending..)

I think of Lewis Caroll: "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean." ( a paraphrase, to be sure :)

These words are, in OOP terms; overloaded.

I heartilly agree with your advocacy of intellectual integrity. I admire it everywhere, in "conservatives" and "liberals" or those who are both.

Gary Robeson - 2/17/2003

You are too sarcastic for me.

There's nothing wrong with asserting a position. It's true that supporting references are neccesary in acadamia, for academic issues like getting good marks today and tenure tommorow.

But in the human world, opinions are like... you know; everyone has one. And supporting references are just some dead guy's opinion. ( excepting matters of material fact, naturally )

In human affairs, polemic is king.

>How does Fascism fit into an Engineering class?

It doesn't, except when I grade finals ;)

Whatever Mussolini did or didn't think his new label should mean doesn't have much to do with why the Italians did what they did, or why Hitler hated Jews, or why Henry Ford though Hitler was grand, or why of fear-mongering demagoguery is a favored tactic of self-centered, small-minded men like the poseur in the White House.

Speaking of poseurs, I don't know anymore about you then you do about me ( ain't the Internet grand? ) but using high handed phrases and condescension is something poseurs do. To me, a confident expert can afford to speak in plain English, like Richard Feynman did or Paul Krugman does.

It was not nice of me to insult your intellectual integrity,but I still think your position on fascism and capitalism sounds like Heritage Foundation revisionist propaganda.

Ethan Berry - 2/17/2003

I was once "reminded" by a disgruntled student of the group, ACCURACY IN ACADEMIA. I saw their newsletter back in the eighties and it did indeed target specific professors. Of course Howard Zinn was on the list back then. I wonder if they have morphed into something else.

Bill Heuisler - 2/17/2003

Mr. Robeson,
Poseur? You have unmasked me - an intellectual poseur.
No alphabetic plumes grace my name and there is no title to slip slyly into conversation, but before you become overwhelmingly smug reread each of your posts and notice they are replete with bald assertion and empty of argument and historical reference.

You are an Engineer and a Teacher whose class readily laughs at people like me because we disagree with you. Interesting. How does Fascism fit into an Engineering class? Never mind. Fit a reading of Benito's Manifesto into your busy schedule and notice his references to "isms".

And have patience. Hath not a poseur eyes? Hath not a poseur hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Shouldn't we be allowed to disagree with the cognoscenti?
Bill Heuisler

Bill Heuisler - 2/17/2003

Derek,
You've mentioned him twice. Surely you noticed the conundrum.
Mr. Hanson's article mentions Right Wing Fascism and lists Noriega (Army Thug) Saddam (Socialist Baathist Party) Milosevic (Communist all his life) and the Taliban (?). With the possible exception of Noriega's drug commerce, none of these men is noted for espousing free-market Capitalism. Further, his inclusion of such ideological extremes under "Right Wing" is baffling unless it historically presupposes Military coersion of process.

Which both explains and destroys my position on Fascism.

Oh well, you must admit his statement shows a prominent scholar/writer as unsure of his terms as we seem to have become.
Bill Heuisler

Derek Catsam - 2/17/2003

Gary --
No worries. Certainly academics can be as provincial as anyone, though many of us try hard not to be.
It was Frances Fukayama who proclaimed that we had reached "the end of history." It seemed foolish then. It seems absurd now. dc

Gary Robeson - 2/17/2003

Derek, my apologies to you. You've been more courteous then I.

And no, my post was not a flame. To my ears, Bill's patronizing was the mark of an intellectual poseur. And his assertion that fascism was anti-capitalist is absurd revisionism, the likes of which I'm really getting sick and tired.

I'm an engineer, not an academic, but I've known many academics ,and most were pretty narrow and exclusionary. I'm sure you recognize this as an occupational hazard ( like being undiplomatic is an occupational hazard of engineering. :)

The scholarly definition of fascism is naturally interesting to professionals, but the socio-political phenomenon that brought us Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy is a more immediate issue for us all.

I wonder what wag it was who stated so firmly recently that, with the end of the cold-war, history had ended. This is the kind of conceit that can only happen ( it seems to me, ) in the middle of a comfortable empire just before the decline begins.

Derek Catsam - 2/17/2003

Er, to whom and to what was your post referring? I'm not sure which obsequious puffery on my part so offended you, and to indict all academics who aren't at the elite schools seems to be as parochial as anything I may have written.

Gary Robeson - 2/17/2003

Your parochial issues have little to do with the real world. You cannot handle direct discourse with non-academics, retreating to the safety of obsequious puffery that is the hallmark of backwater academics.

Sorry if I've insulted you both. I hope you're not reading this, after all; that would be giving me what I crave so desperately.

Stick to history, Bill. Pyschoanalysis is *definitly* not your strong suit.

Derek Catsam - 2/17/2003

Mussolini did not refute a thing, unless you believe that there can be no such thing as a right wing declaration of "the state" above all, which seems bizarre (and tautological). It's a nice idea that gives you cover to say that an extreme version of one's own worldview could never possibly be totalitarian. then again, there are those who say that all totalitarian dictatorships are inherently rightist. Once again, take issue with any of the major scholars in the field. Take issue with Victor Davis Hanson. Take issue with people who have spent their lives and careers studying and working on this question.

Bill Heuisler - 2/16/2003

Derek,
Temper, temper. You're regressing. Remember you've been cautioned before about the Catsam two-step. Your usual antics have been to state a position, be thoroughly rebutted, snivel about ad hominums and change the subject. This time you pretend to be the dorm monitor instead of the victim. Won't work.

Mistyping? Misdated? Whiner? Hypocrite? My wounds bleed. Tears wet my keyboard. And all because Benito Mussolini refuted your position. You really hate to lose a discussion, don't you?
Calm down and have a beer. We'll do this again.
Bill Heuisler

Derek Catsam - 2/16/2003

Get my facts right? Mistyping or not, you were the one who said things like "pay attention and learn" and "do I need to draw pictures" and then misdated the rise of the naming of fascist organizations by a decade.

So he used your name first -- would you let your children use such an argument?

And let's not pretend that you've never resorted to calling people out by name in the heading of posts before they did -- I can cite several examples where you did it to me -- so in addition to coming across as a whiner, you're being a hypocrite. Don't want to be "preached to"? Then don't act like that.

Bill Heuisler - 2/16/2003

Derek,
It occurs to me we are arguing about the meaning of Right Wing rather than conservative, thereby passing each other below the horizon. Suffice to say, reading Mussolini's 1932 treatise on Fascism was a very revealing and shocking experience. For that reason alone this discussion was worthwhile. Read it. The spelling in my last post is correct in Italian.

Don't preach to me, ("when many of us are having a discussion about the nature of, say, fascism, and you address a particular one of us,..."). Read the stream. You will see my name was used in a post title first - without any provocation or discussion. If that happens again my response may be even more patronizing.
Get your facts right before you get sanctimonious.

Derek Catsam - 2/16/2003

Once again, Stanley Payne and other historians would disagree with you about the historical oxymoron you claim.

Just because the Nazi Party was called "National Socialist" does not mean that it was socialist. Or do you also believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic? That the people's republic of China is in fact a people's republic?

Victor Davis Hanson, in this weeks National review online, refers to "right wing fascism" throughout his (beautifully well reasoned) piece. (You'll especially like his argument -- hell, it might be a point where you and I agree with one another). And again, I'd challernge you to name a prominent historian of modern germany who would dopubt that Nazi Germany in particular or fascism generally was not more right wing than left wing, or that Germany was not a capitalist state.

You wrote about:
First off, no one has shown that "they" are "indoctrinating." In fact, on the "noindoctrination.org" site I believe only 8 were accounts of alleged indoctrination in history classes -- and remember that all of these are anonymous and haredly representative. "Tax guzzling" is one of your favcorite arguments, but it is mneaningless. Anyone on a state government contract earns a salary. They have a contract. What taxes are they guzzling? Not to mention the taxes they themselves all pay. And on top of all of this, lots anf lots of professors work at private institutions.

I love the Orwell piece in this week's TNR. just read it this morning in fact. I am going to clip it and perhaps use it in my classes -- what you'll be shocked to find out is that most professors, even those of us opn "the left" whatever that means, spend most of our time trying to curb our most lefty students' passions, which tend to be unfocused and often historically vacuous at best. But I absolutely agree with objectuive truth -- knowing that there is also a lot of room for subjectivity. My objective truth, however, is that fascism as a general rule was a right-wing manifestation -- if that label has any meaning -- and communism was a left wing manifestation -- if that label has any meaning. Neither, frankly, should have as much bearing on the current American political dialogue as they both do, and i think that for all of our disagreements, and there have been many, we both seem to agree on this point.

Your insults become all of our business when you put them in a public forum and conflate the insults of others toward the president with an argument that many of us are having. In other words, when many of us are having a discussion about the nature of, say, fascism, and you address a particular one of us, if your argument then goes to patronize a person but to speak to the larger argument it does become anyone's business who reads the post.

In any case, as usual, this one is reaching endgame. As usual we don't agree. As usual we've both yielded a little and as usual, let's see what the next issue is that gets us in a battle royale, probably in the very next group of new hnn articles.

Alexis - 2/16/2003

WOW!! Thank you for bringing into focus these "trends". It is satisfying to be informed about the root of this movement. No longer will I refer to these foundations as THEM, or THEY, or THEIR. Thanks!!

Peter Jackson - 2/16/2003

Bernadiner writes: "American academy needs to be restructured to make it more responsible and accountable for its activity."

Sounds like a Stalinist solution to me! For all its foibles, abuses, outrageous arguments, surely you can't equate the modern American academy with university education in the old Soviet Union! Even if we accept your assertions that the American academy is anti-Israel, etc. it is important to recognize that there are dissenting voices from both within and outside of the academy. Bias may exist, but free speech has not been silenced. How often did you hear criticism of the "Marxist bias" of Soviet universities when you lived there?

Peter Jackson - 2/16/2003

Alas, you are unlikely to find an objective discussion of "liberal bias" here or anywhere, just as you don't find it in the counter-claims of the "liberal media" and the "right-wing media." Everytime I see a car with a bumper sticker that reads "I don't believe the liberal media" (or some reverse version) I conclude--"there's a person who would rather not do any hard thinking." The fact of the matter is that some people on the left and the right rely on these alternative faiths because they are comforting, and enable them to avoid grappling with difficult arguments and facts presented by the other side. Sure, it is moderately useful to know that certain groups with money are behind one political agenda or another, but if that's as far as we go in assessing arguments, then we have failed. The real issue is not whether we can label professors as "liberal" or not, but do they come up short in their commitment to an honest and open-minded search for the truth. My own experience tells me that most historians are still committed to fostering environments in their classroom that encourage open exchange of ideas, and present alternative viewpoints. I also think that most historians are committed to critical evaluation of evidence in their own scholarship, and in reviewing others. But there is a substantial minority, under the sway of post-modernism and deconstructionism, who have abandon the ideals of free and open exchange. And the majority of historians have failed to come to the defense of the now old-fashioned idea that we have a moral and intellectual obligation to struggle for objectivity. This is the tragic failure that is occurring, and has led to an increase in the practice of arguments by labeling: dismiss challenging arguments by simply labelling them "arch-conservative" or "leftist." This kind of debate does little to advance our search for the truth.

Gary Robeson - 2/16/2003

I would suggest to both of you that "classical" conservative and liberal philosophies have little to do with the grab-bags of contamporaty political positions that are associated with these terms.

Bill, certainly an old-fashoned, classical conservative would find fascism abhorant. But many who call themselves conservative have only worn this respectable philosophy like sheepskin. They seek power for other reasons .

And Bill, your precious president is pushing us in the direction of fascism with deliberate haste.

mark safranski - 2/15/2003

If FOX would like to offer me a contract as an on-air personality that would be most welcome. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon though I could probably pull in higher ratings than most MSNBC programs.

No, none of those foundations could be construed as " conservative " as they are quite liberal, pro-Affirmative action, pro-feminist, pro-gun control etc. As for news personalities being liberal how about Walter Cronkite ? Dan Rather ? Tom Brokaw ? Peter Jennings ? Bernard Shaw ? What are Ted Turner's politics Gary ? Is he a right-winger ?

Just because the figures mentioned above don't parrot the latest jackass conspiracy theories from Z magazine or The Nation or belong to some Marxoid splinter group doesn't make them " conservative "

Bill Heuisler - 2/15/2003

Derek,
As to your alleged interpretation of Fascism, here is #7 of the principles of Fascism written in 1932 by Mussolini for the Enciclopedia Italiana:

7. "Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical Liberalism, which arose form the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet envisaged by individualistic Liberalism, Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real thing, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people."

Anyone can look up this loathsome document. Maybe even Gary.
And anyone who reads this and still thinks Capitalism could exist under Fascism - who thinks there is anything even remotely conservative about Fascism - has no idea what Capitalism is, nor what conservatives believe.
Bill Heuisler

Tom Rand - 2/15/2003

Mr. Johnson,s article is dissapointing in that
he does not address the question of whether or not proffesors haVE A LIBERAL bias.Are the large majority of history professors liberals and does that matter? Where can we turn to find an objective discussion of a pottentially serious subject?
Tom Rand

Bill Heuisler - 2/15/2003

Derek,
Back to the article.
Q: Who is behind the attack on Liberal Professors?
A: The "attack" is merely a call to account.
Rebuttal: The Fascist Right Wing is trying to silence the Left.
Rerebuttal: "Fascist Right Wing" is historically oxymoronic.

Fascist was mentioned in the original stream as describing the attempt to make Left Wing, U.S.-hating, Tax-guzzling Professors explain why they should continue indoctrinating our kids. While not recalling (and not caring) who exactly said what, isn't it time we got down to basics? Socialism is Left Wing. Nazis are Left Wing. Your attempt to prove how "Capitalist" the Nazis were is foolish. Nazi means National Socialist. Nazi doesn't mean National Capitalist. Socialist and Capitalist are opposites, not some sloppy people-pudding full of nuts and unbaked opinions.

Your alleged argument: Nazi Germany..."a capitalist state, albeit one with substantial state controls." is fatuous nonsense to serve a political end. State controls and private money? Words mean things, Derek. That 30s German National Socialist-Capitalist-Private investment-with-State-Controls Government you imagine comes out of Dr. Seuss. You insult the intelligence of readers and make me wonder. And these "prominent scholars" who share your opinion reveal highly suspect agendas.

To quote Wieseltier who quotes Orwell in TNR this week, "This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world." And, Derek, it's particularly frightening coming from you, whom I have come to respect.

BTW, my patronizing teacher-manques who insult my president is none of your damned business.
Bill Heuisler

Derek Catsam - 2/15/2003

Bill -- the problem is that you were really, really patronizing to Gary and then proceeded to (allegedly) mistype 1930s instead of 1920s.

You wrote:


The problem is that I do not know of a prominent scholar of Germany on the Nazi era who would agree with you, so for all of your proclaimed righteousness, the people who spend their lives devoted to this study disagree. Your analogy does not make sense, simply put, because I've never heard anyone claim that the pope is not anti-abortion whereas I would certainly claim that most historians would aver that Nazi germany was a capitalist state, albeit one with substantial state controls. That did not forestall private profits, certainly, (are you saying there were no businessmen who profited from german industry in Nazi germany? That workers did not earn wages commensurate with their skills? That there was nopt a competitive market of goods in the 1930s in Germany?

I fully agree with you that it is fatuous to namecall the right "fascists," simply becxause it is historically abhorrent -- but so too is it historically abhorrent when "the right" throws out "communist" or "Stalinist" as an epithet for anyone on the left.

Ralph E. Luker - 2/14/2003

Your opening line points to the hopelessness of conversation. You respond to a conclusion I hadn't reached. I don't have time for pointless discussion.

Richard Henry Morgan - 2/14/2003

I don't know that I'm ideologically committed to gun rights, but I'm empirically committed. Lott had made the claim that he had done a survey that showed something like 98% of defensive gun uses don't end up with somebody being shot (or somesuch). When questioned about it, he couldn't produce the data -- said his hard drive had crashed. Since then at least one guy has come forward to say he was surveyed, and Lott has run a similar survey, with similar but lower results, to be published soon. Lindgren is looking into the evidence of a prior survey. I'm sure that's sketchy, but it emphasizes the need for scholars to back up their claims with data they have maintained and share expeditiously. As far as I know that is the only question (apart from methodological disputes) concerning Lott's data, as he otherwise used publicly available US government data. If this summary is correct in broad outlines, I'd say your characterization that Lott's work is "also filled with questionable statistics" is a bit overwrought, but your point is valid. Lott recently did get a going over in the Boston Globe and the Washington Post, I believe.

Richard Henry Morgan - 2/14/2003

Is that the same LeCarre that endorsed Iran's fatwah against Salman Rushdie? Just wondering.

Robert Simonds - 2/14/2003

Forgive me if I've missed this. I'm an irregular reader of this forum. but over the last year, there has been an enormous amount of ink spilled here and in the national media about the Bellesiles fraud. But recent revelations that the pro-gun rights book "More Guns Less Crime" (which sold vastly more copies than Bellesile's book) is also filled with questionable statistics. Why is that story generating so little attention? We all owe a debt to Cramer, Lindgren, Roth and others who exposed Bellesiles' fraud. And I understand that Lindgren has been engaged in exposing the "More Guns, Less Crime" fraud. I'd love to hear from those more ideologically committed to gun rights on this latest controversy. Many of them have fairly castigated the historical profession for its liberal bias and suggested that is why historians had no interest putting Bellesiles data to the test, because it so neatly fit their own positions on gun control. But can the charged be turned on Cramer and others, regarding the "More Guns, Less Crime" book? And does the fact that the fraud committed by this pro-gun rights author has received so little attention undermine the constant complaint of "liberal media bias?" I'd especially love to hear from Mr. Cramer on this subject. While I might not agree with his views on gun rights, his commentaries on this HNN have always been thoughtful and well-reasoned.

Bill Heuisler - 2/14/2003

Derek,
Sue me for writing a 3 instead of a 2. The body of my lesson referred to the twenties. You have never accused me of being perfect and I have never accused you of being overcritical.

In my passionate opinion, saying Fascism is not anti-Capitalist involves the same mental agility as stating the Pope is not anti-abortion. Definitively self-evident. Capitalism is an economic system in which the investment, production and distribution are privately controlled and operated for private profit.

Mussolini's government controlled the means of production and distribution. Mussolini controlled investment, production, wages and even seized savings and property. Certain Blackshirts and favored "industrialists" profited from their relationship with the government, but not from the decisions they made with their money in the market place.

Taking the part of Polyposting Gary has surely rescued his ego for another foray. Remember, good deeds are usually punished.
But you have performed a valued service. Taking your diplomatic intervention at face value - and agreeing with Stanley Payne - should soon put to rest the querulous chorus of the adolescent Left about how anybody who listens to Rush or agrees with Pipes is a "Fascist". Many of us are tired of the canard since it is so clumsily inaccurate. Your authoritative voice of reason will unquestionably silence the caterwaul. Thanks.
Bill Heuisler

Davre Livingston - 2/14/2003

Gore should be proclaimed President because he garnered a plurality of the popular vote?

THAT is a common urban Liberal complaint, which anyone can appreciate. BUT our Constitution mandates the electorial College system manner of chosing our Chief Executive.

Ordinarily, my response to this complaint may appear frivolous or malicious, but I do not intend for it to be either. If those who dislike the Electorial College system may garner enough votes to support their position there is a constitutional provision for modifying the Constitution, then why don't they go ahead with selling a Constitutional Amendment to the American people? The plain and simple answer is it will not for the foreseeable future gain the votes of enough of the state legislatures to pass it. The nation's smaller states have no good reason to submit their political fates to the dictates of the Liberal dominated urban near nation-states.

If such an Constitutional Amendment is not in the cards, then all who run for the Presidency must play by the same set of rules. And whoever runs if he realistically hopes to be elected must do more than to pander exclusively to the desires of the large coastal urban centers.

If one is unwilling to play by the same set of rules as everyone else must, then perhaps one might be happier in taking adsvantage of the American freedom to move elsewhere. If one does not choose to move elsewhere nor is willing to adjust to the rules of the game laid out by the Founding Fathers, then one is virtually guaranteeing one's own discontent.

Because I've always, save for the first five and a half years once retired from the Army, when I felt it necessary to live near an Army medical Center,I've never lived at length in a city nor in a state grossly dominated by urbanites, I like the Constitution's manner of electing our Chief Executive as it is.

For all I respect and honor John McCain for his courage and perserverance in the face of severe adversity in Indochina, I've grown very wary of him as he in recent years has demonstrated an eliteist and IMO anti-American approach to politics. For instance, I strongly dislike his carrying the banner of gun (really, law-abiding citizen) control. I no longer trust the guy very much. Another thing about McCain I don't like is he's no pro-life advocate.

Although I'm no Republican, it was a pleasantly surprise to read, I've not watched TV since '95 nor even have a set(so fed up with Liberal propaganda masquerading as news did I become), him to rise to the Administration's defense by saying that in his opinion the reason the French oppose our tackling Saddam is that Saddam owes the French huge sums of money. Saddam slowly has been paying off the debt via oil shipments to France. The French fear if he is removed from power a new government will not honor his debts. Of course, I don't know if this is a correct assessment, but it seems plausible.

Today on "Fox News" it was reported that Tariq Aziz, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister accused the U.S. of mounting a Crusade against Moslems & Arabs. This might have impressed me a mite, because Aziz is not a Moslem, rather he's a Chaldean Rite Catholic (a small minority of Iraqis, both Kurds & Arabs, remain Catholic even today.). It may have impressed me had not our old Jesuit priest said during this morning's Mass, "Let us pray for peace, but not peace at any price."

Neither this priest nor I wish that American boys die on the field of battle, but unfortunately as has been said, The tree of liberty occasionally needs to be watered with the blood of patriots.

Gary Robeson - 2/14/2003

Is it really over the top to say that the mainstream media is delivering propaganda? I don't think so, but it's pretty easy to ridicule.

What is it about living in a prosperous, safe and powerful nation that leads to the notion that history has ended? that such things as totalitarianism and propaganda can't.... happen here?

Maybe this is the result of our entertainment driven culture, where all things unusual are turned into melodrama, a ridiculous cliche. It's hard to believe our leaders are misleading us when the shopping mall has so many great stores! The only conspiracies we know are on the X-Files, where they all revolve around little green men! So cute!

I mean, it's easier to sympathize with Weimer Republic Germans who were fearful and easily cowed due to the lingering poverty and ruin resulting from World War I and Versaille. But we aren't challenged like they were. Not at all.

Seeing the craven fear of many Americans amidst the properous comfort we enjoy is leading me to ....

not feel so good about America.

Gary Robeson - 2/14/2003

Now this post is educational. I didn't know there were Romanian fascists, ( though it's not altogether surprising )

Thank you.

The article is, to me, one of an increasing number of cracks in the dam of deception that I ( and others, it seems ) have perceived for over 10 years now. ( That would be the "liberal media" canard ) At times I've sought out places where the topic was being discussed and vigorously attacked this common foolishness, because something about mass dementia kind of bothers me :)

But I don't work in intelligentsia-land; I'm surrounded by dittoheads mostly. So I do have a "burr in my saddle" about the widespread rhetorical untruths which have been spread by Limbaugh et al. It's frustrating to watch otherwise smart people come to believe complete nonsense because a funny loudmouth on the radio says it.

And it's tough to avoid ever going over the top when fighting such trickery. And I am a fighter.

Perhaps this web site is too genteel for a guy like me.

I presume not everyone who reads and posts here is a fully tenured Professor of History. ?

Gary Robeson - 2/14/2003

And thank you for indulging me with your crystaline wit and intellegence. I feel so good now.

Look, I don't want to waste your time, so I won't get into picky points, like whether the Italian definition of fascism is the only proper way to understand what was a multinational phenomenon.

The only aspect of capitalism that is missing from fascism is the notion of a free market. Private ownership, capital investment, and private profit were all quite abundant in fascist Germany and Italy, right?

I would argue that free markets are an idealization not found in reality. Most American markets are anything but free, with collusion, near monopolies and price fixing widespread. Competition does happen of course, but even command economies can have some competition. If a truly free market is a neccesary condition for capitalism, I don't think America qualifies.

>Capitalism and rigid governmental control cannot coexist.

Not true if you admit that free markets are an abstract notion.

Your cheap rhetorical tricks of emotional anaylsis and snide, snobbish putdowns are what I've come to expect from an intellectual poseur. I have indeed learned something from reading your response. Good day.


I

Derek Catsam - 2/14/2003

Bill --
While your passion may be admirable, it seems to me that when you patronize and condescend to Gary or whomever ("Maybe draw you some pictures"; "pay attention and learn") you probably should have an airtight case. You do not.
You claim that "fascism" was a "word coined in Italy in the 30s." I would not tell the members who in October 1921 founded the Italian National Fascist Party. By my math, 1921 predates the 1930s, no matter what sort of patronizing spin you put on it. Furthermore, even before Mussolini came to power, many groups either labeled themselves (or were labeled as) "fascist". And what of the 1923 emergence of the Romanian Fascist Party, ephemeral though it was?
You can claim all you want that capitalism and authoritarianism cannot coexist, but Nazi germany certainly was a capitalist, industrialist power despite state control -- pure capitalism, no, but where on earth has pure capitalism ever manifested itself? Furthermore, most fascists actually rejected corporatism as a model and of course loathed communism.
That Mussilini was a socialist at one point in his life does not mean that he was always a socialist. People can change. Or are Ronald Radosh, David Horowitz et al actually New Leftists now and always because they once were? Is david Brock actually still a conservative? Were we all duped by Ronald reagan -- he was once a New Deal liberal -- does this mean that he always was? Of course not. Mussolini embraced the communist/revolutionary left and rejected it later on. This is not exactly uncommon.
Finally, I think the biggest problem here is trying to impose a right-left schema on the whole question of fascism and communism. Left and right are themselves relative terms -- we use them to broadly define ideology, or often (as is the case on HNN, to pigeonhole and score cheap points -- and I am not placing myself above this) to label others and their views. But I am not certain that any authoritarian system, communism or fascism, fits very well into a right-left US model.
In any case, I'll go to Stanley Payne, inarguably the foremost scholarly authority on fascism today, to try to place fascism in some context:
Payne argues that fascism is an impossibly slippery concept easier to define in the negative -- ie, antimarxist, antiliberal, and anticonservative as well -- though Payne is also clear that most all fascist groups allied with the right at various times. He also avers that fascism embraces the leadership principle, a party army, and the aim of totalitarianism. As it manifested itself, fascism most often took the form of right authoritarianism.

Rick Martin Duiker - 2/14/2003

Thanks for your work. Recently LeCarre, the novelist, said we have been barraged with an unbelieveably massive propaganda campaign. He made a tragically accurate observation on a topic that carries disastrous implications for this nation - and the world. Wednesday evening, in a speech delivered at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas, ex-President Bill Clinton addressed the current crisis, saying that it is imperative for the United States to act in unison with the nations of the world; to not act as an explosively devisive force. His important messages got very little coverage, almost none by national media.

Unfortunately we are caught up in a shallow, soundbite culture, one in which the great majority of Americans have neither the intellectual bent, the patience or the informed basis for critical thinking. The propaganda blitz, in this almost perfect medium, is inundating an essentially defenseless world.

Steve Brody - 2/14/2003

Elizabeth, that is not true. Actually six law suits had been filed by Democratic operatives and activists to overturn the elections in Palm Beach County and to prevent Harris from certifying the election results prior to the Bush campaign filing its lawsuit.

This can be confirmed at FindLaw web site.

Arch Stanton - 2/14/2003

Dave Livingston: As someone who was opposed to the Vietnam War and refused induction, let me say that your comments about then and now were a breath of fresh air. People who think your use of "honey" is important, get information about America by talking to "an armored truck driver," and think that the 2000 election was a coup, live in a self-contained world. They are very afraid because they understand that that world now is threatened, but don't understand why or by what. The words of a song of our time addressed such people: "Something is happening here and you don't what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?"

Bill Heuisler - 2/14/2003

So, Gary, you need attention?
Since you used my name I will reply once. But you should be aware that scattering multitudes of half-baked, semi-literate posts to attract attention with baseless comments and valueless opinions is really pathetic. Or is it merely a cry for help?
Just in case you're suffering a breakdown caused by lack of self-esteem my charitable nature persuades me to give a lesson.

Pay attention and learn.
Fascism is a totalitarian, one-party system of government developed in Italy in 1919 under Benito Mussolini in which the individual was subordinate to the State. Control was maintained by military force, secret police, censorship and government regimentation of industry and finance. If there is historical evidence to the contrary, produce it.

Further, Fascism was a word coined in Italy in the '30s and therefore can only be accurately defined by the historical Italian experience. Italian Fascism was borrowed by Spain and Germany, but we must go to the source for particularization.

Mussolini in June 1914 was editor of the Socialist newspaper, Avanti and helped lead a general strike in Ancona. He had turned violently nationalist by 1919 and formed the Fascio di Combattimento. Eventually taking control of Italy in 1922, his Fascist government consolidated power and in 1929 established a National Council of Corporations to adjust disputes between various segments of the economy in the interest of National Production. The government promptly took rigid control of industry, foreign exchange, conversion of public debt and financial institutions. In fact, during the economic depression, 1930-35 the Fascist Government forced production of food, increased industrial production by drastic cuts in wages and appointed blackshirts to positions of leadership in industry, finance and agriculture. This was quite obviously a brutal manifestation of authoritarian Socialism, right?

Capitalism and rigid governmental control cannot coexist. Do we need to explain further? Maybe draw you some pictures?

So, formed by a National Socialist and defined by Italian history, Fascism's anti-Capitalist face is clear. Produce evidence to the contrary or stop wasting everyone's time.
Bill Heuisler

Gary Robeson - 2/13/2003

>Fascism has become opposite to Communism in trendy discussion, but both systems are big-government and anti-Capitalist.

Fascism is not anti-Capitalist. Your prose may be lucid, but your concepts are cloudy.

I would like to see you or any other spinner try to construct a case for such a ludicrous proposition. You would be laughed out of my classroom, and by freshmen no less.

Ralph E. Luker - 2/13/2003

The red and blue map to which you refer is interesting but no more immediately relevant than the fact that Gore had a plurality of the popular vote. If I read between the lines of what you say correctly, we might both have been happier with the result if John McCain had been elected president.

mike t - 2/13/2003

And of course all the liberal think tanks, including those glutted with out of office Democrats are pure altrusitic scholarship bodies.
this was like the Al Gore accusation that Conservatives were dominating radio. I think the point is therre are a lot of liberal radio talk shows, inluding LArry King at one time. And there is a middle of the road loose cannon called O'Reilly. He survives and thrives because he has listeners. Rush Limbaugh started oout with on a few stations and built his network a station at a time before eclipsing. They survive by ratings. And I can remember when liberals raised hell with anyone who dared to advertise with Limbaugh.
I found the charges blindsided

Dave Livingston - 2/13/2003

I didn't vote for Bush, I voted against that weak unstable compulsive liar, Gore.

Ralph (or someone else), if you would, send me your snailmail address. In return, I'll mail to you a copy of the Red & Blue map, which illustrates clearly Bush took the vast majority of counties and states in this nation.

Slimy Willie's cop-out for avoiding national service that he was a Rhodes Scholar needing to complete his studies might persuade me were I not acquainted with two bona fide Rhodes Scholars who fought in Viet-Nam after completing their studies. After all, because that war dragged on & on for fifteen years, roughly, anyone willing to serve had the time & opportunity to do so.

Acquainted too with a Leftist journalist who recently scoffed at the Constitution as "That out-of-date document." As a Christian, I worship neither the Constitution nor this nation, but I treasure both, the Constitution as the foundation of our society and as a soldier, albeit a mite battered, I'm sworn to defend it.

Politics are boring, but they are a necessary inconvenience.

Frankly, on balance I'm pleased that neither Slimy Willie nor anyone else was THAT unwilling to serve this nation didn't join us in Viet-Nam. We were better off without cowardly or reluctant warriors. But I'd have more respect for some of them, if they'd done anything, anything at all, in the way of service in their younger days.

For instance,in Liberia I was passingly acquainted with a few people who worked for C.A.R.E. Although they were fairly well paid that was a rough place to earn one's living. And unquestionably in my mind Catholic Relief Services was the most efficient and effective charity at work in West Africa forty years ago. Don't know about today.

On the other hand, it is a more or less free country and there should be room enough for those who want to do nothing more than to pamper themselves. In other words, I waffle, am not at all certain I like the idea of compulsory national service.

Elizabeth Moore - 2/13/2003

On your Point 2: In fact, the first Florida-related suit was filed by the Bush campaign, to stop the hand counting of votes in Miami.

Ralph E. Luker - 2/13/2003

By your definition, your president is a parasite. Apparently, only one member of Congress has a son or daughter in military service. Why not direct your righteous wrath at these privileged elite instead of the relatively impoverished and powerless academic sniffs who lurk here?

Dave Livingston - 2/13/2003

101 U.S. National Guardsmen were Killed in Action in Viet-Nam. If I who fought in Viet-Nam for two tours, Lieutenant, 1st Infantry & later with the 101st, and was severely WIA near the nomial end of the second tour am not complaining about the "special tratment" given some well-connected types, whuy then should somone who's never even so much as signed up to be a Weekend Warrior complain?

Indeed, before going on active duty to fight in Viet-Nam I too was a Weekend Warrior seven years. When a guy signs on the dotted line to join and train withg either the Reserves or the Guard, he's making a commitment which those parasities on the body politic refuse to make.

For instance, the medocal doctor wjom I usually see for my aches and pains at a nearby military facility is a Reservist called up about a year ago. He was released to go back to his lucrative civilian practice about four months ago, but has been recalled again to active duty. He isn't complaining about his life & plans being turn topsy-turvy. Selfiishly, I'm glad he's been recalled, because he'[s an excellent chancre mechanic, not that I need that particular aspect of medical service. :-)))

Pray tell, when are some of the whining parasites who enter this net going to join the armed forces to share the burden of defending this nation? One may join the Army reserves up to age 32, as I recall (or is it age 35?). Are you jokers going to hide and let someone else carry the burden, as usuaslly happens?

Like it or not, we are at war. Moreover, this should surprise no-one terribly, because a state of war is the normal human condition. Those interludes between wars are the ideal of peace which we probably will never achieve permanently on this earth. Certainly not by man's efforts alone.

The Cold War, which lasted from 1945 until 1989 was the Third World War Now we are engaged in WWIV. Get used to the idea, like it or not.

Dave Johnson - 2/13/2003

What interpretation do you give for dealing with enemies of America during wartime?

Mark - 2/13/2003

My message got clipped. It was supposed to say that
Grover Norquist has a big portrait of Lenin hanging in his living room,
according to David Brock in Blinded by the Right.

Mark - 2/13/2003

According to David Brock's book, Blinded by the Right, Grover Norquist
has a big portrait of Lenin hanging in his living room. Either
he is a Leninist or he has a weird sense of humor. Apparently
he is also an Islamofascist, as evidenced by these articles:

Grover Norquist's strange alliance with Radical Islam
http://www.tnr.com/111201/foer111201.html

Wahhabis in the old dominion
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/072kqska.asp

Jack Stephens - 2/13/2003

Mr. Johnson,
We are agreed then. Your accusations are based on nothing more substantial than matters of "interpretation." You haven't even made the shallowest effort to prove your accusation as it concerns William Simon. You refuse to discuss the Powell memo further.

In point of fact, your statement that Pipes and the others "want" trustees to do this or that is specious on its face, as implicit acknowledgement that this is merely your own "interpretation," rather than being based on any actual statements from these individuals, which one may assume you would have quoted had you had them to quote.

Dave Johnson - 2/13/2003

I believe we are disputing interpretations here. I find it hard to read the Powell memo the Pipes piece, etc. and not interpret them as I have.

Pipes writes that these professors "hate America" and subject students to an "extremist, intolerant and anti-American environment." He writes "Especially as we are at war, the goal must be for universities to resume their civic responsibilities." He concludes by writing, "This can be achieved if outsiders (alumni, state legislators, non-university specialists, parents of students and others) take steps to create a politically balanced atmosphere, critique failed scholarship, establish standards for media statements by faculty and broaden the range of campus discourse."

Writing that liberal professors are enemies of America in wartime leaves very little leeway for alternate interpretations of the remedies.

Dave Johnson - 2/13/2003

Is there anything the rest of us can do?

Yes. Most important is learn about this. Commonweal Institute has gathered a collection of articles and reports tracing the formation of the right-wing ideological movement, how it is funded and how it operates, online at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html.

Spread the word. The more people know about how the right has been so successful, the more able we all are to counter their methods.

Commonweal Institute, of course, welcomes any support, volunteers, etc. Check the Get Involved page, at http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/get_involved.htm.

Dave Johnson - 2/13/2003

I've been thinking about what you wrote about the number of Google hits on "they hate America" and I thank you. You make a very good point.

Originally this section was written to point out WHAT the places found by Google were saying, and WHO they were saying it about. The sheer number of Google hits seemed to make a stronger point, and that's what emerged.

I'd like to make the point here - if you search Google for the words "they hate America" you see initially mostly sites describing Islamic terrorists. Use of this term to describe professors and liberals creates an association of professors and liberals with terrorists.

Gary Robeson - 2/13/2003

Your attempt to discredit the objective truth of right wing media dominance using a worn out market demand argument is ridiculous. There is no real marketplace in major media. Not when half a dozen interconnected corporate conglomerates own 80% of that media.

>t traditional left-leaning political issues do not lend themselves to that rhetorial school.

Sure they do, as long as the listeners are somewhat ignorant of the issues but are angry enough.

For example, rather then :"If you think that women should be forced to raise babies they accidentally conceived then you're un-American!" try "If you think that the government should tell you what to do with your own body, then you're un-American!" I could sell this on national talk radio, if only a large corporation would let me ( it won't. )

The truth is that educated progressivism is and has always been the domain of an extreme minority. Only when the oligarchy gets too greedy and makes a mess of things do conditions get bad enough for the "unwashed masses" to pay attention. Then leftist rhetoric is quite popular ( witness the 30's ) despite the efforts of the organized rich elites to tell us it's not.

Gary Robeson - 2/13/2003

Yes there are lefties who would gladly deny the right wing the opportunity to speak. Yes indeed.

The trouble with your "A pox on both their houses" argument is this: those intolerant lefties have no money and little power. The only place you are going to run into trouble with this sort is in a graduate women studies program or in a sensitivity training class.

The intolerant right wing however, owns television stations and newspapers and much, much more.

Gary Robeson - 2/13/2003

>why do so many Americans follow conservative writers/talkers?

It could be that Americans simply like to hear people talk about current events. If the only talk is right wing spin, you listen to right wing spin.

A true media marketplace would respond to "consumer" demand, but our media oligarchy is not a true marketplace at all.

Don't believe the reporters and editors who indignantly deny the corporate control of media content.

Gary Robeson - 2/13/2003

Fair enough. Of course, this admits that corporations are not purely economic entities. They have political agendas, and their economic power serves those agendas.

To the extent that large corporations are in control of an ever growing peice of the American economic pie, corporatism certainly *is* about economics. Just because a dictionary definition doesn't contain the e-word doesn't disconnect the issues.

>what on earth does this have to do with Johnson's conspiracy theory?

I was responding to James Wilson's "fascists were leftists" post, ( which is poppycock of course ) and my response got unhooked from the thread somehow and became a root level post. Bad luck.

Jack Stephens - 2/13/2003

Gary,
I was merely attempting to suggest to you that "corporatism" is a political, not an economic system. Mussolini was talking about a social system in which the state is supreme and politics are carried out through mass organizations by group membership rather than through political parties. Your quote has *nothing* to do with economics. Try a dictionary with more than one entry.

Anyway, what on earth does this have to do with Johnson's conspiracy theory?

Anne Marshall - 2/13/2003

Thank you, Dave Johnson, for your article, "Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors." You have justified what my friends call my "paranoia" about the media and the powers that be in our country. In a relatively few short years, these "powers" have brought this country to the brink of disaster. Please continue your good work.

Is there anything the rest of us can do?

Thank you,
Anne Marshall

Gary Robeson - 2/13/2003

Oh Boy! We get to play "dueling dictionaries" !

to make the game easy, I use dictionary.com ( I also don't
feel like pulling out my wife's Oxford English Dictionary
with the microscoping print! :)

---------------------------------------------------
corporatism - only one entry, the associated word:
------------------------
cor·po·ra·tist

Of, relating to, or being a corporative state or system.
---------------------------------------
Ok, whats corporative ?
----------------------------------------

cor·po·ra·tive Audio pronunciation of corporative ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kôrpr--tv, -p-rtv)
adj.
s
1. Of, relating to, or associated with a corporation.
2. Of or relating to a government or political system in which the principal economic functions, such as banking, industry, labor, and government, are organized as corporate entities.


--------------------------------------------------
Huh. If your idea was to discredit my salient Mussolini
quote with a word definition, you lose.

Come on Jack, don't be silly. The Fascists were big boosters of capitalism. The only honest objection you could make was that Nazi pro-capitalism was a ruse to gain power, just like Lenin's advocacy of communist egalitarianism was only a ruse to gain power.

Basil Duke - 2/13/2003

From Mr. McCulloch's sneering reference to firearms- owning "knuckle draggers," I see at least one leftist still doesn't get it. Those gun owners he so blithely dismisses as politically irrelevant were a major factor in swinging Tennessee and West Virginia to Bush - and sending Bush to the White House. Having digested years of similar, demeaning rhetoric, rural Democrats finally grasped the reality of the situation; their party not only doesn't represent them any more, it brazenly insults them, their heritage and their ideals. I encourage Mr. McCulloch and the rest of his tribe to advance (loud and long)their sophisticated theories about guns and the people who own them. The more they chatter from the coffee houses and academic offices, the stronger their ideological opponents become. So fire away.

Jack Stephens - 2/13/2003

Mr. Johnson,
I have read Pipes' article. I understand that your piece relies on Foner and Gilmore's response to Pipes, which I have also read.

I have challenged you to substantiate the accusations you made in your own article, in which you stated that Pipes, William Simon, and Lewis Powell all "[want] trustees to remove or silence [liberal faculty]".

I will assume from your failure to substantiate your claims in the course of your article, and particularly from your refusal to back up your claims in response to my request, that these accusations of yours have no basis in fact. While I understand that as a non-historian you may be unaware of the importance of substantiating your claims, I am absolutely astonished that the historians who oversee the History News Network should so prominently feature a baseless hit piece by a non-academic writer.

Dave Johnson - 2/13/2003

You misread the article if you conclude that it discusses the Republican or Democratic Parties.

Also, it's important to clarify that Heritage, Cato and other right-wing organizations are by law not allowed to be associated with or act in the interests of any political party.

Any conclusions that Heritage or Cato or the others somehow support the Republicans, or are involved in election activities might actually support those who claim there is some kind of conspiracy.

Dave Johnson - 2/13/2003

Pipes - This article is written in response to a response to Pipes' article, which is here: http://hnn.us/articles/1013.html.

Chris Scott - 2/12/2003

I read something online a few months ago (wish I had bookmarked it) that deflates the conspiracy theorist in me about right-wing talk radio. According to the article, right-wing talk radio was born in a vaccuum; someone started it, and realized there was a huge untapped market ready to listen. An audience wasn't so much created as found. It's current popularity suggests that audience hasn't diminished. The author further stated that its popularity draws from its in-your-face, brash style. He further argued that "left-wing" talk shows would not succeed unless they adopted these tactics. The trouble is that traditional left-leaning political issues do not lend themselves to that rhetorial school. ("If you think that women should be forced to raise babies they accidentally conceived then you're un-American!" just doesn't have the same ring.)
But it's an interesting point; despite the ratings popularity of right-wing shows, the electorate is split almost evenly. Even this year's election was close in the aggregate. That means American's are smarter than they're given credit for; they're making their own decisions, and they apparently like the Republicans more right now.
I put forth that despite the right-wing dominance of the opinionated airwaves, this election would have turned out differently had you heard more about abortion restrictions, prayer or the 10 Commandments in schools, blue laws, and other moral legislation.
To be honest, 9/11 has been a great boon to the Republican Party. But let's cut the crap on conspiracies here; they're riding the popular wave, and if they misstep (the apparent war goes badly as I think it will [in the aftermath, at least], Roe v. Wade is reversed, the economy really, really tanks) Democrats will wind up back on top. That's the great thing about democracy; all the greedy back-room dealing can't bring you everything.

Chris Scott - 2/12/2003

This reads more like a smear campaign, hinting at some large conspiracy to defraud the American people. To me, this evidence proves nothing more than efficient organization. Not that surprising considering that Republicans are traditionally the part of business. I am obviously unfamiliar with the particulars, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that a similar core group of funders, policy analysts, and influential lobbyists "created" an agenda for the Democratic party as well. So again, what's the story? That American elections have become one big PR campaign? I'm shocked. No really, I am.

Geprge W - 2/12/2003

Interesting analysis, but, I wonder, why do so many Americans follow conservative writers/talkers?

Steve Miller - 2/12/2003

All the money in the world cannot hijack public opinion without controlling the media. I got to thinking about this after recently stumbling across the Take Back the Media website’s movement to identify and boycott advertisers of Rush Limbough. It occurred to me that, with somewhat more than half the population voting Democratic in the last presidential election, it was curious that every single radio talk show in my market was in essence a right-wing informercial. Given the almost even split in voting demographics, I simply cannot accept the canard that this is a purely function of ratings (even if Democrats have to go to work during days, you would expect them to listen to some evening radio.) This article sure tends to fuel my paranoid suspicions that some “vast right-wing conspiracy” (to coin a term) had orchestrated this over the last ten years or so. As I said to the Red Lobster Company (a listed Limbaugh advertiser) “If you can vote with your advertising dollar– I can, and will, vote with my consumer dollar.” It sure seems to me that if even a healthy slice of the fifty-percent Democrats did vote with their pocketbooks, things could change. Coors Beer stinks anyway.

Jack Stephens - 2/12/2003

Mr. Robeson,
The Nelson glossary of political science defines "corporatism" as follows:

"corporatism - The organization of liberal democracies in such a way that the state is the dominant force in society and the activities of all interests in society are subordinate to that force."
http://polisci.nelson.com/glossary.html

You'll notice that this has nothing whatsoever to do with
"corporations."

Jack Stephens - 2/12/2003

Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for your response.

Your article asserts that three separate individuals, Powell, Simon, and Pipes, all want trustees to "remove or silence" liberal faculty at America's universities. I assume that you do not intend the Powell Memorandum to serve as proof of your assertion/accusation as it concerns Simon and Pipes. I would have thought that inasmuch as Pipes is the principal subject of your article, you would at least have ready to hand evidence of his calls for the removal or silencing of faculty. I hope you will please consider also providing evidence for your assertion/accusation as it concerns Simon and Pipes.

Thank you for the link. Unfortunately, in reading the Powell Memorandum, I was unable to find an occurrence of any variation of the word "remove," or of the word "silence." So, I wonder if you would also please take a moment to direct me to the actual passage that you feel demonstrates Powell's advocacy of removing or silencing faculty at America's universities?

One passage I did find in the Memorandum that seemed to discuss a possible approach to be taken with university trustees is the following:

"The methods to be employed require careful thought, and the obvious pitfalls must be avoided. Improper pressure would be counterproductive. But the basic concepts of balance, fairness and truth are difficult to resist, if properly presented to boards of trustees, by writing and speaking, and by appeals to alumni associations and groups."

On the assumption that this passage is in fact germane, am I to understand that the advocacy, "by writing and speaking," of "the basic concepts of balance, fairness and truth" is somehow equivalent in your mind to calling for the removal or silencing of faculty?

Tristan Traviolia - 2/12/2003

The Left and Right both live in glass houses and persecute the expression of opposition ideas with equal fervor. The lack of civil debate is discouraging.

John Gorentz - 2/12/2003

If somebody finds any financial statements on that web site, be sure to let us know.

I don't know about the funding, but the tactics of the author of this piece sure sound like those of the late Sen. Joe McCarthy and his followers.

Gary Robeson - 2/12/2003

>Democrats 'to-eat-their-young'

I don't know about that, but consider that is really is impossible to counter lies and distortions with more lies and distortions. In other words, the cheap tricks that work so well for the right wing won't really do if your desire is to bring honesty and fairness to America.

It's harder to build up then it is to tear down. And beside, if America is reduced to a dump, the rich will take their tax-free estates and move away.

Yes indeed, the rich right wing are the true American traitors.

Richard Henry Morgan - 2/12/2003

I'd like to join Mr. Johnson in his condemnation of the National Endowment for the Humanities which, as he points out, bears the taint of the Bradley Foundation. Now if I can just get the Bradley Foundation to donate some money to the Commonweal Institute, perhaps through a third party ...

Gary Robeson - 2/12/2003

Every tribe and nation has it's immoral and selfish, yet fearful and constricted thugs.Handing them the palace keys is a mistake.

These guys are so used to their bully/buddy tricks working at every turn in the Corporate world, that they start to think that they're infallible. We can hope for circumstances to point out their true incompetence in a way that no one can deny. But luck has a lot to do with that.

Gary Robeson - 2/12/2003

>Empirically, Fascism has always been anti capitalist.

I define this as bona-fide "Hand Waving." Your assertion is completely unsupported and unsupportable.

In other words, you are wrong.

Now you could make a case that Fascists were opposed to independant business, preferring business which is tied to government. This would make them anti-free-enterprise. They could be accused of being anti-competitive, as they preferred monopolies that were more easily controlled.

Of course, I could easily support the point that Republicans are anti-competitive, as their hero George W. Bush is one of the more blatent crony businessmen ever installed. We are about to witness a huge anti-competitive wave of media mergers as soon as Michael Powell delivers the goods ( media ownership rules revisions )

At any rate, if Capitalism has the least bit to do with big business and private ownership and private profits, then the conclusion is unavoidable: Fascism is pro-capitalism.

Gary Robeson - 2/12/2003

Whenever I read online posting which echos the big lies of the "Right Wing Conspiracy"(tm) :) ,I wonder if the posters are paid operatives, or simply fellow travelers. With all the "Astroturf" flying about these days, I suppose it's hard to tell.

Why put the "R.W.C." in quotes? Because most Americans think a conspiracy must be a Hollywood cliche, with dim lit men in rooms speaking in cryptic tones. Tee Hee. How silly.

We need to reclaim the word conspiracy. It's current meaning has been twisted into an easily-ridiculed, melodramatic caracature of something that history teaches us is really quite mundane and ordinary. ( "The X-Files" bears some of the blame, IMHO )


Yes Hillary, there *is* a vast Right Wing Conspiracy. :)

Gary Robeson - 2/12/2003

"Paranoid hysteria" is a pretty hysterical description for the completely rational complaints about the objectivly conservative media in America.

>George W. Bush is not in office because of any form of coup

Tell that to the Florida vote counters threatened by the mob of Republican campaign operatives.

>The Consitituional process worked just fine

You must think that the Founding Fathers intended the Supreme Court to dictate how individual States conduct their legitimate recounts. 200 years of legal history would disagree with you.

>"They hate America"

This is really silly. The number of times some right winger smears a liberal patriot with this exact phrase is irrelevant.

> then I'm all for it.

Here you pretty much admit that you like right wing propaganda.

>stop the name-calling,

Why don't you call up Rush Limbaugh and tell him that? After all, the first time I heard truly nasty name calling on mainstream media was his program, circa 1989.

Right wingers take the prize for vitriolic name calling.

Dave Johnson - 2/12/2003

The Powell Manifesto, at http://www.mediatransparency.org/stories/powellmanifesto.htm

Bill Heuisler - 2/12/2003

Mr. Luker,
Having read your lucid prose for many months, it seems scarcely possible you have missed my point. But perhaps you only missed the words "quickly diffused", and later, the words "brand new".
My interpretation of Right-Wing could also be loosely applied to the Early Roman Republic and some post-Mycenaean Greek City States. As to the U.S., our noble experiment began to lose its luster when we settled in the partisan mould of our "vulgarity, heavily thickening to empire". In my opinion, the dream became diffused largely through the efforts of Hamilton and the Federalists.
Bill Heuisler

Gary Robeson - 2/12/2003

Benito Mussolini - "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

Let's see, the Nazi party was loved by German business. The Nazis sent the concentration camp prisoners to be slaves for German business. American big businessmen loved the Nazis because they were so good for profits.

Now just how is fascism opposed to capitalism again?

You right wingers never cease to amaze me with your willingness to rewrite history for your partisen cause!

Gary R. - 2/12/2003

If there truly is a "conspiracy" (I'm still waiting to hear how Scaife got Monica to do her deed)

Then you just need to read a few books. Go to mediawhores.com or bartcop to find pointers to books that will inform you on just how the right-wing propaganda machine works.

"Waiting" around is no way to become educated.

Gary Robeson - 2/12/2003

"Fascists were left-wing." you say. You speak a big lie.

The American supporters of fascism were all conservatives. The fascist platform was centered on a merger of corporate and government power. None of the philosophy or politics of the
Italian, Spanish or German fascist movements had ANYTHING at all to do with liberalism.

Gary Robeson - 2/12/2003

Your post is just more right-wing baloney, full of fantasy strawmen and craven distortions.

A 70's liberal media monologue ? What a load of crap! I was alive in the 70's and let me tell you, the media were CONSERVATIVE. The only "liberals" were on tiny little radio stations.

Today they are not merely conservative, but FOX leads the pack as a cheerleader for the radical right-wing.

You don't name any of these "liberal" media mavens, you don't talk about any real issues, you just toss out lies and distortions.

Maybe you could get a job at FOX. I'm sure you could.

Jim McCulloch - 2/12/2003

Mr. Cramer is unfunded and unappreciated because he is rather narrowly obsessed with gun issues, which, although occasionally useful in exciting the knucklewalkers of the extreme right, are not central to the Republican big-money attack strategy. Indeed, the totalitarian tendencies becoming evident in the Bushies' War on Dissent make it clear that the 2nd Amendment may be in as much danger as the 1st and the 4th.

Jack Stephens - 2/12/2003

This article includes the assertion that, "Like [Lewis F.] Powell and [William] Simon, Pipes accuses liberal faculty of anti-American bias and wants trustees to remove or silence them."
The article provides no evidence whatsoever of calls from any of these individuals for trustees to "remove or silence" anyone. Does Mr. Johnson see no need to substantiate his arguments/accusations? If he can provide evidence for his claims, why does he not do so?

Ralph E. Luker - 2/12/2003

"The definitive Right-Wing system has only existed rarely in history and has been quickly diffused."
"Face it, the first really Right Wing government in history was the brand new United States of America."

Face it, Bill, you just repudiated your own argument.

Bill Heuisler - 2/12/2003

Fascism has become opposite to Communism in trendy discussion, but both systems are big-government and anti-Capitalist.

Right-Wing is usually defined as conservative or reactionary with policies generally favoring the "mercantile class" and promoting Capitalism and Nationalism.
Left Wing is usually defined as liberal, socialist or laborite with policies generally favoring the international "working classes" and government control of the economy.

But let's forget theory a moment and look at actual events.
Empirically, Fascism has always been anti capitalist. The definitive Right-Wing system has only existed rarely in history and has been quickly diffused.

Fascism - an Italianate word - was developed in Italy in 1919 to oppose Communism, but has always been described as a One Party system where the individual was subordinated to the State; where control was maintained by military, secret police, censorship and government regimentation of industry and finance. The Fascisti of our history, Mussolini and Franco, were both big government and anti capitalist and controlled their people, press and economies with the military and the police.

Face it, the first really Right Wing government in history was the brand new United States of America.
Bill Heuisler

Dave C Johnson - 2/12/2003

My e-mail is djohnson@commonwealinstitute.org.

Dave Johnson - 2/12/2003

Please contact me and I'll provide you with info you can e-mail to others.

Don McArthur-Self - 2/12/2003

Why is it that those who disagree with a particular perspective are necessarily "dumbed down"?

And as to the 2000 election:

1. George W. Bush was elected (by the electoral college) and inaugurated; he was not "installed"

2. There was quite a fight over the recount process in Florida - a fight that was first taken to the courts by the Gore campaign seeking to alter the results of the legislatively require automatic recount. The ensuing legal "fight", in which neither side came off looking particularly good, moved on to the Supreme Court...

3. How might "we" (you) have "fought" that? Considering the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, were you prepared to take to the streets in armed revolution or precepitate a massive constitutional crisis?

The election of 2000 is over. The next one is in another year and a half. Campaign. Vote. But don't get hysterical. The republic is 227 years old and has survived far worse.

Ken Melvin - 2/12/2003

It's not only CNN. TOTN, the NEWSHOUR,...they all draw from this bullpen. All part of the Washington disconnect, I think. After a recent e-mail exchange with Bob Schieffer about this clubbiness and how it fogs their vision, I decided the DC media has lost all ability to associate with people outside the area and with working people in general.

Clayton E. Cramer - 2/12/2003

I feel so unappreciated. I would have thought that my efforts to expose the Bellesiles scandal would have been worth SOMETHING to these right-wing conspirators, but so far, my attempts at getting any funding have been ineffective. What am I doing wrong?

More seriously, as long as the billionaires leftists keep funding their causes (Joyce Foundation, and MacArthur Foundation), I don't think there's any danger of the right taking over America.

Richard Henry Morgan - 2/12/2003

No, two people are not intended to represent "the wide spectrum of opinion" -- people come in discrete packages, and the spectrum is a continuum, incorporating an infinite number of opinions. The two peole were picked to make A case for, and A case against. The Cato Institute is libertarian, and as staunchly against foreign intervention as any other political persuasion.

Derek Catsam - 2/12/2003

Fascists were not left wing. It's as simple as that.

The biggest problem here is that this whole schema serves more name calling purposes than analytical ones -- calling American conservatives fascists is a way to chill dialogue just as calling lefties communists or marxists serves a similar purpose.

But to pervert historical reality and to claim that fascism was a left wing phenomenon is not to understand (or to willfully misrepresent) fascism or Nazism.

Roger Hedges - 2/12/2003

While all the Tucker Carlson wannabes log in here with name-calling invective for anyone who dares to question the validity of the great right way...

As further proof of Johnson's thesis I offer this:

Just a few days ago, on CNN, they put on two pundits who were going to debate the pros and cons of Dubya's plan for going to war with Iraq, UN inspections, etc.

One of them was from the Heritage Foundation and the other was from the Cato Institute.

Hello?

This was supposed to represent the wide spectrum of opinion on the issues?

This is liberal media?

Somewhere, Scaife is chuckling.

T. Pinschmidt - 2/12/2003

Your article has answered a lot of my queries as to why so many are running scared.....However, I WISH I could e-mail this article to umpteen people and inform them too............we are all so worried that America is turning its back on its constitution.

Mark Bernadiner - 2/12/2003

I applaud these comments and completely agree with you. I lived in the Soviet Union for 4 decades before immigrating to the US and know exactly what you are talking about. Left-wing professors made American academy anti-Semitic and pro-fascist. They support Iraq, hate American government, provide intentionally fake education to American students on Middle East history, publish anti-Semitic books, and some even provide financial and material support to terrorist groups constituting global Arab fascism. The left-wing professors are so much concern with their freedom that they do not care about security of this Country and their fellow citizens. I have no doubt that there are monies come from Arab fascist organizations supporting the left-wingers. American academy needs to be restructured to make it more responsible and accountable for its activity.

Don McArthur-Self - 2/12/2003

Now wait a minute - let's see. Which campaign was it that initially appealed to the court system instead of allowing state election laws to run their course? And how is it posible to argue that the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the intersection of federal election law and the statutes and deadlines established by the Florida legislature is any different from the Florida Supreme Court's bizarre reinterpreting of its state's own statutes? After multiple recounts with increasingly generous standards for divining voter "intent" (how about marking a ballot correctly?) Moreover, if Florida's votes had remained in dispute, it would have fallen to the Republican-dominated House of Representatives to certify them or to select the president. Would the outcome have then been different?

The wonderful thing is that in 2004 we all get to go back to the polls and do it all again. Either we'll have another disputed election - we've survived a lot of those, or Bush (assuming he is the candidate) will lose and the people will have spoken, or he will win re-election and be vindicated.

Regardless, Bush was ELECTED by the electoral college, not "installed" by anyone.

Don McArthur-Self - 2/12/2003

Fair enough as far as the original article goes, although I think most conservatives would fall under suspicion using your terms and implications. Note also, however, that my post was directed not only at the original essay but many of the response threads which followed, some of which border on paranoid hysteria.

James Wilson - 2/12/2003

Fascists were left-wing. There have never been any right-wing socialists. The Fascisti in Italy and the Nazis in Germany were socialists like Kim Il Sung--national instead of international. They were by no means "right-wing," by any realistic definition of the epithet. Only Franco could be considered right-wing of those commonly referred to as fascist. Even Pinochet was more socialistic than most realize--I lived in Chile and know what I'm talking about. The current "right-wing" in America stands for freedom, free markets and local control. It's the left that goes in for speech-codes, racial quotas and central control of everything imaginable. If you're looking for a fascist, try the mirror.

Richard Henry Morgan - 2/11/2003

They are coming out of the woodwork tonight. Do you really stand by that "every bit"? That would seem to be defensible only if National Guard service weren't military service at all. In any case we have a generation stepping into leadership roles a good portion of which did all they could to avoid all military service, or secure a nice cushy job within the service. Bush got special treatment, and apparently disappeared for months at a time. Quayle got the same. What distinguishes Clinton is his unusual capacity for prevarication. He claimed he had never received a draft notice. That was a lie. He said he never knew of efforts to secure him a slot in overstrength units. That was a lie. And after he pulled an undraftable lottery number, he "volunteered" for draft eligibility (had his ROTC contract torn up) via a backdated letter.

It is easy to be too harsh on Clinton, and others, for what they did in a time of great confusion in their youth. What is more troubling is their inability in middle age to stop lying about it (the "their" applies to all three, though not in equal measure).

MaryFord - 2/11/2003

The article is both fascinating and can be scary.

Did you see where Bill(WM J.)Bennent was planning a visit and Talk at Columbia Universsity today? Reason given: The young people there are not being given the "truthful reasons for the
wr in Iraq". Mary

mark safranski - 2/11/2003

This article was interesting but without a comparison with the major centimillion to billion dollar endowment foundations that grant only from the center-left to the progressive left it's clearly myopic propaganda.

The Left is currently in a fury having realized finally the damage the internet and talk radio have done to the former liberal monologue that existed in the golden-age of the post-watergate, post-Vietnam 1970's. The whole " What Liberal Media ? " effort is an attempt to define " progressive" -i.e. radical and socialist fringe opinion - positions as " liberal " and actual " liberal " positions held by 90 % of media employees as " centrist" or center-right. It's nonsense.

Ralph E. Luker - 2/11/2003

Sorry, Davy, hun. I just lost my respect for your national service.

C. Fowles - 2/11/2003

Mr. Livingston:
Why don't you address the issue of Mr. Bush's "service" in the
Texas Air Nat'l Guard? You brought up Mr. Clinton's lack of service, now why not tell us about Mr. Bush's record? What do you know about it? Does it make you proud of Mr. Bush that while you were getting shot at, while your life was put on the line, Bush's Daddy saw to it that he was ensured a place in the Air Nat'l Guard, moved to the head of the list, ahead of guys like you who actually served? What about Cheney's draft evasion? Why is that less disagreeable to you than Clinton's?

C. Fowles - 2/11/2003

Where the money comes from for A.N.S.W.E.R.: Donations from ordinary people, not a handful of rich conservatives!

International A.N.S.W.E.R.
(Act Now to Stop War & End Racism)

Steering Committee:

IFCO/Pastors for Peace
Free Palestine Alliance - U.S.
Partnership for Civil Justice - LDEF
Nicaragua Network
Bayan - USA/International
Korea Truth Commission
International Action Center
Muslim Student Association of the U.S./Canada
Kensington Welfare Rights Union
Mexico Solidarity Network
Middle East Children's Alliance

List of Coalition Co-Signers: (join)
(as of June 20, 2002 )

* denotes organization listed for ID purposes only

Ramsey Clark - former U.S. Attorney General

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton - Auxiliary Bishop, Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit, Michigan

American Muslims for Global Peace

Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition, NY & NJ

Barbara Lubin - Executive Director, Middle East Children's Alliance

Jews Against the Occupation

Rev. Lucius Walker - Pastors for Peace

Rev. Graylan Hagler - Senior Minister, Plymouth Congregational Church, Washington DC

Rev. Curtis Gatewood - Durham, North Carolina

Rev. Cecil Williams - Glide Memorial Church, Washington, DC

Robert Meeropol - Executive Director, Rosenberg Fund for Children*

Teresa Gutierrez - Co-Director, International Action Center, NYC

Karen Talbot - International Center for Peace & Justice

Committee for a Democratic Palestine

Ismael Guadalupe - Committee for Rescue & Development in Vieques, Puerto Rico

Michel Chossudovsky - Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, Canada

Green Party USA

Howard Zinn - historian and author

Michael Parenti Ph.D. - author of 'America Besieged'

Dick Gregory - comedian

David Clennon - actor

Ben DuPuy - former Deputy Ambassador-at-Large, Haiti

School Of the Americas Watch

Humdan Durrani - President, Muslim Student Association of Richland College, Dallas, Texas

Eric Mar - Commissioner, San Francisco Board of Education; CFA/CTA; Asian American Studies San Francisco State University*, California

Chuck Turner - council member, Boston City Council, District 7*, Massachusetts

Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition of New York and New Jersey

Hoshikawa Jun - Director, Yakushima Institute, Kagoshima-ken, Japan

John Gilbert - university instructor and national coordinator, University Foreign Language Instructors, SNUR-CGIL (University & Research Union) and CGIL (Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro -- General Confederation of Italian Labor)*, Florence, Italy

Ajmal Pashtoonyar - President, Afghan Youth Organization (AYO), St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada

Muslims Against Racism and War

Rev. Phil Wheaton - Committee for Indigenous Solidarity (CIS), Washington, DC

Tom Nagy - professor, George Washington University*, Washington DC

Nania Kaur Dhingra - Sikh Student Organization, George Washington University, Washington, DC

Martín Espada - poet

Sakhi for South Asian Women

Women for Afghan Women

Stephanie Simard - Co-president, Simmons College Feminist Union, Women's Fightback Network, Boston, Massachusetts

Michele Naar-Obed - Plowshares activist, Jonah House, Baltimore

Pam Africa - International Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Michel Collon - author and journalist, Belgium

Left Turn

Heidelberg Forum Against Militarism and War, Germany

Italian Tribunal on NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia, Italy

Helena Papadopoulos - Researcher, Center for the Comparative Study of Law and Society, Rabieh, Lebanon

Elmar Schmaehling - Retired Admiral, German Navy, Germany

Wolfgang Richter - President, European Peace Forum, Germany

Issam Makhoul - member of the Knesset, Democratic Front for Peace and Equality (HADASH), Israel

Sally Davies - President, AFSCME Local 1072

Craig Newman - Chief Steward, AFSCME Local 1072

Eric Easton - Vice President, National Action Network, Baltimore, Maryland

Rev. David Carl Olson - Community Church of Boston, Boston, Massachusetts

Baltimore Coalition Against the War, Maryland

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Baltimore and Cantonsville Chapters, Maryland

Ricardo Juarez - Pasamontañas

Nino Pasti Foundation, Rome, Italy

Tobias Pflueger & Claudia Haydt - Information-Post on Militarism, Germany

New Communist Party of the Netherlands, Netherlands

African Immigrant and Refugee Coalition of North America

Dominican Workers Party, NYC

Chuck Kaufman - National Co-Coordinator, Nicaragua Network

NISGUA - the Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatamala

Ray LaForest - Labor Organizer, District Council 1707 AFSCME, NYC

Heidi Boghosian - Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild

Tom Hansen - Mexico Solidarity Network, Washington, DC

Kriss Worthington - Berkeley City Council, Berkeley, California

Leonora Foerstal - Women for Mutual Security

Asha A. Samad - Human Rights Center

April 25 Movement of the Dominican Republic

Njeri Shakur - Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement

Michel Shehadeh - Los Angeles 8 Case Respondent, Los Angeles, California

Muslim Student & Faculty Association

Emmanunel M. Hizon - National Student Coordinator, Movement for the Advancement of Student Power, Quezon City, Manila, Philippines

Saad Kadhim - West Harlem Coalition, New York City

Leslie Feinberg - transgender author and Co-Founder, Rainbow Flags for Mumia

Kadouri Al Kaysi - Committee in Support of Iraqi People, New York City

Aisha Sabadia - Muslim Student Union, Amnesty*, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Minnie Bruce Pratt - writer and anti-racist activist

Vieques Support Campaign, NYC

All Peoples Congress, Baltimore, Maryland

Unity for Action, Baltimore, Maryland

Sharon Ceci - Shop Steward, UFCW Local 27, Baltimore, Maryland

Mitchel Cohen - Green Party USA and Brooklyn Greens, Brooklyn, New York

Milos Raickovich - College of Staten Island, CUNY*, Staten Island, New York

Carlos Eden - Raweshrar Project for Indigenous People, Chile

Jamie York - Cuba Advocate Newsletter*, Montana

Brian Barraza - Association of Mexican Workers, NYC

Justin Vitiello - professor, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

John Kim - Veterans for Peace, NYC Chapter, NYC

Mahtowin Munro & Moonanum James - United American Indians of New England

SAFRAD Somali Association

Monica Moorehead - Workers World Party

Arab Cause Solidarity Committee, Madrid, Spain

Korea Truth Commission

Congress for Korean Reunification

Struggle Against War Coalition, Italy

Trades Union International of Building and Wood Workers, Finland

LEF Foundation, St. Helena, California

SEIU Local 1877, San Francisco, California

Vanguard Public Foundation, San Francisco, California

Consuela Lee - musician

Bohemian Grove Action Network, Sonoma County, California

Sonoma County Free Press, California

Susan E. Davis - co-chair, New York Local, National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981, NYC

James Lafferty - National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles, California

Campaign Against Racism & War, Oberlin, Ohio

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist

Dr. Pol De Vos - President, Anti-Imperialist League, Belgium

Refuse and Resist

Dr. Bert De Belder - Coordinator, Third World Medical Aid, Belgium

Dr. Jean Pestieau - professor, Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, California

California Prison Focus

Anuradha Mittal - Executive Director, Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy

Sandra Robertson - Georgia Citizens Coalition on Hunger

Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition of Massachusetts

Radio Arabiyat, Boston, Massachusetts

Vanessa Marques - Portuguese-American Relief for Palestine

Rima Anabtawi - Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coordinating Committee

Committee to Defend Amer Jubran and Palestinian Free Speech Rights

Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam, Atlanta, Georgia

Masjid Al Muminun, Atlanta, Georgia

Hadayai Majeed - Muslim Women's Political Action Committee

Gloria La Riva - West Coast Regional Co-Director, International Action Center, San Francisco, California

Julia Yonetani - researcher, University of the Ryukyus*, Okinawa

Eliseo Ramírez - Director Política, Internacional de Voz Proletaria, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Ali Baghdadi - editor, Arab Journal, Woodridge, Illinois

Claire Alby - documentary filmmaker, Paris, France

Gil Ben Aych - philosopher and writer, Paris, France

Debbie Anderson - founder, The Rosa Luxemburg Collective, McDonough, New York

Prof. Peter Erlinder - professor of law and former president, National Lawyers Guild, St. Paul, Minnesota

Yafar Gonzalez Bornez - Madrasa Islamica Imam Ar-Rida (A.S.) - UMMAH, Granada, España

Abigal Coburn - student, Friends World Program*, Southampton, New York

Ian Harvey - Florida Education Association, AFL-CIO*, Naples, Florida

Kevin Ramirez - Military Out of Our Schools coordinator, Central Committee for Consientious Objectors, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Richard Hugus - Cape Cod Coalition Against Iraq Sanctions, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Sergio Sánchez - Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Utopía Universitaria, Caracas, Venezuela

Vera Vratusa-Zunjic - Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Sociology*, Beograd, Yugoslavia

Steven Gillis - Executive Board, USWA local 8751, Boston School Bus Drivers, Boston, Massachusetts

Gerry Scoppettuolo - Director of Education, South New Hampshire HIV/AIDS Task Force

Keith McHenry - co-founder, Food Not Bombs, Tucson, Arizona

Teresa and Blase Bonpane - Office of the Americas, Los Angeles, California

Mohau Pheko - Pan Africanist Women's Organisation of Azania, Johannesburg, South Africa

Seena Yacoob - Researcher, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa

Evangelos Mahairas - Honorary President, World Peace Council, Greece

Mark Taylor - professor, Princeton Theological Seminary*, Educators for Mumia

David Sole - President, UAW Local 2334, Detroit, Michigan

Nadine Rosa-Rosso - General Secretary, Workers' Party of Belgium, Belgium

Stan Goff - writer and organizer, North Carolina Network for Popular Democracy, Raleigh, North Carolina

Sidney J. Gluck - Chairman, US-China Society of Friends

Veronica Golos - poet, NYC

David Obiekwe Quarter - Toronto, Canada

Richard Roper - England

Mark Burwinkel - Cincinnati, Ohio

Lee Mager - London, England

Heather Cottin - Long Island, New York

Beatriz Morales - Madrid, Spain

Campaign Against Plan Colombia, Barcelona, Spain

Garibaldi Collective, Barcelona, Spain

Batasana, Euskal, Basque Country

Karim Lopez - Institute for Mass Communications

Oklahoma Socialist Cooperative, Oklahoma

Radical Women

Freedom Socialist Party

Johnnie Stevens - People's Video Network, NYC

Arab Women's Solidarity Association, San Francisco Chapter, San Francisco, California

Savas Michael-Matsas - General Secretary, Christian Rakovsky Balkan Socialist Center, Athens, Attica, Greece

A Jewish Voice for Peace, San Francisco, California

Marco Frucht - Editor and Publisher, Activist Times, Green Bay, Wisconsin

Greg Miaskiewicz - Adams County Green Party, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

G.N. Saibaba - general secretary, AIPRF, India

Klaus von Raussendorff - Anti-Imperialistische Korrespondenz, Bonn, Germany

Arab Cause Solidarity Committee, Spain

Mimi Adams - Arab-Jewish Dialog*, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Gavan McCormack - Australian National University*, Canberra, Australia

Bay Area CISPES, San Francisco, California

Bündnis Global Gegen Krieg (Global Alliance Against War), From, Germany

Saundra McMillan - professor, California State University at Long Beach*, Long Beach, California

Jason Johnston - Campaign Against Racism and War, Oberlin, Ohio

Campaña Contra Plan Colombia (Campaign Against Plan Colombia)

Robert Franck - professor, Catholic University of Louvain*, Belgium

Michael Green - Executive Director, Center for Environmental Health, San Francisco, California

Aton Ra - Center of Strategic Future, Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden

College Voice

Roy Rollin - College Voice, NYC

Committee on US-Latin American Relations (CUSLAR), Ithaca, New York

Manfred Eber - Chairperson, Communist Party of Austria, Tirol, Innsbruck, Austria

H. Charfo - Head of the Department of International Relations, Central Committee, Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, Praha, Czech Republic

Marina Drummer - Community Futures Collective

Brett de Bary - Professor of Asian Studies, Cornell University*, Ithaca, New York

Greg Ericson - Founder, freepressinternational.com, Austin, Texas

Justin Bendell - Fuguers Cove Collective*, Madison, Wisconsin

Patrik Köbele - Chairman, German Communist Party, Ruhr-Westfalen, Germany

Giorgio Ellero - Gruppo Zastava Trieste, Trieste, Italy

Dennis Apel - Guadalupe Catholic Worker, Guadalupe, California

Alex Plows - Gwynedd and Mon Earth First!, Gwynedd, Wales

Claudia Haydt - board member, IMI-Informationsstelle Militarisierung, Tuebingen, Germany

Tobias Pflueger - chairman, IMI-Informationsstelle Militarisierung, Tuebingen, Germany

Karim Lopez - Institute for Mass Communications/ HYP-HOP*, Brooklyn, New York

Hugh Stephens - Secretary, Institute for Independence Studies*, London, England

Adam Blunt - philosopher, International Action Center - Bridgewater State College Chapter, Canton, Massachusetts

Canadian-Cuban Friendship Association, Vancouver, British Colombia, Canada

Marília Rondani - Núcleo de Meio Ambiente da União de Mulheres de São Paulo, Brasil

Falco Accame - former president of the Defense Commission in the Chamber of Deputies, Italian Tribunal on NATO crimes in Jugoslavia, Italy

Peter Cadogan - chairperson, London Alliance for Local Democracy, London, England

Tim King - farmer, Long Prairie River Stewardship Project, Long Prairie, Minnesota

Media Monitors Network Southern (mediamonitors.net), California

Taijun Nishida - No More War*, Hiroshima, Japan

Kevan Hudson - Director, Ogoni Solidarity Network, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada

Joshua Thomason - Co-Chairperson, Oklahoma Socialist Cooperative, Chickasha, Missouri

Joseph P. Horgan - Shop steward - IBT shop, OPEIU Local 2*, Kensington, Maryland

Athos Fava - Secretary for International Relations, Partido Comunista de la Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Patricio Echegary - General Secretary, Partido Comunista de la Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Elizabeth O'Nan - Director, Protect All Children's Environment (PACE), Marion, North Carolina

Judith Detert-Moriarty - Rock County Citizens for Peace, Janesville, Wisconsin

Wendy Strebe - Rural Community Assistance*, Las Vegas, Nevada

David San Martín - Sentimientos Kontra el Poder, Getafe (Madrid), Spain

Bet Power - Director, Sexual Minorities Archive, Northampton, Massachusetts

Daniel Golovaty Cursino - Shalom Salam Paz*, Brasil

Fausto Schiavetto - Soccorso Popolare (Popular Aid) - Padova, Padova, Italy

David A. Smith - Editor, Social Problems, Irvine, California

Spanish Campaign for Lifting the Sanctions on Iraq, Spain

Olivera Pavlovic - doctor professor, Yugoslavia

Aisha Sabadia - Muslim Student Union, Amnesty*, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Susanne Kelly - secretary-treasurer, Local 334 OPEIU*, Richmond, Virginia

Saif Bonar - Surf London, London, England

Thomas Claesson - Teachers League of Sweden*, Skärhamn, Tjörn, Sweden

Justin Vitiello - Professor of Italian, Temple University*, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Jamie York - The Cuba Advocate Newsletter*, Deer Lodge, Montana

Linda Wolf - Director, The Daughters Sisters Project, Bainbridge Island, Washington

Maher Kouraytem - The Lebanese Communist Party, Beirut, Lebanon

United Public Housing Residents, Washington, DC

Judith Kegan Gardiner - Director of Graduate Studies in English and Professor of English and of Gender & Women's Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago*

Claudio Moffa - professor of History of Afro-Asian countries, University of Teramo

Vietnam Veterans Against The War Anti Imperialist

Voice of Yugo-Diaspora

Jutta Burghardt - former Director, World Food Programme in Iraq*, Sankt Augustin, Netherlands

Arthur Staats, PhD - Professor (Emeritus) of Psychology

Dale Sophiea and Elania Nanopoulos

Felicity Arbuthnot - journalist, England

Leila Sansour - T.V. Producer, London, England

Lester Schonbrun - Oakland, California

Muna Hamzeh - author and journalist, Austin, Texas

Riem Farahat - Long Beach, California

Seemin Qayum - New York City

Susan Peters - New York City

Keiko Kani - researcher and environmental specialist, Konan, Aichi, Japan

Tracey McPartlan - Director, 11th Hour Group*, Lennox Head, New South Wales, Australia

N. Falciatano - Animal Defense League*, Los Angeles, California

Donnie Quest - student organizer, AxCx Punks*, Laramie, Wyoming

Ross Stuart Marat - Bedfordshire Socialist Alliance*, Luton, England

Kathleen Semanski - student activist, Boston University*, West Hartford, Connecticut

Ian M. Betteridge - Publishing Administrator, British Medical Journal*, Brighton, East Sussex, England

Phil Runkel - archivist, Catholic Worker, Marquette University*, Waukesha, Wisconsin

Hillel Barak - Committee for One Democratic & Secular Republic*, Beit Shemesh, Israel

Kathryn M. Daly - law student, CUNY Law School, Flushing, New York

Eduardo Unda Sanzana - Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Soton*, Southampton, England

Brian Shea - Disabled Peoples Liberation Front, Boston, Massachusetts

Paul Davidson - Euro-Cuba News, London, England

Alexis Ponce - Vocero Nacional, Asamblea Permanente de Derechos Humanos (APDH) del Ecuador, Quito

Soledad Paz, Argentina

Bernd Hamm - Professor of Sociology, Jean Monnet Professor of European Studies and Director, Center for European Studies, University of Trier*, Germany

Stratis Kounias - University of Athens*, Greece

Grace de Haro - APDH Human Rights Organization, Argentina

Ramiro Gonzalez - Argentina

Martin S. Past - coordinator of international activities, Peace Office Netherlands

Wanda Colón Cortés - Proyecto Caribeño de Justicia y Paz, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Randolph Carter Richter - First Church of Christ, Scientist, Denver & Boston*, Lakewood, Colorado

Dorothy Byrne - Green Political Party, St. Petersburg, Florida

Roz Rayner-Rix - Hambleton Area Belly Dance Association*, Dalton, Thirsk, England

Mickey Gibson - Harmonic Arts/West*, Bainbridge Island, Washington

Michael Gene Ratkewicz - Account Executive, HotJobs.com*, San Francisco, California

Tomiyama Ichiro - staff member, IMPACTION*, Kyoto, Japan

Mindy Stone - Indian River Green Party, Vero Beach, Florida

William D. Fusfield - Associate Professor, University of Pittsburgh*, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Tony Robertson - Community Worker, Micah, Inc.*, South Brisbane, Australia

Nick Valvo - student, Oberlin College*, Oberlin, Ohio

Eric Scheinert - member, Ryan White Care Council, PHHASE, Inc. Compassion House, Lakeland, Florida

Joan Clingan - educator and anti-racist, Prescott College Master of Arts Program*, Prescott, Arizona

Brent Buell - writer, teacher and civil rights activist, Professional Staff Congress*, New York City

Bobbie Dee Flowers - College Assistant/Site Coordinator, RB/LIU*, New York City

Steven Schroeder - Instructor in Philosophy and Liberal Studies, Roosevelt University*, Chicago, Illinois

Tian Harter - member, Santa Clara County Green Party, Mountain View, California

Mick Dunford - Honorary Editor, Regional Studies, School of European Studies, University of Sussex*, Brighton, England

David Muller - South Movement, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Dave Havard - Deacon, St. Margaret's Anglican Church*, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Nancy Bauer - Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Tufts University*, Newton Highlands, Massachusetts

Nathan A. Hawks - webmaster, WarOnWar.org*, Metairie, Louisiana

Kristin Andrews - Facilitator, Watauga Green Party, Banner Elk, North Carolina

Stephanie Carlisle - Wesleyan University*, Middletown, Connecticut

Damien Lawson - Western Suburbs Legal Service, Newport, Victoria, Australia

Norwood Orrick - Programmer, WMNF Community Radio*, Tampa, Florida

Dhruti Contractor - Graduate Student, Yale University*, New Haven, Connecticut

Michael Petrs - Young Democratic Socialists*, Avon Lake, Ohio

rev les ego - Linguistics Editor, Zentences, New York City

David Klein - in-home-services social worker, SEIU*, Altadena, California

Alex Holcombe - organizer, San Diego Coalition for Peace and Justice*, San Diego California U.S.

Diane McKay - adjunct professor, Rutgers University*, New York City, New York

Stefano Perale - dottore, Manitese-Venezia*, Ve-Mestre, Italy

Sheila Howlett - Peace Activist, Kawartha Ploughshares*, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Kristen Gregg - marketing director, HEAL Foundation, Memphis, Tennessee

Teddy Yoshikami - public and multicultural programming, American Museum of Natural History*, Brooklyn, New York

Audrey Williams - President Afrimerica, Inc., The African Stock Exchange Development Corporation, Dover, Delaware

Mary Zoeter - ESL tutor and president, Action for Animals Network, Alexandria, Virginia

Adele Macy - Weaverville, North Carolina

Ahmed Tar - Lomita, California

Alex Koppelman - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Andrea Boudreau - Columbus, Ohio

Andrea Ginsky - Sarasota, Florida

Andrea Janette Long - Atlanta, Georgia

Andrea Scharnau - Arlington, Virginia

Andrew Bruce - Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Antonie Brinkmann - Bremen, Germany

Antony Schofield - mental health advocate, England

Anuradha Sachdev - Los Angeles, California

Ari Weinstein - Working-Class Fighter, Moscow, Idaho

Arthur Lam - Chicago, Illinois

Ashley E. McClure - Seattle, Washington

Astrid Muender - Uniontown, Pennsylvania

Ben - Melbourne, Florida

Brandon Stevens - Fairview Park, Ohio

Brittany Gravely - Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts

Carole Brow - Clements, California

Caroline Nappo - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Catherine M. Stanford - Saratoga Springs, New York

Catherine Wanliss - Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa

Cathy Swedlund - Sapello, New Mexico

Chao-ju Chen - Ann Arbor, Michigan

Charlotte Fisler - Allentown, Pennsylvania

Chrissie Esch - Hillsdale, New York

Claudia Camba - Argentina

Cressida Magaro - Leonardtown, Maryland

Dan Nagle - Santee, California

David Asbury - Wilmington, Delaware

David Beaudin - Rothesay, New Brunswick, Canada

David Kellum - Arlington, Virginia

Day Irmiter - Tucson, Arizona

Debbie and Fred Anderson - McDonough, New York

Dereka Rushbrook - Tucson, Arizona

Domenica Nieddu - Santa Fe, New Mexico

Dousset François - Paris, France

Dr. Hilda Lopez Laval

Dr. Kristina Boerger - NYC

Dr. Shihab Kuran - Bridgewater, New Jersey

Eileen Welch - Washington, DC

Emily Petry - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Eric Bourgeois - Cambridge, Massachusetts

Erika - Stevens Point, Wisconsin

Eva Schmidt - Morgantown, West Virginia

Eve Powers - Eugene, Oregon

Gery Armsby - activist and grant writer, Brooklyn, New York

Gregory Sanders - Carrollton, Georgia

Heather Starr - Ranchos de Taos, New Mexico

Heinz-Juergen Haettig - Freiburg, Germany

Helen C. Sumerwell - Washington, DC

Henry N. Lawrence III - Panama, Florida

Hiroko Kawabe - staff member, Kobe YWCA*, Akashi, Hyogo, Japan

Inés Fernández

Ingrid and Christophe Grillet-Aubert - Paris, France

James A. Ward - South Point, Ohio

Jane Rowland Brady - Surfside, California

Jason Pfaff - student, musician, poet

Jeffrey B. Davidson - actor, Woodbridge, Virginia

Jennifer Kirby - Jackson, Montana

Jessica Cohen - Lynwood, Connecticut

John Vickery - adult educator

Joseph Backus - Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Juanita Filip - bi-lingual teacher, Westfield, Massachusetts

Jun Ishiura - manager, Kamaishi, Iwate, Japan

Karen Ann Gallagher Waggoner - Item Processing/Taping Dept. Lead, Felton, Delaware

Katerina Zikmundova - Brussels, Belgium

Kenneth V. King, Jr. - seminarian, Oakland, California

Kevin M. Martin - Dayville, Connecticut

Kinsey Oleman - Dayton, Ohio

Kris Bauer - San Francisco, California

Leah Hesla - Austin, Texas

Lee Mager - London, England

Ludwig Heinrich - Lennox Head, New South Wales, Australia

Luisa Brehm - ethnologist and human rights activist, Lisboa, Portugal

Marco Rodrigues - Yonkers, New York

Margaret James - Aberdeen, South Dakota

Margaret Robinson - Erlanger, Kentucky

Marilyn Gill - La Mesa, California

Mark J. Burwinkel - Cincinnati, Ohio

Mary Kate Farley - administrative assistant, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Mary Yingst - Denton, Texas

Matt Fiocchi - student, Lake Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Matthew Johnson - Harrisonburg, Virginia

Matthew Yezuita - Somerville, Massachusetts

Megan McDaniel - Cambridge, Massachusetts

Michael Flanagan - Boulder, Colorado

Morgan Russell - Albuquerque, New Mexico

Nancy Cuffman - Great Barrington, Massachusetts

Nancy Moreno - Miami, Florida

Nathan - university instructor, Baltimore, Maryland

Panayiotis Papadopoulos - Student, Sparta, Greece

Paul Ratcliffe - translator, Cambridge, England

Phoebe Brow - Lawrence, Kansas

Phyllis J. Machelor - Casa Grande, Arizona

Pink Noise - Berlin, Germany

Randy Larr Hendrickson - full time worker, Sun Valley, California

Richard Martin - Tampa, Florida

Robbie Holden - Newark, New Jersey

Roger James

Roger Lagassé - Sechelt, British Columbia, Canada

Roland Dion - San Diego, California

RoseMarie - Kenilworth, New Jersey

Ruei-Suei Sun - Los Angeles, California

Sam Archer - Brookline, Massachusetts

Sara Powell - Annandale, Virginia

Sarah Lonberg-Lew - Gloucester, Massachusetts

Satya Rudin - Margate, Florida

Sayel Cortes - Student, Guadalajara, Jalisco, México

Seiko Kumano - Kita-ku, Tokyo, Japan

Shay Stewart-Bouley - Chicago, Illinois

Sonjia Hyon - student, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Teresa Damron - Eugene, Oregon

Theau Yannis - Costa Mesa, California

Thomas King - citizen for justice and peace, West Jordan, Utah

Tia Wallach - Lakeside, California

Tommy McNamara - New York City

Tracy Carcione - Teaneck, New Jersey

Victoria D. Gaines - psychiatric escapee and activist, Hagertown, Maryland

Dianne S. Lobes - peace activist, WAND*, Eugene, Oregon

Robert Lophovsky - adjunct faculty, University of Dayton*, Dayton, Ohio

Allen Campbell - Edgemere, New York

Cary Birdsall - teacher, Talkeetna, Alaska

Chris "The Anarchist" Ryan - community organizer and activist, Columbus, Ohio

Emily Roscia - recent law graduate

Margot Sheehan - writer and graphic artist, Hoboken, New Jersey

Maribeth Botts - writer and musician, LaFeria, Texas

Noriko Kokubun - university professor, Yokohama, Japan

Oona Besman - academic and activist, Columbus, Ohio

raindog - earthling, California

Randy Richter - service administrator, Lakewood, Colorado

Due to an overwhelming response to the formation of this coalition, we are experiencing a significant backlog and are unable to publish your endorsement immediately. However, please be assured that your endorsement is greatly valued and will be listed as soon as possible. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call (212)633-6646. Ask for Sarah Sloan.

William H. Leckie, Jr. - 2/11/2003

Dave, honey, anybody who has to brag about his war learned nothing from it.

William H. Leckie, Jr. - 2/11/2003

BRAVO! The parallels with Weimar, while not exact and prigs will quibble, are there. Please allow me to at least second your posting with my name.

William H. Leckie, Jr. - 2/11/2003

Livingston's phrase is a wonderful demonstration of the danger the US right now poses. Anyone who disagrees with our right-wingers prompts a cascade of ad hominems, unexamined assumptions and assertions, and projection of rightist irrationality onto their opponents. Somehow, Democrats, or liberals and progressives must "hate" if they question rightist orthodoxy; those who demur from right-wing orthodoxy are tagged as alien (recall Newt's description of liberals as not "real Americans?"), unpatriotic, somehow morally flawed.

Our working classes are picking up on all this faster than our elites. For example, commenting on the current "orange alert" in our regime of fear, an annoyed armored car driver I ran into yesterday while impatiently waiting for security checks commented, "We oughtta get that guy [Bush] outta there, I mean, that guy--this stuff [security] it's all to control us, terroriism shit, they couldn't catch Osama so now they wanna bomb Saddam, and he blames Clinton for everything. Hell, all Clinton wanted was pussy. What was wrong with that? These bastards, all they want is power. He [Bush} was elected by the Supreme Court and now he acts like he runs the world."

I kid you not. And the man was right. For all the "conservative" talk about values, the real goal is--in a classic formulation--order with injustice, rather than justice with a little disorder. You want a solution to the problem? Get out and organize. Stand up to'em--right-wing corporate types are utterly shocked when you treat them without deference. Stress the common values most of us share. All the money in the world still can't beat wearing out shoe leather and talking to people. And telling the right to shove it where the sun dfoesn't shine.

Me? I bid good-day to security guards with a cheery, "Sieg heil!" or "Whatchoo gonna do, send me to Gitmo?" I could give a hoot about what they think. Our right is neo-fascist. Draw the line. Now. And in 2004, throw the authoritarian bastards out.

Joan Magit - 2/11/2003

Very scary stuff.All of which has been out there for us to see, however, few take the time to connect the dots. And, telling a lie over and over again does work. So many, seemingly, intelligent folks have fallen for this and very, very soon we will be a fascist country, controlled by fascist media,(radio,TV,newspapers, and the courts). It is happening as I write.

Dave Livingston - 2/11/2003

Ralphie Nosy-Parker,

If the gal is capable of saying what she thinks, then why did you stick your oh so politiccally correct nose in?

ng in? For your information, a few days ago a gal replied that it had been a long time since anyone had called her Honey & that she appreciated it.

Ralph E. Luker - 2/11/2003

Mr. Livingston,
I imagine that "Carolyn" is capable of saying it for herself, but I suspect that she is not your "honey" and I know it was your intention to demean her by that reference. Despite your disrepect shown here to several people, I respect and thank you for your national service in peace and in war. You needn't be reminded, however, that our current president evaded military service every bit as effectively as did his predecessor.

Dave Johnson - 2/11/2003

The use of terminology in the original post and many responses is alarming. Republicans are not neo-fascists. "Right-wing" as it is used here implies that they are.

The article does not discuss the Republican Party, except in one section describing how traditional Republicans are under attack from the far right.

The organizations described, like Heritage, describe themselves as non-partisan. In fact, being a 501 (c) (3) organization it would be illegal for Heritage to be associated with a political party.

Richard Henry Morgan - 2/11/2003

The "case study" of the Yale/Bass endowment was interesting, to say the least. Johnson and People For The American Way find nothing untoward or even suspicious about the fact that five years later Yale had programmed not one centime of the $20 million to Western Civ. Perhaps it was just bureaucratic squabbling that delayed spending for FIVE YEARS, but I doubt it. In any case, if there was any spinning of the story, it reached a high art form in Yale's disingenuous explanation of why they were returning the money to Bass -- they claimed he was trying to control the curriculum, rather than admitting that they supposedly couldn't get their professors to stop squabbling long enough to actually spend money.

Dave Livingston - 2/11/2003

My father was a life-long Democrat and I a registered Democrat for the first several years of my majority and today remain a strong fan of J.F.K. and the Camelot that seemed to be but today I wouldn't vote for a Democrat to become so much as garbage collector. The party's idealogy has changed dramatically into a twisted hatred of traditional American values.

Don McArthur-Self - 2/11/2003

I do not need a financial conspiracy of "right-wing" ideologues to tell me how to think; I come by my ideas quite honestly and independently, thank you. The writer is essentially minimizing conservative thought and the opinions of a great many people by suggesting that no one need pay attention...it's only a few loud and well-funded wackos who think like that. What a wonderfully delusional and sickeningly self-righeous position to take.

The use of terminology in the original post and many responses is alarming. Republicans are not neo-fascists. "Right-wing" as it is used here implies that they are. George W. Bush is not in office because of any form of coup, and though he trailed the popular vote, it was not by enough of a margin to remotely justify the panic-stricken cries of the defeated that the "will of the people" was somehow wickedly overcome. 2000 was not the first disputed election in U.S. history, nor will it be the last. The Consitituional process worked just fine, and it is to the credit of the citizens of this country that the vast majority of us recognize that, even if begrudgingly.

With regard to the line about the google search, you can turn up about 1.2 million hits if you type in "they hate America" without the quotation marks. If you know how a search engine works, that's fairly meaningless. Use the quotation marks, and you get about 2,300 hits - which on the internet would hardly indicate a vast conspiracy.

If conservative donors with whom I often agree have the money to publicize ideas to a wide audience, which I cannot do, then I'm all for it. At least it provides some kind of balance in the public debate to offset clear biases toward the left side of the spectrum in adcademia and most of the mass-media.

How about everyone calm down a little, stop the name-calling, and try discussing substantive ideas and legitimate differences of opinion without the hysterical language? Particularly in the academic community, it might go a long way toward elevating the level of discourse.

Alec Lloyd - 2/11/2003

Uh, that's a solicitation page. Doesn't list any donors.

The guilt by association thing is pretty lame. Like the six degrees of separation with Kevin Bacon (where one links every movie to Kevin Bacon), it sounds neat, but means nothing.

The thought that certain wealthy conservatives fund organizations that share their beliefs is...completely logical.

If there truly is a "conspiracy" (I'm still waiting to hear how Scaife got Monica to do her deed), why do all these groups feud so much? For front groups, they sure do fight a lot.

I'd also be interested in Mr. Johnson's thoughts on ANSWER. Care to follow the money there?

Dave Livingston - 2/11/2003

:-))) As supposed, my little composition smoked some of the rats out of their nests.

Carolyn, Honey, You are correct. Most guys who've fought hate war. This was illustrated in my little shooting war. In Viet-Nam the two favorite popular songs with G.I.s were for good reason: "Homeward Bound" and "I Want Out of This Place."

Lieutenant, 1st Infantry Division, Viet-Nam, 1966-7
Captain, 101st Airborne Division, Viet-Nam, 1969-70

Yes, I hauled home on a stretcher before the nominal end of my second tour in exotic Indochina fear and hate war--at least unnessary warfare, a la the Bastard from Hope's Monica Wars launched for no better reason than to distract public attention from the Blue Dress and other sorbid personal scandals of his.

Before some Bleed'n Heart type whimpers, "This guy is a militarist knowing no better than to fight whomever comes along"
there is this too: Volunteer, U.S. Peace Corps, Liberia, 1962-4

One thing very noticable about Slimy Willie was that he too gutless to serve in the armed forces also avoided getting his hands dirty by serving in the Peace Corps.

But then, he's typical of our cowardly, pampered Lefties today. They talk the talk, but are too soft and weak to walk the walk. The Peace Corps today would be a third larger than it is, if enough qualified people volunteered, but no, most otherwise suitable people are too afraid and soft to vacate their climate-controlled easy life here at home. And parasites on the body of society that they are they also oppose those who are willing to defend this nation from those who would destroy us.

Dave Johnson - 2/11/2003

HERE is where Commonweal Institute gets its funding: http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/youcanhelp.html.

Dave Johnson - 2/11/2003

To get involved with the Commonweal Institute, visit this page: http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/get_involved.htm.

Thanks.

John Fisher - 2/11/2003

Very interesting piece. It provides background for a notion that I have been advocating among my friends. There really is a directed, controlled group of pundits and academics who owe their livelihood to an ideology. Unfortunately, there is no counter voice among centrists and liberals. This is one place where the tendency of Democrats 'to-eat-their-young' really gets in the way of progressive ideas.

Richard Henry Morgan - 2/11/2003

After Johnson's exercise in labeling, I'm still trying to figure out what room is left in the spectrum of descriptions for the American Nazi Party, given that the Heritage Foundation is described as "far-right". Where do Trotskites fall? Moderates? And the guilt by funding is an interesting technique, given that Henry Ford was an anti-Semite -- does that make the recipients of Ford Foundation money anti-Semites?

Walter Hearne - 2/11/2003

This kind of argument has very narrow limits. Its purpose, I suppose, is to signal to the author's fellow liberals that they need not concern themselves with the substance of the "attacks" on liberal professors, since their ultimate source is the network of conservative foundations and donors. But this sort of evidence is step two, not step one, in refuting and discrediting an intellectual opponent. The first step is to expose errors of logic and fact in the opponent's argument, and once that has been accomplished, then one may turn to accusations of bad faith, in light of which the previously demonstrated errors can be recast as lies or intentional distortions.

"McCarthyite" has to be one of the most abused terms in American political discourse. What exactly is "McCarthyite" about criticism? Who has lost his or her job as a result of this "McCarthyite" assault? Where is the reign of terror, exactly? With every passing year, the professoriate seems to behave more and more like a priestly caste that considers itself above outside criticism.

Ironically, this sort of web-spinning is somewhat reminiscent of the associational arguments that actual "McCarthyites" used to make, in order to bring hell upon liberals who had only incidental contacts with the Communist Party or its fronts. Johnson apparently promotes a similar view of conservatives.

An examination of various left-leaning think tanks, advocacy organizations, etc., would undoubtedly turn up the same sort of evidence, i.e., common links to a small set of well-endowed foundations and wealthy donors, as well as labor unions and the occasional dollop of government grant money.

Nor is it our of order to ask where the Commonweal Institute gets its funding. I went to their website and could find not so much as a hint of the answer to that question. Transparency, anyone?

Walter Hearne - 2/11/2003

For the record, Grover Norquist has in the past described himself as a "market Leninist." It's a worldview that requires a bit of explanation; see Nina J. Easton's "Gang of Five," a very good and entertaining book on Norquist and other figures of the post-sixties right.

brian kelly - 2/11/2003

william: you really ARE a fucking wacko aren't you?

WJ - 2/11/2003

It's time every American takes a stand against the evil Neo-conservatives who are taking our
rights and freedoms away. Next Election please vote Democrat to save our country from evil.

Maggie Richards - 2/11/2003

What a shame that this country has been so dumbed down that they would accept this propaganda as news and do nothing about it. I write, scream, talk and I get the look or comment, "You're a traitor for daring to question the president or his policies?". If I say that I went on the internet and found sources then I am told that the internet is not dependable because it is so liberal.

When we allowed George Bush to be installed in the White House without a fight it was over. I can only wonder what it will take to get our country back.

Abigail Quart - 2/11/2003

The paranoia of these smug yet terrified fascists has carefully placed the United States in a lose-lose position. Their appointed choice, W, has alienated every ally, causing them to make plans for their own protection against us. Commerce is being destroyed. Even if we "win" W's war for oil, we will be mired in a region increasingly and sincerely dedicated to our destruction.

Fascism never protects a nation. It always destroys it, and loses it its place of power. These wealthy fearmongers are spreading their personal terror across the globe, and the terror is of us. Like all frightened fascists, they mistakenly believe this makes us stronger. Bullies are never the strongest. Bullies are always the ones most afraid.

When this rape by wealth is over, the United States will be broken, broke, and powerless. Many books will be written about our sudden fall.

VJ - 2/11/2003

Umm, the Repug's have LOST the last 3 Presidential elections. The last time out they lost by more than 550K in the popular vote, (1.5 million in the Senate), but shattered their past standards of hypocrisy by ignoring both the 'rule of law AND the Constitution by short circuiting both and having the USSC decide the 2000 election. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say 'When in doubt, or in a disputed election, the USSC decides who the President shall be.' There IS a Constitutional process for resolving disputed Presidential elections. The Republicans chose not to use or appeal to it. They chose instead to mobilize well paid radicals to riot in FL to 'shut the vote counting process down'. This they gleefully did to the eternal shame of our nation, and to our ultimate detriment. Our long nightmare of peace and prosperity was ended when they installed Bush as our leader, so he could mobilize us for our eternal war and bankrupt us with his corrupt crony capitalism. Money rules his world and ours. Life and liberty does not mean a damn thing to him really. And he goes on proving this on a daily basis.

carolyn - 2/11/2003

Since when do liberals detest the constitution? I'm sad to see Ashcroft and opportunist GPOers tearing it up while pretending to 'protect us'.

As for sissies - most who have been to a war want to avoid it. Chickenhawks like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld are drooling over control of Iraq's oil and war machine profits.

The GOP is not funding Homeland Security - they're putting the money into a idiotic war. The states and firemen go begging. Osama is still loose and the Saudis get special treatment while we are supposed to get hot over a guy who was provoked to attack Kuwait in '90 and whose WMD were supplied by......the US. Rumsfeld did not care about the Kurds then - he kept supplying buddy Hussein.
Now- shall we discuss who is evil????

phil - 2/11/2003

Talk about nonsense, read ole Don's little prattle.

Not In My Name - 2/11/2003

Come on David... didn't you read the article? I would suggest you go back and re-read it. You might also want to brush up on a little "ancient" history, say starting about 1924 in Weimar, Germany or a decade earlier in Italy. A extremely small group of right-wing industrialists saw an opportunity to swing their governments to their agenda which included massive tax cuts and the eventual destruction of labor unions. Hitler was the first politician in history to use mass media effectively, using the airplane to stump across Germany and rally the desperate masses. The industrialists got what they wanted and more than they bargained for.

Interestingly, the reason people voted for the National Social Workers Party (NAZI) in Germany was because they were persauded -- by the right -- that a communist take-over was eminent and a bad thing. Unfortunately, so was Hitler's version of national socialism.

So when intelligent people look at contemporary events and see chilling parallels, please don't assume we are out to corrupt America. Most of us want very much to preserve the values that made America unique in the world, values we see being eroded by a small, ultra right-wing clique with questionable motives and fat wallets they want to make even fatter, at yours and my expense.

brent - 2/10/2003

If the real goal of all these organizations was to spread healthy society, they wouldn't have to be afraid of disagreement within their own members. Their theories would hold water in a theoretical application and in debate. I see questioning of assumptions as a way to understand why or why not, but when questioning is not allowed it is because of lack of depth and eventually will lead to quagmire.
Don your Bank of America logic is false.

Ken Melvin - 2/10/2003

No ones denying the particulars; so guess they must be proud of it. Interesting why they aren't they more open about the Ayn Rand connection? Amongst all the ditto heads and Jonah Goldberg cut and pasters carrying this all out, each probably sees himself as John Galt,huh? All a far cry from democracy as I understand democracy. Mayhaps 'tis why they like to keep it all away the light of day. Been neat as hell if the people knew in 2000 that by voting for Bush (and ronnie in 1980) they were voting for the policies of and by people chosen by: the CATO Institute, American Interprise institute, the nutty, dead Allen-Bradly boys, the criminal Koch family, Scaife, Coors and others certifably barkers. Next thing you know, they'll all come clean, Bill Bennett will state his sponsors, so Ken Starr, huh?

Michael LaMartina - 2/10/2003

Just keep those rose-colored glasses on, oh brave "Don" with no last name.

Have those glasses been funded by "angel" Scaife also.

Richard Clampitt - 2/10/2003

As they say 'follow the money'. Your article exposed the funding sources of many of the so-called 'right wing' or pretend conservative think tanks. None of them are conservative as that label has been hijacked by corporate greed heads and radicals within the Republican party. A more accurate term ought to be corporate socialists. Considering their total support for NAFTA, GATT, WTO, supporting American businesses building factories in a communist state like Red China.

The function of these groups is that of a massive PR machine at the disposal of the Republican party and its mouthpieces on talk radio and TV. By bringing on so-called experts from these groups it gives an aura of credibility to rather dubious proposals. Be it clearcutting the last remaining old growth forests to save them from forest fires to promoting the stock market as a investment vehicle for your Social Security funds or spinning tax cuts for the rich as helping everyone. It's pretty much Lysenko style thinking in a American wrapper.

I believe their greatest accomplishment since 9-11 is the stifling of criticism of the President and his policies. By using Orwellian style PR they've equated obedience with patriotism and questioning of Bush with treason. Very slick indeed. This allowed the GOP to take control of the Senate even though Bush has one of the worst domestic policies ever. Everything from the environment, taxes, the handling of 9-11 funds for New York, worker safety - showed a complete disregard for ordinary Americans. Albeit the margin is very slim.

By all rights the Dems could have trounced the GOP but ran a spineless campaign and failed to connect with their voter base out of fear being labeled anti-American.

Don - 2/10/2003

Because an organization gets funding from any source doesn't have anything ot do with the genesis of the organization or their objectives. Anyone starting a conservative group will go to the short list of "angel donors" for funding. To suggest that this makes the common thread in their being to be those foundations is no more correct than suggesting that it is Bank of America if in fact they all have checking accounts there.

if this constitutes academic research there is more ot worry about than just the ideology of academia being imparted to our children.. it turns out that reason and logic might be in trouble as well.

Kerry Morse - 2/10/2003

Dave,

Hillary Clinton ?... you certainly exposed yourself. Now why don't you have a nap until your favorite Fox News shows are on later.

Rick Schwartz - 2/10/2003

It's hard to give any credence to an author who won't even properly label his own organizational/think tank beliefs as "left wing" yet rushes to apply the "right wing" label to others.

Bill Heuisler - 2/10/2003

So, Dave,
That vast Right Wing conspiracy rears its ugly head again. Why not argue issues? Perhaps all those Leftist, Marxist issues have been smothered by the weight of history or the weight of bodies.

"McCarthyite tactics" are mentioned. Then the switch to "another interesting story here" and you begin arguing the same guilt by association McCarthy did. If funding sources equal secret conspiracies how did you find them? If not a secret conspiracy, then where's your big, shocking scoop? A Straw Man perhaps?

Norquist a "Right Wing Leninist"? What nonsense. You pull the NRA, Christian Coalition, Republican Party and even Congressmen into your Four Sisters network. Are they funded by the awful Coors cabal? What about the Buckley oil fortune. Is National Review suspect? Does funding source affect truth, Dave?

Do you consider Norman Lear's money good and Coor's money bad?
Should we find out who funded the campaigns of Ron Dellums, Bella Abzug, Liz Holtzman, Bobby Rush and Tom Hayden? Do you want to go back to those bad old days when most Leftist groups were supposedly connected through the Communist Party USA to the Soviet Union (Venona Papers)? Socialist Workers Party meetings in the Sixties were more FBI informers than believers, but they always had money for demonstrations and bus trips. How far do you want to go? Ask Norman Markowitz (Prof. Rutgers) who funds his favorite web site in Germany. Ask Noam Chomsky (Prof. MIT) how he funded trips to "Europe" a few years ago. Find the real backing for ANSWER at the so-called Peace Rally last month.

No. Better idea. Let's just argue the issues here on HNN.
But you never mentioned real issues did you?
Bill Heuisler

Dave Livingston - 2/10/2003

It wasn't until reading the reference to the horrid Great Right-Wing Conspiracy in this whimpering essay that I realized that Johnson is evidently a pseudonym for Hillary Clinton.

Boys & girls, to I not a Republican this bleating is silly. The Left has lost the last two elections bigtime because they are out-of-touch with a) reality, b) American traditional values and c) the pepople who vote. Sadly from their perspective, this nation is not run by rigged opinion polls produced by radically Liberal journalists, but rather by the ballet.

Yes, I'm well aware that urban Liberals detest the Constitution, consider it anb out-of-date document. Worse, is the Electorial College system which they dislike even more than they do the Second Amendment.

It is a bit amusing to see the whining of anti-war protesters, sniffling about how terrible war--hardly one of the sissies has been anywhere near a shooting war. These Weak Sisters want the United States to lose San Francisco, New York City, Baltimore or Miami before we go after the Islamist terrorists who perpetuated 9/11 & intend to kill us all, if they are permitted to do so.
Our Weak Sisters will oppose all gov't action to protect the nation from the Evil men who would destroy us, but the instant we lose a major asset to the terrorists and their backers, rogue governments, such as Iraq,they will turn around & attempt to blame the gov't, this administration, for failing to protect us.

Yes, it must be disconcerting to our crybaby cowards who cannot see the forest of Evil for the trees of wishful thinking that the Bad Guys would play fair & just go away in which they indulge.

Silly Ninnies, we ARE at war, we've been attacked repeatedly and the attacks will continue upon us until we stand up to and destroy this Evil.