"I can't believe it. I don't know a single person who voted for him!"
Film critic Pauline Kael, speaking about Richard Nixon, the day after Nixon won 49 states to George McGovern's one.
In 2003, two excellent books hit the shelves. "Useful Idiots" by Mona Charen described "how liberals got it wrong in the Cold War and still blame America first." "Treason" by Ann Coulter passed Hillary Clinton's "Living History" in sales, and described "liberal treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism". They were preceded by Bernard Goldberg's excellent "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News".
Now that the conservatives have made major in-roads in the media, liberals, bless their hearts, are pushing for government intervention. It is the first step in the "panic of the 21st Century," which is the decline and eventual destruction of liberalism as a force in American politics.
In 2003, liberals still dominate the editorial boards of most of the nation’s influential daily newspapers, the three major television networks, and Hollywood. But their hold is no longer what it once was. It is true that in the late 19th and early 20th Century, many newspapers were "owned" by political parties. William Randolph Hearst was a conservative who controlled media in his day more than any current mogul. Many feel that Rupert Murdoch controls "too much" media. He owns Fox, Fox News, its affiliates, Hollywood studios, some Internet sites, the Los Angeles Dodgers, the New York Post, plus assorted U.S., English and other newspapers, and various additional holdings. But he is not the largest owner of media outlets. He is just the most influential, the most successful and the one everybody is trying to copy (or soon will be).
Goldberg’s expose of elite media’s obliviousness to their bias revealed that they see their liberalism as objectivity. Bias to them comes from those who stray from the plantation and show themselves to be conservatives. They exclude themselves from self-criticism and use the First Amendment as a shield. They have no idea how to deal with competition or accountability. Bill Clinton complained that it was unfair there was no "truth detector" to compete with Rush Limbaugh. Liberals have tried to "blame" conservative success on the airwaves to "angry white males" who they would have you believe are responsible for racist militias and terrorist bombings.
Liberal Eric Alterman came out with "What Liberal Media?" to counter Goldberg’s "Bias", and Ann Coulter’s "Slander". Nobody bought it. They always fall back on the so-called Fairness Doctrine in hopes that it will save America from tuning in to what they like to hear.
Many on the Left who reproach conservatives are artists, who like journalists too often think of themselves as being above reproach. Many have great talent, which they somehow think equates with moral superiority. Richard Wagner, one of the world's greatest composers, was a racist anti-Semite. Beethoven and Mozart were for all practical purposes perverts. Herbert von Karajan, a celebrated 20th Century conductor, was an apologetic Hitler supporter after the Fuhrer's death. Paul Robeson supported Stalin long after his murderous regime was exposed (although Robeson eventually came to see the error of his views and "confessed" his "sins" on his deathbed).
Some artists are morally upright. Arturo Toscanini and Pablo Casals are examples, as was the wonderful actor Jimmy Stewart, who was a Republican, a World War II fighter pilot, and rose to the rank of Air Force General in the Reserves. But novelist Norman Mailer stabbed his first wife and worked tirelessly to release a murderer who, upon that release, murdered again. Mailer today rails against George Bush and the Republicans. It is a free world, but is he really eligible? On the other hand, guys like Mailer are great advertisements for why the Republicans are popular.
In the opera (now movie) "The Death of Klingman", Pulitzer Prize-winning composer John Adama presents Palestinian terrorists hijacking the Achille Lauro and murdering Jewish-American passenger Leon Klinghoffer in a way that shows "neither side is beyond reproach." Jane Fonda committed treason. Woody Allen makes movies that lie about McCarthyism, but married his adopted daughter. All of this is worth considering when looking at web sites, banners and protest organizations starting with the words "Artists for…"
The "paper of record" is the New York Times, but their bias against Republicans and conservatives is so pervasive and obvious that in many quarters they have forfeited their position. The paper is and always will be influential. They have a huge worldwide subscription base and additional readership through newsrack sales and the Internet. A Times editorial or expose is still a day of reckoning for political figures. But much of what people read in this paper is now filtered through the lens not only of bias, but in light of the 2003 Jayson Blair scandal, credibility.
Blair was a young black reporter who was, basically, hired because he was black. His work was littered with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods, based more on shoddy work ethic and minimal "research" than any political axe grinding. His failures were well known to his editors, who if he were white would have fired him post haste. When his fake stories became public, he was let go amid great scandal. The "grey lady," as the Times is known, was hurt by other similar stories involving their staff. Eventually editor Howell Raines had to step down.
Media credibility can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the past 10 years, the conservative media has become the place where real news often emanates. The Washington Times is a conservative paper, loudly condemned by its competition for years. They were founded by the Reverend Syung Myung Moon, a multi-millionaire Korean Christian evangelist whose organization, known as "Moonies," practices a form of mind control over its adherents.
Moon's association with the paper set it back, but a funny thing happened along the way. Many of the best journalists in the country went to work for the paper. The Times has developed a reputation for providing some of the most truthful news in the business, which not surprisingly is not found anywhere else. It has become, again to the consternation of liberals, a big success. What has become more and more apparent is that many great journalists are conservative, but nobody read them for years because the big newspapers did not hire them. Today, most of the best-known writers and media personalities in papers, magazines, the Internet and on TV, are conservative. They have earned this through talent, hard work and honesty. Conservative media has had to be honest because their mistakes get magnified, while for years liberal news organs just slid by.
Nixon's Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, called the media the "nattering nabobs of negativism." Limbaugh pointed out that the media was negative by de-crying such talk shows as "Meet the Depressed" and "Slay the Nation." L. Brent Bozell documented liberal media bias. But it was Goldberg who seemed to have broken through an invisible barrier when he wrote a 1996 Wall Street Journal piece about bias. Goldberg was a longtime CBS news journalist, and his article raised hackles with news division president Andrew Heyward and Dan Rather.
Goldberg was threatened, and when he revealed what Heyward, Rather and others said to him, they all lied in denying it. His career was destroyed, although in reality he stepped up, becoming a best selling author and Fox contributor. The Left called him a traitor because Goldberg had been one of them, a liberal. But he had integrity.
He pointed out that liberal news outlets repeated figures on AIDS and homelessness that they knew were lies, but promulgated the concept of America (and by insinuation conservatives) as a heartless, uncaring place (and that only liberal news pandering felt this countries' pain).
He pointed out that Peter Jennings would refer to "conservatives" and "extreme conservatives" in relation to negative stories, but never referred to the likes of Ted Kennedy as "liberals" or "extreme liberals," and also never aired negative stories about them unless it could not be helped. Networks liked to show blonde-haired, blue-eyed "victims" of social injustice, to promote the concept that America was failing even its white citizens. The problem was often that they had to "scout" many white victims over a long period of time, passing up minorities in the process. Heyward had told Goldberg that "of course" networks tilt to the Left, but he then said he would deny saying it if he went public. Rather told Goldberg that he considered himself a "moderate," but Goldberg pointed out first Rather's obvious liberal tendencies, then explained that in Rather's world everybody was so liberal that they thought they were moderate. Liberals rarely admit to being liberals. Conservatives wear that label with pride. Res ipsa loquiter.
Goldberg pointed out that in 1996 Republican Presidential candidate Steve Forbes, "a rich conservative white guy, the safest of all media targets," had proposed a flat tax plan. It was a solid plan supported by many respected economists like Milton Friedman, among numerous others. CBS News reporter Eric Engberg did a segment of Reality Check using words like "scheme" and "elixir" to dismiss the plan as a con job, and invited only economists who disagreed with it to comment on it. Engberg called Forbes' plan "wacky." Goldberg pointed out that no network reporter would have called Hillary's health care plan wacky.
Liberal economic theory is best summarized by Clinton's campaign strategist, Paul Begala, who replied to a question about the "rich" from Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, ""Fuck them," Begala said.
In the 1980s, homeless advocates gave enormous, inflated figures describing the number of homeless in America. The networks repeated the figures, even though they were untrue. Goldberg pointed out that not only did they want to give the impression that Reagan's America produced more homeless, but in doing "man on the street" (literally) stories, executives wanted to show white families. Reporters went to homeless areas and found…bums. Dirty, filthy, alcohol- and drug-addled bums who had nobody to blame but themselves for their predicament. This did not fit the liberal schemata. Long, often-fruitless searches were conducted to find white families in shelters, to portray to the country the falsehood that Reagan's policies were affecting "everybody." Goldberg went to his bosses and complained.
AIDS created the same reportage. The media desperately wanted to hang the disease around Reagan's neck, claiming that "heartless Republicans" had let the disease spread uncontrollably - as if a mysterious virus emanating (we still are not sure) from African monkeys could just be corralled in no time by U.S. tax dollars. The media spent countless hours trying to convince the public that AIDS was not a gay disease. Normal people, through the process of living and experience over a period of years, eventually realized that AIDS was rarely spread to males through heterosexual contact. Bi-sexual men and drug addicts who contracted the disease through needles passed it on to women, and of course gays passed it on to each other through anal sex.
In Africa, the same myths have been passed down. Millions are said to die from AIDS. There is no question that it is an epidemic there. For reasons that defy any reasonable explanation, the disease is passed on among heterosexuals in Africa, whereas it rarely is anywhere else. This is a mystery beyond explanation. What the media, to this day, rarely report is that AIDS spreads rapidly in Africa because of immoral sexual habits and rape, but the real "secret" is that millions who have died or are dying from "AIDS" actually have other diseases. It is just easier to condense the deaths into a single killer: AIDS. President Bush has committed billions to fighting the disease, and amazingly liberals complain because he is endorsing an "abstinence program." The last time anybody checked, abstinence from sex and drugs stopped AIDS 100 percent of the time, but the Left does not want George Bush to tell African men who they can rape.
Homelessness did not go down under Bill Clinton. Reporting on it did. AIDS did no go down immediately under Clinton, but reporting on it did. ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN did 71 homeless stories in four years under the first President Bush. In Clinton's first four years, they did nine. Eventually, through science and research that had nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, AIDS deaths have been reduced. Many gay men, in turn, have decided that since new "AIDS cocktails" can keep the disease in check, they can have unprotected sex and that being HIV positive is a "badge of honor."
In the modern news media, Catharine MacKinnon, a feminist ideologue who once equated all sexual intercourse with rape, is an expert. Conservative Phyllis Schlafly is a "right wing commentator." Clarence Thomas commits sexual harassment and Anita Hill is believed. The Christian Coalition is a conservative organization; the National Organization for Women (NOW) is a women's group. Robert Bork is a "conservative judge" but Laurence Tribe is a "Constitutional expert." Tom Selleck and Bruce Willis are "conservative actors." Barbra Streisand and Rob Reiner are political activists. Rush Limbaugh is a "conservative talk show host." Rose O'Donnell was a talk show host.
During the Clinton impeachment hearings, ABC's Peter Jennings prefaced all conservative politicians as "conservative" and "right wing," but just mentioned Senator Boxer, Senator Kennedy, Senator Barbara Mikulski, and so on. Dan Rather calls the Wall Street Journal editorial page "conservative" and the New York Times "middle of the road." They have not endorsed a Republican since Dwight Eisenhower. But hundreds of millions of ordinary citizens have.
When former Atlanta Braves' pitcher John Rocker spouted off to a Sports Illustrated reporter about "some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDS, right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time, right next to some 29-year old mom with four kids," he accurately described a ride in the New York subway system. The media beat him up within an inch of his proverbial life for it. They never would have attacked Louis Farrakhan or Jessie Jackson for their intemperate remarks about Jews in the same manner, or for Hillary Clinton's anti-Semitic remarks during her 2000 Senate campaign.
Over the years, polls of major news organizations - the New York Times, Washington Post, the networks - revealed that somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of their journalists voted Democrat. Dismissing the issue of whether this "bias" is good or bad, it simply reflects a vast chasm between the public and the individuals who feed them their news. No wonder there is so much hunger for different content. The old days are gone. The public has gone through Watergate, cable TV, tabloids, and the Internet. They are a sophisticated, media-savvy lot who thirsts for real, true news. They do not trust as they used to, and will not be re-assured by FDR's "fireside chats."
The media are products of their environments, which are the coasts, Los Angeles, New York and Washington. They do not emerge from the heartland, and do not reflect the sensibilities of what many disparagingly refer to as "fly-over country." When they venture into America to cover campaigns, their reports often sound like they are from a foreign land. They are not members of the American Legion or the Kiwanis Club. They are not, by and large, church goers. A man like Gary Bauer, who runs the Christian Coalition, is said be "building a bridge to the 19th Century" by the Left wing moralist Anna Quindlen. Roxanne Russell of the CBS News Washington Bureau calls him "that little nut,". This is, in my view, is as egregious as talking about "that little Jewish nut case" who runs a pro-Israel lobby (Sam Schwartz), or "that dumbass Negroid" (Jesse Jackson) or "that little fairy, Billy Smith" who organizes gay parades.
Ted Turner is out-and-out prejudiced against Christians, calling them Jesus freaks and going into tirades when CNN employees display any Christian symbols. He calls Christianity a religion of "losers," somehow not making the connection with the rise of Christians from lion's food to the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Liberals in the press are amazingly hypocritical. Howard Cosell was far to the Left on the political spectrum, presumably in favor of women's rights. In the mid-1980s, when women were not yet major players in sport's journalism, I heard him interviewed on the radio by Lisa Bauman of KABC in Los Angeles. Lisa asked Cosell a standard question, and his reply was, "You have the most beautiful eyes I have ever seen." He never answered her question, condescending to her as a fraud trying to make it a man's business. Cosell was the first to tell the rest of America to open up their professions to competition from women, but not his, thank you.
After America won the Cold War, liberals divided into two camps. One camp tried to jump on the bandwagon, taking equal credit with conservatives for the victory. The others decided there was no victory.
"I don't know any American Soviet scholar who believes the United States ended the Cold war," wrote Frances Fitzgerald in "Way Out There in the Blue".
Bill Clinton would have you believe that his evasion of the draft and subsequent mysterious trip to Moscow at the height of the Vietnam War helped us win the Cold War. He gives Reagan and Bush no credit for winning it, stating that it is like "the rooster taking credit for the Sun rise."
After Reagan's "evil empire" speech in 1983, the Washington Post's Mary McGrory wrote, "The President…embarrasses them <members of Congress> with his talk of the Soviets as the 'evil empire,' but they think he has convinced the country that the Communists are worse than the weapons."
Anthony Lewis of the New York Times said Reagan's words were "primitive," and completely disregarded the idea that there was a good side and a bad side to the arms race. Seweryn Bialer of Columbia University worried that Reagan had ruffled Soviet "patriotic pride," arguing that the Soviet deserved to be given legitimacy. This would be like apologizing to Hitler for treading on "German pride" when American moralizing de-legitimized the Third Reich. Bialer apparently wanted to legitimize the gulags and the millions who died in them and (and at the time he made his comments) still were dying in them.
When the Bolsheviks murdered the Romanovs and abandoned the Allies in World War I, Beatrice and Sydney Webb of the New York Times and the infamous Times' Russia correspondent Walter Duranty offered rosy assessments of Lenin and Stalin. The Communists were blackmailing Duranty because they knew he was a homosexual.
"I have seen the future and it works," wrote Lincoln Steffens.
When word of Stalin's purges reached the U.S. in the 1930s, in which some 10 million were murdered by Stalin in terror-famines, causing Communist Party U.S.A. rolls to be drastically reduced, Duranty reported that the reports were all lies.
Franklin Roosevelt was stunned that his American-style charm offensive had not worked on "Uncle Joe" Stalin. Harry Truman confided in friends that his worry was not Soviet Communism but British imperialism. Bertrand Russell wrote in the Manchester Guardian that America during McCarthy's time was a reign of terror comparable to living in Nazi Germany, despite the fact that one percent of the American population voted "McCarthy going after Communists" as the biggest problem in the country in 1954. He polled well over 50 percent approval in that year's Gallup poll.
Arthur Miller wrote "The Crucible" and Woody Allen made "The Front" to depict
an era of "hysteria," even though it was the "Hollywood Ten," not the "Hollywood One Thouand!" Apparently liberals think Communist screenwriters have a "divine right" to work in Hollywood, as William Phillips, editor of Partisan Review, pointed out in a defense of McCarthy.
Angela Davis was the vice-presidential candidate of Communist Party U.S.A. She had smuggled a gun into San Quentin Prison, which was used to murder a judge and paralyze the district attorney. The press called her an "activist," stating that to call her a "Communist" would be "McCarthyism." In 2001, Arthur Miller referred to "McCarthy's fascism" on National Public Radio.
Bill Moyers, a true liberal who worked for Lyndon Johnson, admitted that the general assumption on the part of LBJ's administration was that "if we injected a little power" on Hanoi, the Communists would cease to resist. Under Kennedy, even the New York Times agreed with RFK's 1962 assessment that, "We are going to win in Vietnam." The paper opined that, "No one except a few pacifists here and the North Vietnamese and Chinese Communists are asking for a precipitate withdrawal. Virtually all Americans understand that we must stay in South Vietnam at least for the near future."
When the war was no longer Kennedy's, and especially when it became Nixon's, the Times and their chattering compatriots turned against the U.S. The "little power" was not used by the Democrats when they were in a position to make it work. By the time the Republicans came to the White House the Communists were dug in deep, and the press would not allow such power to be used. The American media was the greatest ally of Communism in Vietnam.
The anti-war Left explained American involvement in Vietnam as pure imperialism. The 1960s and 1970s represented the "golden era" of American liberalism. It was a period in which they looked to be close to having "won" the historical "battle" with conservatism. But they forfeited their "victory" because they endorsed Communism despite knowing full well what it was. They could not offer the excuse of "blindness" that American Communists of the 1920s might have been forgiven for.
The press was their willing accomplice. They misquoted an Army officer, changing his words into, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Peter Arnett of the A.P. had changed the quote from the original statement, which was that the Vietnamese had destroyed the town, and the officer said that had been a "shame." Arnett and his handlers shaped it and changed "town" to "village." Ben Tre, the town, was in fact a multi-storied town with buildings and paved streets, not a "village." They ran a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo of a screaming, naked child running from a napalm blast. Later, it was discovered the photo of the girl was taken after most U.S., troops had left, and the napalm was dropped not by the Americans, but by the South Vietnamese, who called in the attack when her village was raped and pillaged by Communists. The girl, Kim Phuc, eventually fled the Communists to Canada, and she expressed only hatred for what the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong had done to her people. Despite prodding, she refused to badmouth America.
Walter Cronkite's reports, which were viewed by the Communists as well as the American public, were filled with negativity about a corrupt government in Saigon and the "misery" that we brought to the country. Later, Cronkite stated that the U.S. "overreacted" to the Soviets and that "fear of the Soviets taking over the world just seemed as likely to me as invaders from Mars."
Reports from soldiers in Vietnam recounted press narratives that depicted civilians as terrified and dying, villages destroyed, napalm dropped indiscriminately. Those who were on the scene stated that most of the killing was done by the North Vietnamese, who killed more civilians resisting them than Hitler killed Frenchmen. The press wanted the public to think of the Marines as walking about villages, torching them with zippo lighters, while hundreds of non-combatants were routinely killed in U.S. bombings and operations. The press talked about the destruction of "homes" that were little more than straw shacks built by nomadic people, but they wanted the viewers to believe the U.S. was destroying dwellings that represented "a lifetime of backbreaking labor," according to CBS' Morley Safer, or villages that had "stood for a thousand years," according to Oliver Stone.
The descriptions of Americans fighting in Vietnam defy logic and everything we have ever known about U.S. service personnel, from the Revolutionary War to Afghanistan and Iraq. To buy the theory that suddenly the Americans were war criminals, "baby killers," and genocidal mass murderers of civilian populations, is to believe that a single generation of fighting men completely broke from all prior tradition, but a few years later re-grouped and went back to the old traditions of adhering to the proper conduct of war. One theory was that racism played a nasty role in the 'Nam, because the enemy and the ally were Oriental. If this were true, then our treatment of the Japanese and Chinese in World War II, when Americans were less "enlightened" than in the 1960s, would have lead to massive war crimes. What the world learned from the American media was a Big Lie, nothing less than a concerted liberal attempt to "bad mouth" our efforts at defeating Communism in Vietnam. Why? There is no easy, single answer. Certainly the Alger Hiss affair had created the need for the Left to downplay the dangers of Communism, as embodied by Cronkite's assertion that a Martian attack was as likely as a Soviet one.
When My Lai occurred, naturally the press went crazy. They created a cottage industry of reports and stories meant to characterize the tragedy not as the exception, but the rule. Movies about Vietnam, including "Apocalypse Now", "Casualties of War" and "Platoon", chose to center much of the story line around My Lai-style war crimes and civilian murders. In "Apocalypse", Martin Sheen as Captain Willard states after a civilian boat girl is killed by a trigger-happy American, "We tear them to pieces then offer them a Band-Aid. It was a lie."
The Truth is that the Green Berets dug 6,436 wells, repaired 1,210 miles of road, and built 508 hospitals and dispensaries. In the U.S., liberals displayed photos of Communist icons like Ho Chi Minh and Che Geuvara along with the North Vietnamese flag. This was the flag of an enemy that was starving, beating and torturing U.S. POWs in the most appalling manner possible. "Useful idiots" like California Congressman Ron "Red" Dellums said the Americans were morally equal to the Nazis. Jane Fonda traveled to Hanoi to do their bidding, then offered herself to Tim Hayden, the leader of the anti-war movement. Hayden said that our involvement in Vietnam showed the "real identity" of "our genocidal history." Noam Chomsky called it our attempt to impose "our particular concept of order and stability" on the world, and that we had become the most "aggressive power" in the world. For Chomsky, a learned man who knows how World Wars I and II started, to say such a thing leads one to conclude only that he is a liar.
The events that followed Watergate completely contradict the Leftist portrayal of the U.S. as a racist exploiter. After the Democrats sold out Saigon, resulting in the Cambodian/Laotian/Vietnamese holocaust, hundreds of thousands of "boat people" struggled against all possible odds to escape the Communists. Their destination was not France, England, Canada, Australia, Japan, the Philippines or any of all other possibilities on the face of the Earth. Their choice was America, home of the "racists," the "war criminals" and the "genocidalists."
These people are the best possible example of why America is the "land of opportunity." They arrived on our shores in the late 1970s, penniless, homeless refugees with no sponsors, no education, unable to speak English. They were the lowest possible class of people in American society. They settled into small communities, often dubbed "little Saigon," in places like San Francisco, Garden Grove, California, and Texas. They lived in the worst slums of the inner cities, where drugs and prostitution dominated street life. They moved about like ghosts, selling fruit, working as seamstresses, opening liquor stores. Within a few years, it was obvious that the bums and dwellers of the urban core were still selling and ingesting drugs, prostituting their women, and occupying street corners in the manner of complete unaccountability. The new immigrants, the Vietnamese, were now owning stores, buying real estate, and forging lives of success in their adopted homeland. It was a replay of how Jews had immigrated to Palestine after World War I with nothing, and within a few years simply excelled. Today, the children of the Vietnamese "boat people" are graduates of prestigious colleges like Cal-Berkeley and UCLA. Imagine how much more successful these people would be if America were not a racist country!
Folk singer Joan Baez was an outspoken critic of the war. In 1979, when word was coming back regarding Pol Pot and the Communist murder of millions, Baez was among a small core of liberals who felt guilty that that they had backed the forces of evil. She began a campaign to alert the world to the horrors of Southeast Asia after the Democrats gave them up. She contacted prominent anti-war activists, liberals all, and asked them to lend their support to the new cause. Almost none had anything to say. She personally appealed to Fonda, who replied coldly, "Such rhetoric only aligns you with the most narrow and negative elements in our country who continue to believe that Communism is worse than death…I worry about the effects of what you are doing."
George McGovern traveled to Vietnam, let the Communists show him what they wanted to show him, then reported back that it was "their country and their choice." No majority of people in the history of Mankind, including the Russians of 1917, ever "chose" Communism.
"To keep hope alive one must, in spite of all mistakes, horrors, and crimes, recognize the obvious superiority of the socialist camp," French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre once said. If he had added "National" before "socialist," would his words be considered wise, as they are by millions of Leftists worldwide?
The Khmer Rouge were led by an intellectual who had studied Sartre in Paris, named Pol Pot. When his "Red Cambodians" took over, they decided to save bullets, so they chose to murder through clubbing, asphyxiation and, in a move Mandela's African National Congress might have learned from, dousing heads in gasoline then setting them on fire. But they were "keeping hope alive" by demonstrating their "superiority."
The Khmer picked up on the Stalinist tactic of famine, reasoning that a starving population would not have the strength to mount a challenge. They also killed almost all the doctors in Cambodia, with predictable results. They were neither the first nor the last great mass murderers of Communism, who since 1917 have run up quite a record. The Soviets murdered at least 20 million of their citizens. China killed about 65 million of her countrymen. North Korea killed 2 million. North Vietnam contributed about a million. Cambodia added about 1.5 to 2.5 million. Cuba has probably killed about a million.
The Democrat response to the latest round of killing, as embodied by Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, was to deny he favored "abandoning an ally…The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is not guns but peace. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now."
Sydney Schanberg wrote in the New York Times in 1975 "it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone."
To this day, liberals like Ed Asner argue that the Americans created the "killing fields". The theory is that if the U.S. had never been in the region in the first place, the Communists would never have had the "need" to commit such atrocities. Of course, this fails on two counts. First, we were not in the U.S.S.R. or Eastern Europe, and aside from a short period after Inchon we were not in North Korea. Asner would have you believe Communist holocausts were the result of our influence. I suppose Clair Chenault and "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell were the reasons Mao killed 65 million Chinese? Meyer Lansky is to blame for the Cuban atrocities. But where Asner and his ilk truly miss the mark is in their morally relativistic attitude, excusing this kind of horror as being somehow justified. A common sense view of Cambodian history from 1975-79 requires blame assigned to Pol Pot and his henchmen, nobody else. Is it so hard to do? Asner would certainly not assign blame on the Holocaust to somebody other than the Germans. In his line of reasoning, the death camps would not be Hitler's fault. Rather it was those Jews who took up too many positions in the Berlin and Vienna art world, or Marxists in the early years of the Weimar Republic, or American industrialists who helped the Germans build their industry back up.
Yet Anthony Lewis wrote, "We dragged a peaceful country into a useless, devastating war - for our own purposes."
When journalists tried to tell the truth about Cambodia, people like Richard Dudman of the New York Times Book Review insisted that the countries' "conditions, while hard, seemed by no means intolerable." Later, when the mass killings were impossible to dispute, the Left portrayed them as the result of the Khmer having been driven "mad" by our bombing campaign, which had "taught" them to hate and dehumanize. This was the central tenet of the early part of "The Killing Fields". Liberal lies about Pol Pot were part of a long tradition, however.
George Bernard Shaw, who saw the U.S. and Great Britain as bent on "ruling" the world, said of the Russian Communists, "We cannot afford to give ourselves moral airs when our most enterprising neighbor <the Soviet Union> humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of exploiters and speculators to make the world safe for honest men."
By the time Jimmy Carter was President, nobody used the term "Cold War" any more. Conservatives like William F. Buckley found themselves swimming upstream, calling d'etente "impacted diplomatic hypocrisy…<that> has not achieved freedom for Eastern Europe."
Liberals did not see Nixon's opening to China for what it was. They felt it was about peace and a new understanding. In truth, Nixon and Kissinger brilliantly created a triangulated strategy of linkage and self-interests, pitting Communist Goliath against Communist Goliath.
Democrat Senator Frank Church of Idaho, who had tried to dismantle the CIA in a vain effort at making himself look "Presidential" prior to the 1976 elections, was still calling anti-Communism "stupid" in 1984. He claimed that it had forced us on the side of corruption and put the Soviets on the "winning" side.
The English socialist economist John Maynard Keynes, who for some reason was elevated to almost-godlike status by New Dealers, said in 1934 that, "Communism is not a reaction against the failure of the 19th Century to organize optimal economic output. It is a reaction against its comparative success. It is a protest against the emptiness of economic welfare, an appeal to the ascetic of it all."
"Despite what many Americans think," lied Dan Rather in 1986, as if he knew what "most Americans were thinking" from his perch in Manhattan, "most Soviets do not yearn for capitalism or Western-style Democracy." One wonders, deep down, what went through Rather's mind when he saw the images of the cheering crowds at the Berlin Wall's crumbling.
In 1921, Walter Duranty had written that Lenin was giving the Russian masses "what they want." When the famine/tortures killed millions in the 1930s, Duranty wrote nothing about it, painting a rosy, Pulitzer-winning picture of Russia. His apologists later said he had been duped, not shown the realities of Communism. Eventually his letters and contemporaneous documents showed that Duranty knew full well what was going on.
In the mean time, Malcolm Muggeridge of the Manchester Guardian reported on the famine, and for his efforts was branded a liar, not by the Communists but by the…Western Communists.
Journalist I.F. Stone was hailed upon his death in 1989 as the "conscience of investigative journalism" by the L.A. Times. His motto was "no enemies to the Left." He had spent a lifetime telling the world that Communists educated their masses better, provided better health care, and abolished unemployment, all lies. Singer Pete Seeger crooned against the immorality of American development, education, capitalism and the desire to make a better life for one's family. He sang odes to Stalin and Ho Chi Minh. If the myth of McCarthyism were true, he would have been censored and jailed. He was a millionaire.
Paul Robeson was convinced Communism offered an answer to racism. He claimed blacks would not fight for America. He was friends with Itzhak Feffer, a Jewish poet. He traveled to Russia while Stalin was in the middle of a pogrom against Jews. When he tried to meet with Feffer he was told he was "vacationing in the Crimea." Feffer was actually in prison and weighed less than 100 pounds. Stalin wanted to use Robeson, so he had Feffer "fattened up," given medical treatment, and allowed to meet Robeson under surveillance that Feffer knew about, but Robeson did not. Feffer drew his finger to his throat and mouthed the words, "They're going to kill us."
Robeson returned to the States, fully aware of Feffer's fate, but he lied and said rumors of Jewish persecution were "malicious slanders." To his credit (kind of), Robeson made a death bed confession in which he revealed the truth about Feffer years later. The American industrialist Armand Hammer somehow became known as a liberal friend of the Soviets who did business in Russia for decades. Whether Hammer was a spy was never proven, but he did "admire" Feliks Dzerzhinsky, the ruthless head of the Cheka (the pre-cursor of the KGB), pointing out that the shooting of "lax" railroad officials resulted in the trains running efficiently thereafter.
The history of Western "useful idiots" has few greater buffoons, however, than Jimmy Carter's Ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young. In 1977, Young stated that American foreign policy for the previous 20 years was a "tragedy," meant not to "feed the hungry" but as an "apparatus of repression," and that there was no "danger" from a militarized Communist world. He endorsed Carter's "human rights" approach to foreign policy in the post-Church, post-Watergate era. Regarding Soviet human rights abuses, he just said they had a "different concept of human rights." Isn't that special?
His explanation as to why millions had died in the famines was that the Sun "sets as early as three o'clock," which apparently it had not done during the time of the Czars. Hmmm. He also seemed unable to explain how blizzards, droughts, floods, grasshoppers, prairie fires, the "dust bowl" and other farm disasters in the American Midwest had not produced similar famines. Russian weather apparently was worse and had gotten that way beginning in 1917. Amazingly, Young was not evoking sympathy for the farmers (who deserved it), but for the Soviet government, who in his view had valiantly struggled to provide for its people against all odds. He could not see that the "odds" were stacked against them because their system was fatally flawed. This would be like a baseball team that insists that pitching, defense and fundamentals are unimportant, stressing instead that the players all wear high stirrups (if not, the penalty is death) and then cannot understand why they are unable to defeat the Yankees.
In 1921 and 1922, 5 million Russians starved because Lenin stole their grains after a bad harvest in 1920. George Orwell said in "1984" that those who made war called it peace, those who imposed ignorance called it strength, and those who imposed slavery called it freedom. He could have been describing the early, horrid years of Bolshevism.
Leftist economist Paul Samuelson wrote, "What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for growth." MIT's Lester Thurow praised the Soviets' "remarkable performance" that "bear comparison with the United States." If anything in the history of history is inferior to something that is superior, Communism and the Soviet Union are inferior to the superior U.S. That's what the meaning of is is.
When the Communists moved into Africa, Andrew Young thought it was a natural occurrence since Cuba and Africa "shared in a sense of colonial repression and domination." The Cubans "brought a certain stability and order to Angola." When the Soviets tried Anatoly Shcharansky and Alexander Ginzburg for treason, Young thought it was an "independent" gesture. Young compared assorted murderers and rapists in American jails to Scharansky and Ginzburg, saying that the U.S. had "political prisoners," too. Eventually Young, who it might be said is an actual member of the Dumbellionite Class, had to resign because he was getting too friendly with known terrorists.
When Yuri Andropov took over the U.S.S.R. in 1982, the American media saw no big problem with his previous career heading up the KGB, which would be about the same as not having a problem with Heinrich Himmler succeeding Hitler as German Fuhrer.
Instead, Andropov was called an "intellectual" by Dusko Doder of the Washington Post. Lenin and Pol Pot had been intellectuals. So were the chattering classes of the American media. The whole thing rang of an elitism in which these people saw themselves as better than the American public, and certainly in a position to tell them what to think. It reminds me of my fuzzyheaded editor at the San Francisco Examiner who told me he would rather have a free press than the right to vote. How convenient.
When Mikhail Gorbachev took over, the Left went into a state of euphoria.
"Gorbachev has probably moved more quickly than any person in the history of the world," said Ted Turner. "Moving faster than Jesus Christ did. America is always lagging six months behind." Of course, Turner thinks Christ was nothing more than a Jewish carpenter. He somehow believes that Gorbachev "moved faster" than, just to name a few, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or Oliver Cromwell.
Mary McGrory said Gorbachev has a "blueprint for saving the planet." Dan Rather described him in the manner not of a human but of a deity, while Democrats like Tip O'Neill said he reminded them of a Wall Street lawyer who would make a good Mayor of New York. Considering the liberal hold in New York at that pre-Giuliani time, maybe Gorby would have been better than what they had.
Time magazine, in the ultimate liberal apology, named Gorbachev "Man of the Decade" for the 1980s and called him "Communist Pope and the Soviet Martin Luther." The liberals used Gorbachev as an excuse to call anti-Communism, especially McCarthyism, a "grotesque exaggeration" (Strobe Talbott, Time). Gorbachev's new Communist "human face" made Reagan's efforts to aid the Contras more unpopular. The Sandinistas were described as "peaceful" and "Catholic," even though they adopted rigid Castroesque atheism.
Reagan's decision to deploy SS-20s and Pershing IIs in Europe created a hailstorm of Leftist protest. Arlo Guthrie sang "Blowin' in the Wind", which is where his brain would be if America did not protect him from Communist military expansion. Dumbellionites stuck signs on their bumpers reading, "You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms."
In the mean time, the Soviets expanded their espionage into the "unilateral nuclear disarmament" movements in West Germany, the U.S. and Switzerland. Soviet defector Stanislav Levchenko told the New York Times that the Communists' "success so far has been great" in infiltrating the nuclear protest movement. The Russians were far ahead of the U.S. in nuclear arms on European soil, but the liberals wanted only the Americans to remove their weapons. A segment of American Christianity, particularly the Papist-controlled Catholics, joined the anti-nuke movement in what I believe was a misguided attempt at promoting "arms control."
Numerous groups calling themselves Ground Zero, the Council for Nuclear Weapons Freeze, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Women's Strike for Peace, Mobilization for Survival, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and the Committee for Peace in a Nuclear Age, joined with Americans for Democratic Action, the Citizens Party and Communist Party U.S.A. to protest build-up. Many of the groups were Communist fronts or not even fronts. All of them were ripe for Communist espionage, infiltration and manipulation.
Anti-Communist Democrats of the JFK variety had become rare. Washington Senator Henry Jackson was an exception, but his party considered him a dinosaur. An American Communist named Vladimir Pozner, who had moved to the U.S.S.R., was allowed to become a media superstar in the U.S. The American softening on Communism had led Leonid Brezhnev to state that "the general crisis of capitalism" had proved "convincing confirmation" of Communist superiority. The Russians actually believed they were wining, thanks in large part to a Western press that allowed that impression to foment.
Democrats like Teddy Kennedy spoke of "the annihilation of the human race" as if his brother alone possessed the wherewithal to deal with the Soviet threat. The film "The Day After", which starred Jason Robards in 1982, was meant not just to scare the daylights out of Americans when it came to the prospect of nuclear weapons, but strongly supported the notion that World War III would start by accident, American hubris or some event other than Soviet global aims.
A bunch of scientists had devised something called the Atomic Clock. According to them Reagan had pushed the world to within "three minutes" of the proverbial Doomsday which has never occurred in the 20 years that since passed. Strategic Defense Initiative received the ultimate derision of the Left because the idea of a nuclear shield, which they called "Star Wars," would have given the U.S. ultimate power. Ultimate power in the hands of America is the greatest fear of the Left, and is the great dividing line of liberalism and conservatism. Today, America has achieved it, and liberalism has imploded into something far beyond reason and compromise. They are a defeated ideology. Therefore, their howls have no political aim left other than to discredit the winning side of history's debate. They would be gone and forgotten but-for the "useful idiots" of the liberal media.
The United States had made the Transcontinental Railroad, the Panama Canal, Mt. Rushmore, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Hoover Dam, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, the nuclear bomb, airplanes, jet aircraft, space craft that had flown to the Moon and returned men safely to Earth, space craft that had gone to Mars and had the pictures to prove it, the space shuttle, and heat-seeking missiles. But SDI was somehow unattainable.
Let us call the rhetoric against SDI what is and was. Unpatriotic. At Reykjavik in 1987, Reagan was excoriated for not giving in on SDI. He even offered to give the technology to the Soviets. Gorbachev knew his system was not in a position to do with the knowledge what the Americans could do. On July 14, 2001, a dummy warhead was blasted out of the sky by a missile launched from 5,000 miles away. Even the Boston Globe admitted the new SDI test had been a success. Certainly, considering the effectiveness of heat-seeking missiles, the SDI concept was far from impossible.
Che Geuvara was the first "sexy" Communist. I.F. Stone called him "beautiful…a cross between a faun and a Sunday school print of Jesus." Guevara started Cuba's first forced labor camps, was called a "cruel fanatic," and shot little boys for stealing food. His actual will praised the "extremely useful hatred that turns men into effective, violent, merciless, and cold killing machines." The Marlon Brando (Colonel Kurtz) character in "Apocalypse Now" might as well have been modeled after Che. In that film Kurtz was so vile that the CIA had a hit ordered on him.
Norman Mailer wrote of Fidel Castro that he was a "the first and greatest hero to appear in the world since the second World War…the answer…" and proof that Communism was not corrupt. In fairness to Mailer, who served in World War II, is one of the world's great writers and is a thinking man willing to look into his own conscience, he said that early in Castro's tenure. He did not repeat these kinds of words when his mass crimes were revealed later.
Robert Scheer, however, has never veered from his original Communist leanings, in which he called North Korea in the 1970s a "paradise," spoke of the "greatness" of Kim Il-Sung, and that Heaven on Earth had been found in places like Cuba and China.
Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel allowed themselves to be duped by Castro in 1992. After seeing the standard tourist view of Havana (which includes beautiful prostitutes who will engage in fantasy sex for a few dollars), they lied and said that Cuba has a higher standard of living than Mexico, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and Colombia. Liberals somehow have gotten it into their heads that Cuba has a "terrific health care system," which is an abject lie. Peter Jennings attempted in 1989 to tell the U.S. that Cuba was a leader in the area of "heart disease and brain surgery," apparently because one of Castro's minions told him, "We are world leaders in heart disease and brain surgery." No American doctors (or any other doctors) go to Cuba to study techniques in combating brain disease and heart surgery, though.
The reality is that Castro's government elites do have access to health care, as do "health tourists" from Europe who receive health care for cheap prices. Ordinary Cubans just die of diseases or suffer in sickness.
When Reagan was battling Marxists in Central America, El Salvador's FMLN was never called "Marxist" by the Left wing press. They were seen as agrarian revolutionaries fighting a repressive, corrupt "regime" in San Salvador. The Left accused America of being "silent" about the thousands who were killed in El Salvador by "death squads" trained at the School of the Americas in Georgia, comparing us to the "silence" of Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, movies ("Salvador", "Missing" among others), documentaries, news reports and protests told the world in gory, regular detail about the deaths. People heard the stories, investigated, and in many cases made the determination that the Communists were worse than the "death squads." To believe the Left would require one to believe that torture and murder were taught and condoned by the U.S. for no reason other than they were good at it.
FMLN was Marxist to the core, but Senator Dodd only admitted that "some of them" were. He also lied and said the Sandinistas were not all Marxists. His lies were known by those heard them.
Amazingly, the Maryknoll Catholic order declared that, "For any Christian to claim to be anti-Communist, without a doubt constitutes the greatest scandal of our century…For Jesus, whether conservatives like it or not, was in fact a Communist…Jesus explicitly approves and defends the use of violence." This is going too far.
Sandinista president Daniel Ortega picked up on the Fonda theme that Saddam later used with Sean Penn. He invited "special guests" like Mary Travers (no relation to me) of Peter, Paul and Mary, along with such fine Americans as Betty Friedan, Abbie Hoffman, Ed Asner, Kris Kristofferson (who for some reason was named Veteran of the Year in 2002), Michael Douglas, Susan Anspach, Jackson Browne, Mike Farrell and Diane Ladd to Managua for some radical partying. The former wife of Rolling Stone Mick Jagger, Bianca Jagger, became the number one groupie of the Sandinista regime.
"Well awwwrrriiight!" as Mick once said. "Take yer clothes off an' let's have a look atcha."
Democrats took to the Sandinistas more than any previous Communist regime, because after China, d'etente, Church and Carter, they had thought the Cold War was over. Now it had started up again. They supported these Communists like few before them. California Democrat Congressman Mathew Martinez said the Sandinistas had an "indigenous form of government tailored to accommodate the needs of that nation," and the U.S. "supported subversion and terrorism." In 1984, Democrats penned the infamous "Dear Commandante" letter to Daniel Ortega, blaming the Reagan Administration for the "poor state of relations between the two nations." The letter praised Ortega for promising to hold free elections, since that was all they wanted Actually holding free elections was unnecessary to them.
Liberals later transferred their affections from Communists to terrorists. New Mexico professor Richard Berthold said, "Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon has my vote." When an Orange County, California history professor said after 9/11, "I want to see the Arab world stand up and say, 'This is wrong,'" he was suspended. Michael Moore was pissed that the terrorists had killed so many New Yorkers, because New York had voted against Bush and for Hillary.
"This is not right," said Moore. "They did not deserve to die."
Moore preferred to see soldiers and conservatives die because we have "funded terrorism" and deserve the payback. Bill Maher, who had previously called George W. Bush a "little asshole," thought the 9/11 terrorists had demonstrated heroism. Robert Scheer congratulated Maher. Liberals got up, used their "bully pulpits" on TV and other forms of the media, denouncing America. They were criticized for it, faced no censorship or official rebuke, then tried to say that ordinary citizens recognizing them as cowards, unpatriotic, stupid or various combinations of these were "squelching" their right to dissent. It was all "McCarthyism."
Noam Chomsky called the U.S. a "leading terrorist state." Michael Lerner said we were the victims of terrorists because we could no longer "feel the pain" of others.
Causes Steven Travers Supports
Conservative, Christian, USC, American patriotism