History Talk

death from above · Guest

There was a time when total freedom of speech was not assured in
America. This didn't bother liberals and leftists much when FDR and
the liberals and the left held much of the power in America in the 30s
and 40s. Few liberals or leftist shed tears about the repressive
tactics used against America Firsters. And, not many liberals or
leftists raised much of a fuss about over 150,000 Japanese-Americans
who were dispossessed and imprisoned.

Under FDR, especially during America's alliance with the Soviet Union,
liberals and leftists were not worried about free speech. They held
the power and the means to suppress their enemies. They even had the
means to pass sensitive secrets to the Soviets. This was a time when
American leftists and communists could brazenly enter and work in the
arts, culture, politics, media, and etc. Leftists and liberals took
freedom of speech for granted as their side seemed to be winning in
both the US and in the world. Under 3 terms of FDR, it seemed as
though everything liberals and leftists wanted were going to be
achieved and then some. It seemed as though the Right was finished
forever. This seemed true around the world too. US and USSR were
allies and rightist Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were doomed to be
defeated. So, liberals and leftists thought it would be leftism uber
alles in both the US and the world. (Stupidly, many liberals thought
leftism--communism--was just a stronger form of liberalism when
leftism was only using spineless liberals to destroy both conservatism
AND liberalism.)

But, upon victory in WWII, the Cold War began. For many stupid
liberals--not all liberals were stupid--and all leftists, the fall of
Eastern Europe to communism was a great thing. And, with strong
communist parties in Italy and France, it seemed as though all of
Europe would be next. And, many liberals--the fellow-traveling fools,
anyway--and all leftists were happy when China would fall under
communism in 1949.
This shocking turn of events woke many Americans up to the dangers of
leftism. And, it also revived the power of the Right. Under FDR,
leftists and communists had been given full access to all
instititutions all across America. They ran around as they pleased.
They infiltrated as many departments and groups as possible. They set
up all sorts of secret links with the worldwide communist movement.
The left was on a roll. And, they thought their victory was assured.
They had gained such power and made such inroads into the institutions
of America that they thought their momemtum could not be stopped. The
discredited right would never be able to rise again.

But, the Cold War gave the Right just that chance. Also, good many
liberals turned out to be patriots first and 'progressives' second.
There was indeed a strong contingent of anti-communist liberals, and
Truman represented such at its best. Truman saw communism for what it
was. He realized that much of US government and many institutions had
indeed come under the influence of communists or communist-
sympathizers. So, there was a unity between patriotic conservatives
and patriotic liberals. It was at this time that the 'freedom of
speech' of leftists and pro-communist liberals came under attack. For
the sake of national security, the government--a partnership of
conservatives and anti-communist liberals--came down hard on leftists
and pro-communist liberals. What happened at this time was no worse
than what happened to America Firsters during WWII and certainly
nothing compared to the inexplicable ordeal underwent by Japanese-
Americans. But, the liberal media and historians spun a narrative
which said American liberty and the freedom of speech came under
threat FOR THE FIRST TIME due to the 'red scare', 'rightwing
paranoia', 'ultra-nationalism', and 'rabid and virulent anti-
communism'.

Because the pro-communist liberals and leftists were on the ropes--and
because leftists realized that, despite all the efforts of leftists
and liberals under FDR, most Americans remained patriotic and loathed
communism--, the only card they had left to play all of a sudden was
protection of free speech under the First Amendment. During WWII,
these liberals and leftists didn't care about the First Amendment
rights of America Firsters and other opponents. Indeed, they wanted to
gain as much power to force their views on all of America. But, when
they were on the defensive due to the Cold War and the mounting
evidence of communism's horrors, the only thing leftists and pro-
communist liberals could do was drape themselves with the American
Flag and say that they were all about freedom of speech. They didn't
want to discuss ideology or values, since their values and ideas--
communism--had little or no appeal to Americans. Indeed, Americans
loathed it. The only way they could win over the American public was
to pose as freedom-loving Americans who just wanted to enjoy the
liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Their message was not that communism is American--a notion
unacceptable to Americans--but that the freedom to be a communist or
to keep one's communism private is American. Here, leftists and pro-
communist liberals had a point. Indeed, what is more American? A
nation where everyone is REQUIRED to wave Old Glory, love his country,
and feel proud OR a nation where one has the freedom to love or hate
his own country? Being patriotic and waving the flag is great, but no
one should be FORCED to do it, just like no one should be forced to be
smart. Given the nature of the constitution, the leftists had come
upon a persuasive idea. IF America is about freedom, then isn't the
freedom to hate America more American than being forced to love
America? Or, isn't the freedom to burn the flag more American than a
law that says one MUST love the flag? So, isn't the freedom to hate
America more important than a legal obligation to love America?
Since leftists and pro-communist liberals hated what most of America
stood for--capitalism, Christianity, John Wayne, Apple Pie, Western
pride, etc--, the ONLY idea of America they could embrace was the idea
of freedom. Even the freedom to hate one's own country. Of course,
the leftists and the pro-communist liberals in the late 40s and 50s
were too frightened and too clever to say that their idea of American
freedom amounted to the right to hate America; they merely settled for
the right to take the fifth and not appear before a prosecutorial
court. (By the 60s, leftists and pro-communist liberals, feeling
history was on their side again, fully came out of the woodworks and
flaunted their right/freedom to Hate America; some even went further,
challenging the Constitution as bourgeois bullshit which had to be
torn to shreds and replaced with the communist manifesto or Mao's
Little Red Book).

Since subversives, radicals, and such ilk had come under pressure from
the coalition of conservatives and anti-communist liberals, the Left
called for the need for total and absolute freedom of speech for
everyone and all groups--no matter how odious and loathsome. To be
sure, there were some genuine liberals who championed this cause with
consistency, sincerity, and commitment. The likes of Nat Henthoff and
Alan Dershawitz were really for total freedom of speech, whether it be
for communists or the KKK. They wanted total freedom of speech no
matter how 'offensive', 'provocative', 'hateful', 'inflammatory', or
'subversive' it was. They championed freedom for neo-nazis, porn
filmmakers, gays, Lenny Bruce and other foul-mouthed comics, and etc.
Libertarian liberals were being sincere in their commitment to free
speech. In the 50s, they were more likely to meet resistance from
traditionalist groups that didn't want certain novels in their
libraries or certain films shown in their neighborhoods. But, pro-
communist liberals and leftists jumped on the bandwagon of free
speech ONLY because they'd come under assault and been pushed against
the ropes during the first stage of the Cold War. These people really
only cared for freedom for themselves and none for their enemies. But,
since their enemies had gained the upperhand in the late 40s and the
first half of the 50s, it was useful for leftists and pro-communist
liberals to pretend that they were for freedom for everyone and at all
times. Deep in their hearts, what they wanted most was not feedom but
control and power. They were so sure of their correctness that they
wanted total freedom only for themselves and the power to take away
the freedom of their enemies. But, they knew they first have to
regain power while hiding under the shield for complete free speech.
But, radicals have always been like this. Though Bolsheviks despised
democracy and liberalism, they had been for full political and social
rights for everyone when they were weak and out of power. Starting
out, they needed the protection from the power of government. But,
once they gained power, they shut down all freedom for everyone but
themselves. Same was true of Nazis. Nazis came to power by using--and
even pretending to respect--political freedom and liberty; but, once
in power, they changed the system radically to the point where only
Nazis had political freedom and power. And, Allende tried to do the
same in Chile in the early 70s, and Chavez is doing the same now in
Venezuela.

The 60s were a crucial time in this struggle. Though most academics
and people in institutions were liberals, they were fuddy-duddy anti-
communist liberals. Since the most powerful institutions were not yet
in their power, leftists and pro-communist liberals took the streets.
They screamed their radical slogans but also called for total freedom
and liberty. They wanted to use the mantra of total freedom to subvert
the whole system. Of course, they were not really interested in
freedom of speech per se, but they knew that call for freedom would
make them look American-as-apple-pie and conceal their truly radically
leftist agenda. Until they could gain power for themselves, they had
to act as though they were for freedom for everyone. So, it's not hard
to understand why the University of Lousiana allowed, in the early
70s, David Duke to give weekly speeches on the Quad on racial issues.
(Such would not be allowed on any campus today). For the radical left
to gain total access to free speech, they had to pretend that they
were fairminded and for total freedom for everyone--even for the likes
of David Duke. As of the 60s and 70s, the academia was still not in
the hands of the radicals. Indeed, many traditional anti-communist
liberals were shocked by the violence and aggression of radicals.
Radicals, as yet out of power, found it to their advantage to call for
total freedom. To just demand total freedom for themselves would have
made them look like a dangerous radicals to the objective observer.

With all this clamour, more and more total freedoms opened up. In
the 60s and 70s, you could be a totally open communist and wave the
Red Flag in the streets and chant "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, FMLN's gonna
Win!" or you could have a KKK rally down Main Street.
But, in this climate of total freedom, the left was bound to gain much
more. First, the left was far more radical than the right in the US.
Also, the Left had many intellectual types, far more than the Right.
And, radicals tend to be far more driven, ambitious, and committed
than non-radicals. So, by the late 80s, the universities, courts, and
bureaucracies came into the control of former radicals who mostly
sought power thru goverment and academia. And, once they had gained
the instruments of power, they set out suppress the freedom of their
enemies. So, we've had political correctness, ban on 'hate speech'--as
defined by the Left--, reeducation camps euphemistically called
'sensitivity training classes', and all that stuff. Even the ACLU,
which in the 50s and 60s pretended to be for Total Free Speech for
everyone, today only cares about protecting the speech of those on the
Left and of the anti-American persuasion.

And, the media, owned and run by the same kind of people, went along
with this new censorship. 'Progressives' sound contradictory when
they condemn McCarthy for having violated the rights of Americans in
the name of national security while praising political correctness for
banning speech that spreads 'hate'. In the 50s, the liberals seem to
argue that no matter how evil, dangerous, hateful, harmful, offensive,
or unpopular an idea, the American way is to let the idea be aired and
heard. Freedom of ideas trumped whether the idea was good or bad. So,
even if communism was evil, it was more important to have the freedom
to believe or express communist ideas. The greatest evil, according to
this argument, was the banning of freedom to believe or express ideas,
however loathsome or at odds with rest of society. And, this idea took
hold in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Leftism, Far-Rightism, Porn,
underground comics, gay parades, etc were not defended by liberals
because they were GOOD for society but because a true democracy must
allow freedom of the bad as of the good. The people should be allowed
to say or believe the bad or the good AS LONG AS they didn't not
physically harm other people.

So, what happened with the rise of leftist/liberal political
correctness in the 80s? How could the same liberals who had
championed the right/freedom to be a communist over interests of
national security suddenly say it's justifiable to suppress freedom of
ideas and viewpoints in the name of 'social justice'? In the 50s,
liberals said the freedom to be bad was more important than being
forced to be good. The freedom to be a lowlife commie was more sacred
than being forced to be a flagwaving American. And, this argument had
much merit. Though it's a stretch to say a man who burns the flag is
more patriotic than someone who waves the flag, it is an American
right to burn the flag. It's not a pro-American act, but it's American
in the sense that American freedom guarantees the right to be anti-
American. Of course, many leftists perversely try to argue that being
anti-American is more 'patriotic' than being pro-American because anti-
Americanism is more in the spirit of pushing the envelope on American
liberties. But, imagine a scenario where a parent allows her child to
call her names or even spit on her face. So, the child has the freedom
to love his mother or spit on her face. Now, is the child more loving
if he practices the negative freedom and, indeed, does spit on his
mother's face? "Ptui, I love you mommy because I spat on you."
Because American freedom allows Americans to hate and abuse America,
many leftists mistake their hatred as love of America. Of course, they
argue that they only hate what is bad about America and simply want
America to be a better country, but their ideas of what America should
be go against everything that made this country great, powerful,
proud, and unique.

Anyway, the crucial thing about the leftist and pro-communist liberal
struggle for total freedom in the 50s and 60s was that it was done in
bad faith. They were not into total freedom but merely biding time so
that they could practice their freedoms to gain entry into
instituitons of power, and then once in power, to use the levers of
the law and government--and media--to take away the freedoms of their
enemies. To be sure, there were some genuine libertarian liberals who
really did fight for total free speech for everyone for all time, but
because they tended to be lonely individuals than a united collective
force dedicated to grabbing power, they were shunted aside by the Left
once they were no longer useful to its cause. So, the libertarian
liberals watched helplessly as every university in the 80s fell under
the tyranny of political correctness. And, the cries of the
libertarian liberals fell on deaf ears as the newly entrenched
leftists in colleges across America were enjoying their power to
control minds and lives.
Though McCarthy was a bigtalking demagogue, he and his allies never
had the kind of power, influence, and allies as leftists and liberals
do today. When Eisenhower and key Republicans had enough of McCarthy,
his influence was over in a second. It was as though he'd never
existed, and indeed, he's been kept alive in history mainly by
liberals to serve as a bogeyman reminding all future generations that
Evil if always right-wing.
In contrast, the PC forces today are truly dominant, pervasive, and
unstoppable. They are in colleges, governments, elementary and
highschools, Hollywood, TV, publishing, newspapers, and etc. And, they
are all acting in tandem. McCarthy, having no such formidable network
of power, had to rely on publicity and sensationalism which could not
be sustained for long.

What's truly sad and pathetic is that so many Americans went along
with PC sheepishly without a fight. When universities implemented
speech codes, no one protested or marched for freedom. When Orwellian
nonsense such as 'hate speech is not free speech' were preached all
over the place, no one stormed the dean's office. At least, leftists
in the 60s made their voices heard, were willing to fight, and duke it
out. The vast majority of white conservatives just took it sitting
down. When they were hauled in by the PC police, they meekly attended
sensitivity classes. And, their friends didn't stand up for them. And,
there was no army of conservative lawyers willing to take up the
cause. And, no politician came forward to strongly denounce this
trend.
To be sure, it's not hard to understand why. If the speech code
forbids the use of the "N-word" or any racial epithet, it doesn't
sound very noble for someone to say, "I want the freedom to give a
speech using the word 'nigger'". Or, it doesn't sound very inspiring
to say, "I should have the right to deny the Holocaust.". But, that's
what real freedom is all about. As was argued in the 50s, freedom to
have and say bad thoughts is more important to America than being
forced to have or say only good thoughts.

The wimpiness and ineffectivness of white conservatives against this
politically correct onslaught should tell us something wrong about
conservatism. Political correctness was really pushed forth by geeks,
gimps, dorks, and other lowlife leftwing ilk. Your average PC champion
was someone like Judge Ginzburg. Why couldn't the American people
stand up to this? Why did big tough consevatives on campuses all cower
before the PC police?
There are two flaws of conservatism that must be addressed. One is
complacency. A lot of conservatives, having grown up with too much
comfort and with too much taken for granted, never developed a
fighting spirit and confrontational style. Most conservtives would
rather back down from a controversial fight than meet the enemy head
on. Whatever one may say of the radicals of the 60s, those guys were
tough. Many of them were geeks or witches but they had iron will. Bill
Ayers, as odious as he is, has been willing for every inch of turf.
At the very least, we have to admire his fighting spirit.
We see some of this energy in David Horowitz but his fighting style
was honed during his leftwing days before he turned rightward.
So, conservatives must reject the culture of complacency, sappiness,
and niceness. A nice bear, no matter how big, will be clawed and
bitten in the nose by a fierce wolverine.

There is also the problem of conservative anti-intellectualism. The
fact is many people who turned leftward in the 60s--and even today--
come from mainstream conservative homes. Those were decent homes but
ones without strong ideas. Or, even when the values were strong, they
tended to be simpleminded in the G-rated 'family values' way. Not
that there's anything wrong with traditional or family values but
young kids are filled with curiosity and wonder and want soemthing
more powerful, engaging, and fascinating that God and family. So,
many of these kids become impressed by all the 'radical intellectual'
crap or all the crazy sexual/violent stuff they find in popular
culture.