Comments on: Political change revisited

By: Roy

Roy — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 23:14:13 +0000

Gringo said: “We Gave Peace a Chance, and got genocide.”

That right there would make a fine bumper sticker.

By: Don Carlos

Don Carlos — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 21:09:14 +0000

Interesting piece, perhaps somewhat relevant:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/how_euro-socialism_set_off_a_fascist_bomb.html

By: mizpants

mizpants — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 16:05:09 +0000

There’s a striking difference between moving right from an essentially apolitical “placement” on the left — there are so many aesthetic, social and cultural reasons for wanting to stay on the left, if only nominally — and moving right from a position as a hard-left activist. That’s what makes Horowitz’s story compelling, and that’s also why I never quite trust him. He brings the mentality of the left with him, the ends justify the means attitude.
But that’s the problem with the right. You can’t win if you’re fighting a principled fight against an unprincipled opponent.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 01:02:41 +0000

Gringo.
I read Horowitz’ book a long time ago. I may have forgotten why it took the murder of a friend to get his attention. After all, the left had murdered so many, domestically and internationally without making much difference to Horowitz.
Maybe I’ll see if the library has it. Sure, he’s come a long way. My question is why he stayed there for so long. It’s not like he was a parlor pink who did, or maybe didn’t, subscribe to the Daily Worker and tsked to himself. He effing knew. But it didn’t matter until his friend was killed.

By: J.J. formerly Jimmy J.

J.J. formerly Jimmy J. — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 23:42:05 +0000

I enjoy your reflections on people such as yourself who have changed political philosophies. But I am left wanting to know what is it about our psychologic makeup that allows different people to see the way the world works in such opposite ways. In other words, what is it about our brains that allows some of us to see Thomas Sowell’s “unrestrained vision of mankind” (The liberal vision.) versus the “constrained vision.” (The conservative vision.)

It seems to me there is some innate quality that directs us toward one vision or the other. The liberal, unconstrained vision that humans are perfectible if only led by the “right” leaders has failed over and over again throughout history. And yet it is seemingly accepted as gospel by well educated, smart people. What personality trait is it that allows them to ignore or rationalize these failures?

That people can grow up as liberals is perfectly explained by the concept of familial and environmental influence, but what trait is it that allows people like yourself, Horowitz, Simon, and so many others to change your view from the unconstrained vision to the constrained?

If we knew the answers to these questions we might be able to avoid much conflict and suffering.

By: Gringo

Gringo — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 23:33:04 +0000

Richard Aubrey You gotta admit, it took a lot to convince Horowitz. Be nice to know if he’s said anything about how come he believed up to that point. David Horowitz explains it fairly well in his memoir Radical Son. For a Red Diaper Baby, he has come a long way.

By: parker

parker — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 22:50:07 +0000

Well written, same as everything you write. Another interesting chain of events are those of us (I am one) who came from conservative families, flirted with leftist ideas in college in the early 60s, and then had to make a living and raise a family which swiftly put us back to the conservative side.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 22:43:05 +0000

You gotta admit, it took a lot to convince Horowitz. Be nice to know if he’s said anything about how come he believed up to that point.

By: Ann

Ann — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 22:21:12 +0000

The Ace of Spades piece Neo linked to yesterday in her post on the Woodward thing had a really good line, used with reference to the media: the “Delta House of Obama Propaganda”.

The analogy with a fraternity or sorority — Delta House — is perfect. And I think it’s also related to the political change experience.

Some people can’t bear that kind of organization, but others thrive on it. Maybe political changers are primarily of the first kind?

By: Gringo

Gringo — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:16:24 +0000

My change was gradual. At my regional high school, I realized that virtuous liberals from the dominant town also made fun of the “farmers” from my town. Hypocrites who condemned hardhats and rednecks for not being “inclusive” but who were just as guilty of fostering a us-versus-them group mentality when it came to “dumb farmers.”

While an undergraduate I worked for two years at institutions for psych patients and the mentally retarded. From that experience I developed skepticism towards those who said that they had a social program which would solve things: all they needed was money. I saw with my own eyes that spending money was no guarantee of the effectiveness of a social program. That doesn’t mean that money should be not spent to ameliorate the situations of the less fortunate. It does mean that claims of predicted results from spending money on a given social program are most likely grandiose and not based on reality.

I had a JFK poster in my childhood bedroom. A childhood friend worked one summer at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport. His conclusion: while the Kennedys presented themselves as rich people with a conscience, they were merely rich people. IOW, Hypocrites. Why does that word keep coming up with regard to liberals?

Most likely as a result of having a childhood friend die in a gun accident with his brother, I became a conscientious objector [1-O] during the Vietnam War. I feared killing, as I knew some of the consequences of killing: how the poor brother suffered over what he accidentally did to my friend, his younger brother. The genocide in Cambodia showed me that as long as thugs roam the earth, no one’s hands are clean. We Gave Peace a Change, and got genocide. No more Peace Democrat for me.

While at one time I agreed with Jimmy Carter that we had an “inordinate fear of Communism,” the invasion of Afghanistan reminded me of the many Iron Curtain refugees that I knew from growing up in my hometown. It wasn’t that they had told me horror stories about life under Communism- they were reluctant to talk about that time- but that their being here in the US acted as a silent reproach to the “inordinate fear of Communism” crowd. I could also detect a common reticence among a number of the refugees, as if time under Communism could mold one in a certain way.
My time as a tourist and as an oil field engineer in Latin America showed me that the “progressive” catechism about Latin America did not accurately describe the facts on the ground. Subsequent library research confirmed my on-the-ground observations. It could be said that my time in Latin America turned me from a progressive of the left into an evil right-winger. I also knew Iron Curtain refugees in Latin America- including coworkers.

In a nutshell, that is how I changed from a Liberal to a Post -Liberal. It was life experience more than reading that caused the change- though reading obscure sources about the Sandinistas and about Chile certainly had an effect on me.

[In her article, Neo mentions David Horowitz as one lefty who changed to conservative. I have never met David Horowitz. When several years ago I read in Horowitz’s memoir Radical Son about his changing event- the Panthers’ murder of his friend Betty Van Patter- I realized with a shock that I had known some of the people he wrote about- though I lost contact with them decades ago. As I didn’t find out about the 1974-75 abduction/murder until several years ago, and am many decades removed from the Bay Area, I can’t count this as one of my changing events. Interesting coincidence, though.]