David Hororwitz is a Boob

And not the good kind.

Some of my readers (well, my reader) know that I've had a few exchanges with David Horowitz, who now makes his living publishing various things at FrontPage magazine, a webzine of remarkable energy, most of which seems to come from being a bit pissed off about things. I have no problem with that.

My favorite was a letter I sent, under the name of Julius Hibbert (The Simpsons' family physician). Horowitz responded, twice, in his typical brusque, take-no-prisoners fashion. He seems to have cleaned up the page where the letter first appeared, and thus the comments pointing out who Dr. Hibbert was, are gone. Sadly. For those who wish to see what remains, here's the link:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4492

The second go around was at the chatroom for Ann Coulter (I've posted before about the changes there; I've been banned from that site, which tells us, well, something.) I've posted below (in a separate entry) an edited version (edited solely for readability) of the whole exchange for those who are really interested.

A few days ago, I was in a local bookstore, waiting for my daughter. I picked up Horowitz's relatively recent tome, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. A couple of things struck me about it; there is an article about Noam Chomsky (of course), and there is an article by Thomas Ryan, which mostly highlights a University of Dayton professor, Mark Ensalaco, but takes a few passing shots at some of our other radicals.

The article about Chomsky is interesting, if only because one can read the whole piece without having any idea that Chomsky has done a bit of work in linguistics. (Sort of like Niels Bohr did a bit of work in physics, or Gregor Mendel did a bit of work in genetics.) A reader of this text, then, unfamililar with Chomsky's work, might well be astonished that a Professor of Linguistics at MIT spent all his time railing against the imperialistic power structure of American politics. And have no idea that contemporary linguistics was more or less founded by Chomsky, continues to be fundamentally informed by Chomsky, and that Chomsky's students--who don't necessarily agree with him--dominate the field. Breathtaking stuff.

The article about Ensalaco struck me, first of all because it isn't written by Horowitz, although it appears in a book that lists him as its author. Back in the Ivory Tower, some of us might cluck about publishing another's work under one's name, but the article itself lists Ryan's name, so I guess it's okay.

I also remembered the piece, because I wrote Ryan an e-mail (no longer accessible, unfortunately), showing--I want to be delicate here--what a moron he is. I did so with some degree of tact, concluding with a complaint that it's me who teaches really radical stuff--Plato, Rousseau, Hobbes, Marx, Chomsky (!), Habermas--and that I was sorely disappointed that Ensalaco got all this attention, instead. Ryan never quite got back to me, and the article is published, as far as I can tell, verbatim in Horowitz's book. Here's the link (Ryan's title):

Channelling Churchill

There is a pretty important point here, I think: the more one knows about a situtation, the better one's criticism of a view that is fundamentally wrong. I know Ensalaco, I've seen him speak, I've talked with his students, and I've looked at Ryan's comments about him. Ryan also lists as radicals at UD Margaret Karns, Juan Santamarina, and Theo Majka; I know all of them, and, again, have listened to them, talked with them, read them, talked with their students, and, in one case, seen them teach. I gather, from reading Ryan, he has done none of these things.

Ryan's strategy is a pretty simple one: find a book on a teacher's syllabus, infer that the teacher agrees with everything in that book, find a particulary controversial view in the book, and then attribute that view to the teacher in question.

Thus, since I've taught Heidegger, it would be fair (according to the hermeneutical strategy of Ryan) to claim that I believe the Führer is the leading light of German history and will bring about a new stage in the development of German Dasein. I've taught Hegel, and thus agree with his views on history and race; I've taught Aristotle, so I agree with his views on women; I've taught Hume, so I agree with his views on miracles (well, that may be true); I've taught Peter van Inwagen, so I agree with his views on Christianity. Yikes; talk about a runaround inference ticket.

I can't go into all the details of Ryan's approach, but want to give at least a couple of quotes, to show either that he is beyond postmodernism, or seems to have failed reading, logic, or both.

The University of Dayton, a Catholic, Marianist University in Dayton, Ohio, offers its students a major in International Studies, with concentrations in Global Development, Human Rights, Peace and Global Security, and European and Latin American studies. Described as a “multidisciplinary major designed to meet the needs of students interested in acquiring a broadly based international perspective,” the program’s idea of “international perspectives” are those which are chiefly critical of the United States. In 1999, UD was the first university to offer an undergraduate degree program in human rights. Of this, Ensalaco stated that the program “fits so squarely with the University's Catholic, Marianist philosophy of education because it instills in students an appreciation for social justice.” Social justice, of course, is code word for the contradictory notion of equality under a Marxist rule.

Of course, this means any Marxist rule, from contemporary Viet Nam to North Korea to, perhaps, Sweden. Ryan's suggestion seems to be that those who major in International Studies should not look at international perspectives. While an odd inference, it is clear that since such perspectives may well be critical of the US's role in the world, such views entail an identification between "social justice" and Marxism of any and all stripes. The Ryan approach to International Studies seems to be that one should ignore international perspectives, and stick to views that are a) domestic and b) supportive of the US role in the world. One might suggest a change of the title to this major to "Bush Suck Up." A minor detail.

I don't think I even need to provide comments on the following incisive analysis provided by Ryan; I'll leave it to the reader to determine its accuracy, and whether Ensalaco's questions are worth considering:

Ensalaco has also been critical of the current administration on Iraq. He has exclaimed, “I don't see the sense of asking really serious questions about this Administration's exit strategy or the force levels or serious concerns I have with respect to the way the intelligence analysis was conducted prior to the war. I think there could be a lot more serious criticisms which all goes to the question, is this administration competently managing the crisis, did it miscalculate with terrible consequences in Iraq, and if so and what is the consequences in Iran or North Korea or other trouble spots?” The democratic elections, which Iraq successfully achieved for the first time in its history, are proof that the Bush administration is managing Iraq competently.

Finally, he picks on my friend Theo Majka, who teaches sociology at UD, quoting what he tells his students:

"One thing I would like you to come away with is a realization that political issues have an enormous impact on our own lives and futures, even though their influence may often be indirect and complex. Also, if you and I are not knowledgeable about political issues and do not participate in political decisions in informed ways, then others, usually powerful private interests, will successfully manipulate our consciousness and dominate the public arena, often in ways that are not neither in our personal nor in our national interest."

With this statement, Majka is telling students that the U.S. government can’t be trusted, and that throughout this course he will instruct them on whom and what to be wary of, indicating an expressed declaration of his political intentions.

Actually, with this statement, Theo is telling students that it is the responsibility of citizens to be informed about the decisions they make, decisions that are important in their own lives and in the lives of their community. This, by the way, is not particulary controversial (Theo has some views that are, by the way!), unless one wishes to regard the history of American political thought (and before), from Locke and Burgh to Jefferson and Franklin to De Tocqueville and Mill on to virtually any competent thinker (which evidently excludes Ryan), as problematic. For consider the alternative: accept what politicians say, don't be informed about your political decisions, and shut up.

The Founding Fathers set up a Constitution on the premise-well-founded then, with mounting evidence ever since--that Government cannot be trusted, one should be wary of it, and that it is the obligation of citizens to keep informed. That being informed is often prevented and obstructed in contemporary society should remind us that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. I wonder what commie said that? Or which threat to the Republic observed "A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both"?