“Green was running for mayor of NYC at the time and a stewardess (as folks so barbarically said at the time) came up and did the trick, sincerely saying he looked familiar (unlike me, she could not identify him in her mind but was curious).

That was enough. She poured water onto a shriveled, dessicated sponge. He expanded beautifully. And I mean beautifully. The delight of being recognized was delightful to him …”

Reminds me of the pleasure Christopher Hitchens was described as expressing after having been recognized on the street.

” If you are not on the Left, you rely on Providence or the Founding Fathers.

And conversely, for the progressive, as there is no god other than mankind to recognize them, then …”

Which is why Horo still relapses into Authoritarian mode against other Americans.

“You will ask: Why, then, do men cease to be Communists? One answer is: Very few do. Thirty years after the Russian Revolution, after the known atrocities, the purges, the revelations, the jolting zigzags of Communist politics, there is only a handful of ex-Communists in the whole world. ….

“By an ex-Communist, I mean a man who knew clearly why he became a Communist, who served Communism devotedly and knew why he served it, who broke with Communism unconditionally and knew why he broke with it. Of these there are very few–an index to the power of the vision and the power of the crisis…
It is a fact that a man can join the Communist Party, can be very active in it for years, without completely understanding the nature of Communism or the political methods that follow inevitably from its vision. One day such incomplete Communists discover that the Communist Party is not what they thought it was. They break with it and turn on it with the rage of an honest dupe, a dupe who has given a part of his life to a swindle. Often they forget that it takes two to make a swindle.

“Others remain Communists for years, warmed by the light of its vision, firmly closing their eyes to the crimes and horrors inseparable from its practical politics. One day they have to face the facts. They are appalled at what they have abetted. They spend the rest of their days trying to explain, usually without great success, the dark clue to their complicity. As their understanding of Communism was incomplete and led them to a dead end, their understanding of breaking with it is incomplete and leads them to a dead end. It leads to less than Communism, which was a vision and a faith. The world outside Communism, the world in crisis, lacks a vision and a faith. ….

“Yet there is one experience which most sincere ex-Communists share, whether or not they go only part way to the end of the question it poses. The daughter of a former German diplomat in Moscow was trying to explain to me why her father, who, as an enlightened modern man, had been extremely pro-Communist, had become an implacable anti-Communist. It was hard for her because, as an enlightened modern girl, she shared the Communist vision without being a Communist. But she loved her father and the irrationality of his defection embarrassed her. “He was immensely pro-Soviet,” she said, “and then–you will laugh at me–but you must not laugh at my father–and then one night in Moscow he heard screams. That’s all. Simply one night, he heard screams.”

“A child of Reason and the 20th century, she knew that there is a logic of the mind. She did not know that the soul has a logic that may be more compelling than the mind’s. She did not know at all that she had swept away the logic of the mind, the logic of history, the logic of politics, the myth of the 20th century, with five annihilating words: one night, he heard screams.

“What Communist has not heard those screams? They come from husbands torn forever from their wives in midnight arrests. They come, muffled, from the execution cellars of the secret police, from the torture chambers of the Lubianka, from all the citadels of terror now stretching from Berlin to Canton. They come from those freight cars loaded with men, women and children, the enemies of the Communist State, locked in, packed in, left on remote sidings to freeze to death at night in the Russian winter. They come from minds driven mad by the horrors of mass starvation ordered and enforced as a policy of the Communist State. They come from the starved skeletons, worked to death, or flogged to death (as an example to others) in the freezing filth of sub-arctic labor camps. They come from children whose parents are suddenly, inexplicably, taken away from them–parents they will never see again.

“What Communist has not heard those screams? Execution, says the Communist code, is the highest measure of social protection. What man can call himself a Communist who has not accepted the fact that Terror is an instrument of policy, right if the vision is right, justified by history, enjoined by the balance of forces in the social wars of this century?

“Those screams have reached every Communist’s mind. Usually they stop there. What judge willingly dwells upon the man the laws compel him to condemn to death–the laws of nations or the laws of history?
But one day the Communist really hears those screams. He is going about his routine party tasks. He is lifting a dripping reel of microfilm from a developing tank. He is justifying to a Communist fraction in a trade union an extremely unwelcome directive of the Central Committee. He is receiving from a trusted superior an order to go to another country and, in a designated hotel, at a designated hour, meet a man whose name he will never know, but who will give him a package whose contents he will never learn.

“Suddenly, there closes around that Communist a separating silence, and in that silence he hears screams. He hears them for the first time. For they do not merely reach his mind. They pierce beyond. They pierce to his soul. He says to himself: “Those are not the screams of man in agony. Those are the screams of a soul in agony.” He hears them for the first time because a soul in extremity has communicated with that which alone can hear it–another human soul.

“Why does the Communist ever hear them? Because in the end there persists in every man, however he may deny it, a scrap of soul….”

“I see in Communism the focus of the concentrated evil of our time. You will ask: Why, then, do men become Communists? How did it happen that you, our gentle and loved father, were once a Communist?
Were you simply stupid? No, I was not stupid. Were you morally depraved? No, I was not morally depraved. Indeed, educated men become Communists chiefly for moral reasons. Did you not know that the crimes and horrors of Communism are inherent in Communism? Yes, I knew that fact. Then why did you become a Communist?

“It would help more to ask: How did it happen that this movement, once a mere muttering of political outcasts, became this immense force that now contests the mastery of mankind? Even when all the chances and mistakes of history are allowed for, the answer must be: Communism makes some profound appeal to the human mind. You will not find out what it is by calling Communism names. That will not help much to explain why Communism whose horrors, on a scale unparalleled in history, are now public knowledge, still recruits its thousands and holds its millions–among them some of the best minds alive. Look at Klaus Fuchs, standing in the London dock, quiet, doomed, destroyed, and say whether it is possible to answer in that way the simple question: Why?

“First, let me try to say what Communism is not. It is not simply a vicious plot hatched by wicked men in a sub-cellar. It is not just the writings of Marx and Lenin, dialectical materialism, the Politburo, the labor theory of value, the theory of the general strike, the Red Army, secret police, labor camps, underground conspiracy, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the technique of the coup d’etat. It is not even those chanting, bannered millions that stream periodically, like disorganized armies, through the heart of the world’s capitals: Moscow, New York, Tokyo, Paris, Rome. These are expressions of Communism, but they are not what Communism is about.

“Communists were assumed to be criminals, pariahs, clandestine men who lead double lives under false names, travel on false passports, deny traditional religion, morality, the sanctity of oaths, preach violence and practice treason. These things are true about Communists, but they are not what Communism is about.

“The revolutionary heart of Communism is not the theatrical appeal: “Workers of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains. You have a world to gain.” It is a simple statement of Karl Marx, further simplified for handy use: “Philosophers have explained the world; it is necessary to change the world.” Communists are bound together by no secret oath. The tie that binds them across the frontiers of nations, across barriers of language and differences of class and education, in defiance of religion, morality, truth, law, honor, the weaknesses of the body and the irresolution of the mind, even unto death, is a simple conviction: It is necessary to change the world.

“Their power, whose nature baffles the rest of the world, because in a large measure the rest of the world has lost that power, is the power to hold convictions and to act on them. It is the same power that moves mountains; it is also an unfailing power to move men.

“Communists are that part of mankind which has recovered the power to live or die–to bear witness–for its faith. And it is a simple, rational faith that inspires men to live or die for it.

“It is not new. It is, in fact, man’s second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: “Ye shall be as gods.” It is the great alternative faith of mankind.

“Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man’s relationship to God. The Communist vision is the vision of Man without God…

“This vision is the Communist revolution, which, like all great revolutions, occurs in man’s mind before it takes form in man’s acts. Insurrection and conspiracy are merely methods of realizing the vision; they are merely part of the politics of Communism. Without its vision, they, like Communism, would have no meaning and could not rally a parcel of pickpockets.

“Communism does not summon men to crime or to utopia, as its easy critics like to think. On the plane of faith, it summons mankind to turn its vision into practical reality. On the plane of action, it summons men to struggle against the inertia of the past which, embodied in social, political and economic forms, Communism claims, is blocking the will of mankind to make its next great forward stride. It summons men to overcome the crisis, which, Communism claims, is in effect a crisis of rending frustration, with the world, unable to stand still, but unwilling to go forward along the road that the logic of a technological civilization points out–Communism.

“This is Communism’s moral sanction, which is twofold. Its vision points the way to the future; its faith labors to turn the future into present reality. It says to every man who joins it: the vision is a practical problem of history; the way to achieve it is a practical problem of politics, which is the present tense of history.”

— from Witness, 1952

This division has existed at least since the acrimonious ’72 convention; but in many ways goes back much further. Up until about ten years ago, the mainstream, establishment liberals always held the upper hand within the party. Radical lefties had influence certainly, but could never exert any kind of majority, any kind of hegemony. Indeed, they were often quickly batted down if they tried. This was frustrating for many of them; they expressed their frustrations in a myriad of third party protests; most notably Ralph Nader in 2000 (at, to a lesser extent, 1996).

Around 2004, however, the balance began to shift. It was fueled by the blind, irrational hatred of George W. Bush, uniting both the leftists and the liberals in a common cause. It was fueled by the Soros money machine, among others. But by 2008, the leftists, for the first time in the party’s history, clearly had the upper hand. Obama’s nomination was a reflection of this; however, Obama’s utterly shallow, vacuous and malleable campaign was enough to convince mainstream liberals that he really was one of them; his race compelled them into obsequiousness.

Mainstream liberals now realize how much they have been betrayed, outmaneuvered and sucker-punched. Obama is simply a symptom of this slowly evolving realignment. Furthermore, he is growing irrelevant quickly. At this point, he is useful mostly to:

A. Impose amnesty by decree
B. Continue to appoint leftist judges.
C. Serve as a talisman for the left to bludgeon all who dissent as racist.

Otherwise, leftists have moved beyond Obama. I’ve always thought the right was hopelessly mistaken in thinking Obama’s ridiculous little personality cult really had mystified and taken hold of the left. Maybe in his mind; but in theirs, he is just a useful idiot. A highly, very valuable useful idiot, granted.

People like Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley represent the best of principled mainstream liberals. I believe they understand, belatedly, the gravity of the leftist hegemony within the Democratic party. But yes, they are limited by their own deeply ingrained reticence to openly support anything or anyone in any way conservative of {gasp} Republican! They must qualify their opinions by acknowledging (at least by intimation) their utter rejection of troglodyte Republicans.

In doing so, however, they actually (if inadvertently) are causing a benefit to liberty and to the preservation of “America” as most of us know and love it. Much as we on the right may like to deny or rationalize, the reality is this:

1. The Democratic Party is going to be a powerful force in American politics for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether it is controlled by mainstream liberals or leftists. This will be true regardless of whether amnesty is enacted.

2. Many voters who are inclined to the Democrats are LIVs. Larger, more abstract debates over legal/constitutional and philosophical principles undergirding the party are utterly lost on them.

3. A large portion of these voters view all Republicans, indeed all conservatives, as either bible thumping neanderthals or greedy, amoral corporate pigs who exist to plunder poor people and exploit the middle class.

4. NOTHING the GOP, the Tea Party, conservative intellectuals, ordinary conservatives they may know, etc. will change their views on #3. NOTHING. Period. It is utterly naive to assume otherwise.

5. Hence, nothing anybody on the right has to say is of any use, whatsoever. It is a waste of time even listening to these people (whether it is Rush Limbaugh on talk radio, Thomas Sowell in a mainstream, yet intellectual, opinion piece, Richard Epstein in a law review article or their friendly conservative neighbor talking across the fence) for five seconds. All of this is literally white noise.

Yet Dershowitz or Turley? It’s hard to just dismiss them out of hand. Or, to be more realistic with many left leaning LIVs, it is hard to dismiss what they hear third or fourth handed (in snippets) from them. Assurances as to their anathema to Republicans on a policy level, only heightens their credibility among these LIVs.

Many of these LIVs are faintly aware of the excesses of the Obama administration and in general, the left’s exploitation of power to serve political gain and ideological purposes. Perry’s absurd indictment is one of the most obvious examples to date. Many are also faintly troubled by these developments. However, the have been indoctrinated that the conservatives are racist troglodytes unworthy of any attention or consideration. Thus, only when a person like Dershowitz points out leftist excess, will this LIVs pay any attention. And we need them to pay attention. In the battle for the soul of the Democratic party, we need them to side with the mainstream liberals. It is not hyperbolic to say the survival of America as we know it is at stake in this battle.

It seems as though many on the right feel if they could just get their ideas across eloquently and clearly, if they could just surmount the Everest of bias that is the MSM, they would win majorities almost everywhere, would win the Presidency and large majorities in Congress over and over. Sadly, this is not true. Regardless of what happens in 2014 and 2016, we will be governed by Democrats again, many times. The question is: Democrats like Dershowitz or Turley or Democrats like Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Van Jones, Steven Chu, etc.?

We all should take that question very seriously

In the book, he came up with a theory explaining the flaw, thinking he was a help. But after the reaction he quickly did an Emily Latella and kept his job and his adulation.

An anecdote: personally, I thought Mark Green was by far the best adversary to William Buckley on Firing Line. Green was brilliant, acerbic, maddeningly persuasive. (AD was a close second, I do not include Reagan who genuinely kicked Buckley’s posterior on the Panama Canal, but RR was a one time deal so to speak).

I sat next to Green on a flight reading my NY Times and deliberately not recognizing him, not out of contempt, but out of respect for his privacy. I was dying to tell him what I just said (being the best Buckley adversary) but a combination of wanting to let him alone and and a slight sense of self-dignity prevented me (why should I be the adulator?).

You have to take my word, the man got agitated. He looked over. He squirmed. His behavior was pronounced. OK, maybe he wanted to just talk and was shy.

But my impression was he could not believe a reader of the NY Times was not addressing him. And he was justified, when you think about it. He could have addressed me, although I think that was not a possibility on his part.

Green was running for mayor of NYC at the time and a stewardess (as folks so barbarically said at the time) came up and did the trick, sincerely saying he looked familiar (unlike me, she could not identify him in her mind but was curious).

That was enough. She poured water onto a shriveled, dessicated sponge. He expanded beautifully. And I mean beautifully. The delight of being recognized was delightful to him, and why the heck not?

There are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in everyone’s philosophy.

This is the dilemma of the non-Left. If you are not on the Left, you rely on Providence or the Founding Fathers.

The Founding Fathers were providential, so to speak.

You cannot give up your integrity and humanity.

You have to use truth meticulously, and ruthless force when you are justified.

This is going to sound ridiculous, I know.

Sarah Palin appeals to my sense of speaking what ought to be spoken, in a way in which it ought to be spoken.

I realize she has no chance, although no chance changes.

We need a leader and we do not have one. Leaders need historic opportunities beyond their control.

Mistrust in the rule of law is their objective.