Losing Faith in the Left: Understanding David Horowitz In Depth

My name is David Swindle and since the spring of 2008 I've been writing about the work of David Horowitz.

My objective with this blog has shifted since I first began it. When I first contacted Horowitz I was a leftist, angered by his criticism of my friend Professor George Wolfe and my alma mater Ball State University. Initially I sought to provide Horowitz with fair, useful criticism. In my first analyses of Indoctrination U I took a critical perspective, attacking arguments and nit-picking details.

As I read more of his books, though, and continued to ask him questions I started to find that I agreed with him more than I disagreed. This careful study of his work combined with the new job I'd started in December of 2007 -- as a debt collector for a student loan company -- gradually propelled me more into the center. And so I shifted my focus to one more of analysis and understanding instead of criticism.

It's important to realize that I approach Horowitz's work and its subjects from a position to his left but well to the right of most of the people he critiques. I consider myself a centrist liberal who currently finds a political home in the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. That political orientation and party allegiance is always open to change as the facts shift and better arguments present themselves.

With this analytical style I've written about Horowitz's books The End of Time, Uncivil Wars, and Left Illusions. I've also written on books that Horowitz has recommend such as Defending Identity by his ally Natan Sharansky and Rebels All! by his critic Kevin Mattson.

The blog has also featured a dialogue I've coordinated between Horowitz and Wolfe, recently concluded and collected here. I didn't quite meet my objective of reconciling my two friends but if their personalities and ideas can only be reconciled in me and my writing then that's something I'll accept. My concluding thoughts on the dialogue can be read here.

The objective with my writings on Horowitz on this blog is two-fold. The first is to develop an understanding of the material so that it can be explained to a wider audience. A big piece of this will be in showing thematic connections from one book to another.

There are plenty of people on the Right that should be ignored and dismissed. What I'd like to demonstrate is that Horowitz clearly isn't one of them. He's the opposite. Given that we all have limited time and energy in who we choose for our political reading, I argue that the Horowitz perspective is one for which people should make room. I've been tremendously engaged by his work and I wish others could as well.

In service of this goal I've selected Horowitz as the first author I'd like to write about in my Understanding In Depth series of books. This would be a series focusing on exploring the ideas of writers that I appreciate who I feel have not received the attention their ideas warrant. I've already begun the research for Losing Faith in the Left: Understanding David Horowitz In Depth on this blog and plan to continue doing so. However, the whole point of this book, the series I'd like to write, and basically my being as writer and thinker is this: multiple understandings of reality are vital if we are to come to comprehend this world. Ideas are like genes and must be joined in new combinations if our thinking is to evolve. In that spirit I invite others to bring to the table their understanding of Horowitz's work and its related subjects.

The following is a summary of the territory I've explored thus far:

(I'd encourage those reading my work to begin with the writings after my shift in approach, though my early essay from May, The Complicated David Horowitz is still of value. The concept of ignorance and malice as different reasons for unacceptable positions is still a notion I hold.)

The End of Time Chapter 1 In Depth

In my writing of the first chapter of The End of Time, Horowitz's spiritual/philosophical memoir of his fight with prostate cancer, I compare the style of the text to that of such modernist writers as T.S. Eliot and James Joyce. Horowitz provides numerous different ideas drawn from philosophy, literature, current events, and his own life. He then allows the reader to put the pieces together themselves and find their own meaning.

Uncivil Wars Preface In Depth

Uncivil Wars, Horowitz's narrative of his campaign against reparations for slavery, is a book filled with multiple themes. It's a discussion of the issue of reparations, the American idea, and the character of the Left. In this writing on Uncivil Wars I discuss the connection between how Horowitz was received by the campus left and how dissidents of totalitarian regimes have been received. In both cases the answer was the same: eliminate those who disagree.

Left Illusions: Neo-Communism In Depth

This piece in Left Illusions articulates one of the most important of Horowitz's arguments about the Left: that the movement has been unable and unwilling to escape from Stalinism. It also makes a point which has been important for me: that the term "liberal" should be used to express the political center and not that of the Left.

Left Illusions: Michael Lind and the Right-Wing Cabal In Depth

In this essay Horowitz examines the so-called conversion of writer Michael Lind from right to left. He challenges Lind's reasons for switching sides and defends the conservative movement.

Horowitz, Sharansky, and Hobsbawm

In this piece I discussed the connections between Horowitz's writing and that of Soviet dissident and Israeli politician Natan Sharansky. I noted the similarities between the post-identity movement that Sharansky critiqued in his book Defending Identity and the political Left that Horowitz critiques. Horowitz does not write and think in a vacuum. In exploring his work I intend to read widely of other authors with whom he has become associated.

Horowitz, Sharansky, and Lennon: A Personal Reflection on Dreams and Identity

In this discussion of Horowitz and Sharansky I discuss the question of the implementation of our dreams.

Confronting a Skewed View of David Horowitz in Kevin Mattson's Rebels All!

By September 0f 2008 I wasn't quite an expert in Horowitz's writings but I knew his body of work well enough to know when someone got it wrong. In his book Rebels All! on post-war American conservatism, historian Kevin Mattson really missed the mark in his discussion of Horowitz's writing and ideas. He repeated a misunderstanding of Horowitz's Academic Freedom campaign that I had once had. He also made a misinterpretation of Horowitz's The Art of Political War similar to that of Dean Steinberger which Horowitz described and corrected in Indoctrination U. I was most offended, though, by Mattson's absurd caricature of Horowitz's anti-reparations argument, an error that could have been easily avoided had he read Uncivil Wars.

A Liberal Defense of Conservatism

I had a more fundamental disagreement with Mattson, though. Not only did he see nothing of value in Horowitz, he seemed to see nothing worth considering within the conservative intellectual tradition. His book amounted to little more than a hit piece on the entire movement. This was not the approach I thought centrist liberals should take. My evolving ideological position was one in which I argued that conservatives often got it right and that liberals should be intelligent enough to discern when it was appropriate to go left, center OR right on any given issue.

Understanding Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week in Context

In October, Horowitz staged another of his Islamo-Fascism Awareness Weeks to draw attention to an ideology that threatened America. Knowing that many liberals might not understand Horowitz's intent -- they'd likely be more influenced by the smears of their leftist friends -- I sought to frame the event in the context of some of the central themes of Horowitz's writing.

Thomas Jefferson, Uncivil Wars, and Symbol Warfare

Inspired by a book review in The New Republic, I decided to discuss a passage in Uncivil Wars and propose a model for understanding Horowitz's writing and intellectual combat in general. "Symbol warfare" is when objects or, more often, people, become symbols of movements and ideas. To attack or defend a person is to do so to a much larger group of people and ideas. In this particular case Thomas Jefferson was symbolic of America and the founding. Horowitz was defending Jefferson against the charge of rape and therefore by extension defending America. This concept is a model I plan on continuing to use in exploring the work of Horowitz and other intellectuals. I feel it's a useful way of looking at an author's writing.

Left Illusions: Conservatives and Race In Depth

My most recent In Depth reading has been on this Left Illusions essay in which Horowitz debates the nature of America and conservatism with American Renaissance founder Jared Taylor, an intellectual-activist who argues on behalf of white identity. I add my own contribution to what Horowitz began by providing further analysis of Taylor's more recent writings. When Horowitz wrote the essay he chose not to refer to Taylor as a racist. I argue that in the years since Taylor has more than revealed himself to be a racist in his responses to Hurricane Katrina, the death of Rosa Parks, and the election of Barack Obama.

I have a personal affection for this essay. Recently my fiancee and I had made a new friend, a co-worker of ours. We brought him into our circle of politically-minded friends and became confused as, over the course of the election, the only ongoing theme in his political pronouncements was a series of politically-incorrect, racist jokes about Obama. Not being sticklers for political correctness we laughed off the jokes and never thought anything of it. It wasn't until after the election, at a party that we hosted, that I questioned our friend for his reaction that I discovered there was ugly substance behind his humor. He said that America was good while it lasted but with the election of a black president the country was over. I pressed him further and he said it wouldn't have mattered if Obama was a conservative, the mere fact of his race made the election a disaster. I wasn't sure if he was still just joking until he mentioned his fondness for American Renaissance and Taylor. Later at the party in the course of our group discussion I confronted him to explain his views on race. Then, in the presence of my bi-racial fiancee, he parroted Taylor's points and even admitted to being a racist. The fallout from the exchange I forced has, as one would expect, been quite strong. I consider the episode in the context of Horowitz's ideas and activism. It's vital for both ignorance and malice to be confronted. Horowitz is right to confront people, whether they're Islamic totalitarians, leftist totalitarians, white racists, black racists, or conspiracy-minded radical conservatives.

In addition to my Books In Depth blog I also maintain a personal blog for political commentary, spiritual reflections, and personal news. Given the year's immersion in Horowitz's writing, his influence on my own thought can be seen in several of my essays:

Barack Obama: The Future of Liberalism and the Democrats

This election season I argued on behalf of Obama from a position of centrist liberalism. Building off of Horowitz's conception of the Left as a religious movement and his argument that the radical believes the the world can be redeemed by government, I constructed a formulation to determine one's political ideology. I argued that centrist liberalism was the equivalent of agnosticism with an openness for ideas in both directions and a skepticism of the ability of government to remake the world. I argued that Obama's philosophy was representative of this tendency and that he would likely govern from the center, not the left as his conservative critics feared and his progressive supporters hoped. Thus far, given his cabinet appointments, it appears as though I might have been correct. Many conservatives seem to be realizing this and have begun breathing a little easier.

A Winner's Script

In this essay I argue for the importance of ideas. I demonstrate how we -- as in those of us who write about ideas -- shape the world. I show how the ideas of Horowitz, Sharansky, Karl Marx, and William F. Buckley Jr. influenced people and government to take specific actions.

No to Nader, Yes to Obama

I've found that many of Horowitz's ideas about the Left have been easier for me to understand since they've regularly been demonstrated by my friend Pat. Throughout this election cycle he attacked Obama from the Left more intensely than my friends on the Right. In this piece I articulate the case against Nader in an ideological sense. Shades of Horowitz are apparent.

----------

For future writings on Horowitz I intend to continue the analyses of of The End of Time, Left Illusions, and Uncivil Wars. I also want to dig into Destructive Generation, Hating Whitey, and Radical Son. I also will look into related authors including Robert Spencer, Ronald Radosh, and Christopher Hitchens. When new posts are written they will be linked to and introduced on this page. I appreciate any comments or suggestions.

New Essays:

An Introduction to the Writings of David Horowitz
In this post I lay out the principle texts that will form the basis of my analysis of Horowitz's work. I describe his books and offer my opinions on them.

The Contrarian Spirit in Christopher Hitchens and David Horowitz

In this essay I explore the connections between Horowitz and his former rival, now friend, Christopher Hitchens.