The Rebuttal: Defending 'American Betrayal' From the Book-Burners (15 page)

Michael McCann is a retired builder and citizen journalist
with a lifelong interest in history, culture and social issues, with a special
focus on the Soviet phenomenon.

# # #

Conrad Black’s FDR
Idolatry

Robert
Stacy McCain

The Other McCain

August
19, 2013

My
parents were New Deal Democrats, but I grew up at a time and in a place when
Republicans were extraordinarily rare. I’ve often said I never actually met a
Republican until I went to college and, now that I think about it, I’m pretty
sure it wasn’t until my junior year. It wasn’t until I was in my mid-30s that I
became an ex-Democrat, and so I completely understand the quasi-religious
reverence that Democrats have for FDR, Harry Truman and JFK. What puzzles me
nowadays is that some conservatives seem to share that attitude.

National
Review has published a column by Conrad Black which calls Diana West’s new
book American Betrayal a “farrago of lies,”
and I just don’t know what to say,
except that (a) Black doesn’t seem to have read West’s book, and (b) is
therefore attacking the straw man version of West’s argument, as presented by
Ron Radosh.

As
I
said last week
,
the attacks by Radosh and David
Horowitz have made it impossible “to view [American Betrayal] in an
unprejudiced light,” and I fear that the resulting controversy will turn into
one of those festering wounds akin to the attacks on Mel Bradford that
prevented Bradford, a brilliant scholar, from becoming head of the National
Endowment for the Humanities under Reagan. The whole neocon/paleocon feud can
be traced to that episode and, however real the substance of the ideological
dispute, it’s the vicious tactics I lament.

What
you find, if you examine the history of that quarrel, is that the neocons (and
by this term, I especially mean those associated with the
Claremont
Institute
) seem to crave the authority of Platonic archons, to
promulgate and defend “noble lies” about American history, to decide who are
the heroes and who are the villains, so that in the place of actual history, we
have instead a political myth.

Feuds
over 19th-century history that attached the stigma of “controversial” to
Bradford’s name are, it seems, now being replicated in regard to 20th-century
history, with Roosevelt replacing Lincoln as the sanctified figure who cannot
be examined critically. And just as criticizing Lincoln resulted in Bradford
being stigmatized as “pro-slavery” (a ridiculous accusation to make in 1981),
so now FDR’s critics are faced with the not-too-subtle insinuation that they
are pro-Nazi.

Are
the choices really so stark? Must we only praise FDR, or else be suspected of
being Hitler sympathizers? Or was Lincoln’s statesmanship so unquestionably
wise that no one may criticize “Honest Abe” without being accused of “white
supremacy”?

Is
it any accident, really, that both of these myths involve wartime leaders whose
influence tended toward the centralization of power in Washington and
development of the “Imperial Presidency”?

Yet
both FDR and Lincoln were, in their own time, extraordinarily controversial
figures. Once you clear away the gauzy myths that hagiographers have erected
around them and examine the contemporary record — especially including
the criticisms made by their political opponents — the men are perhaps not
really less admirable, but their actions are seen as choices subject to
second-guessing, and their philosophies of government lose much of their glow.

A
preference for beautiful myth over ugly fact is a dangerous thing, and I wish
people would stop to think that someday in the future, these mythmakers will be
worshiping at the altar of Obama.

The
controversies of our own era will eventually be reduced to a couple of pages in
the high-school history textbook and, having lived through a half-century of history
myself, I shudder at the thought. Already, one sees liberals trying to portray
the shift of the Democrat “Solid South” toward the GOP as motivated entirely by
racism when, in fact, it was controversies over Cold War foreign policy that
did the most to undermine Democratic hegemony in the South, which has always
been the most warlike region of America (and which was always the most fiercely
anti-Communist).

The
Radosh/Horowitz assault on Diana West’s American Betrayal took me by surprise
because I’ve known Diana West for many years, and know she is no Buchananite
paleoconservative. She is a regular Reaganite Republican, and certainly cannot
be tarred with the brush of anti-Semitism that has been applied to Pat
Buchanan.

It
strikes me, however, that West’s critique of FDR’s foreign policy as too
pro-Soviet, which would require conservatives to re-examine the standard
history of World War II, might be viewed as “lending aid and comfort” to the
paleoconservative enemy. That is to say, while West herself is a mainstream
“movement conservative,” her undermining of the Rooseveltian mythos may pose
the threat of redeeming the Robert Taft-style Old Right isolationism. So if you
question FDR’s fundamental righteousness, you are a conspiracy theorist, and
quite possibly (by implication) pro-Nazi.

Baron
Bodissey at Gates of Vienna offered a lengthy examination of the controversy
Sunday, linking
Dr.
Andrew Bostom’s rebuttal to Conrad Black’s National Review article
.
I remain Diana West’s ally in this fight because whatever errors she may have
made, from the standpoint of professional historians, she is asking important
questions and calling attention to facts that have been too long ignored by
those who prefer convenient myth to historical truth.

# # #

Backfire: The
Public Smackdown of Diana West

By
Shari Goodman

Family
Security Matters

August
20, 2013

Diana West, author of
American
Betrayal
, has recently found herself under a barrage of attacks, not from
the usual Leftists suspects, but from two former Communists turned Neo-Cons,
David Horowitz and his friend of 60 years, fellow Neo-Con Ronald Radosh.

Under
the guise of "setting the record straight and scholarly research,"
which would have been sufficient had they confined their attack to historical
facts in a civil and respectful manner, they resorted to a vicious
mean-spirited personal public smackdown of a woman who meticulously devoted
over 900 footnotes as evidence to support her allegations of Soviet
infiltration within our halls of government, beginning with the Roosevelt
administration.

With
columns entitled "McCarthy on Steroids" and ad hominem accusations of
sloppy journalism, the backlash against Horowitz and Radosh by readers has been
swift. Instead of issuing an apology for engaging in personal attacks upon a
fellow Conservative, they have doubled down in their defense under the guise of
"historical accuracy". Had they engaged in a professional review and confined
their criticism upon her work, they may have had credibility, but instead they
have chosen to attack not only her work, but Diana West herself. By describing
her conclusions as the "Birch Society type conspiracy history theory of
Communism" an immediate death sentence for any credible writer, they
sought to do to her what William Buckley did to the Birchers. It is the gutter
of yellow journalism that they have chosen to embrace, and the public wisely
recognized it for what it was. Reactions from readers were overwhelmingly in
support of Diana with an outpouring of stinging criticism directed at Horowitz
and Radosh. Incapable of self-reflection, they resorted to attacking the
readers.

Good
men can agree to differ without resorting to name calling, and the
assassination of one's work and good name is vicious and cruel. Unlike Radosh
and Horowitz, the criticism of Diana's book by John Earl Haynes and Harvey
Klehr was respectful and civil while Horowitz and Radosh appear to have a
personal vendetta against Diana West. To describe Diana, an author and
columnist who has dedicated her life to public service as "very angry,
very self-centered with a paranoid streak and a disposition to think in extreme
terms that have only a tenuous and deceptive relation to the truth" is not
only false, but it defines David Horowitz much more than Diana West.

Resorting
to familiar tactics advocated by Saul Alinsky in Rules For Radicals, and
employed by the Left in their take down of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann,
the former Communists used the familiar tool of ridicule in their effort to
marginalize West. Judging from readers comments, the frequently asked question
is "why?". Had they succeeded in correcting the historical record
which they have not done, they would have had more credibility, but their
criticism is directed at Diana's inferences and conclusions which historians
frequently do when gathering evidence. Often there are gaps in gathering
historical information and it becomes the norm for the researcher to be left
connecting the dots. So the question remains what is the motive for
assassinating her body of work and her good name?

One
can only speculate, but perhaps it is her successful venture into what they
consider their field of expertise and their exclusive domain. While Horowitz
has been strutting his drum in the public arena for decades, his achievements
on the public stage remain elusive. Yes, he was instrumental in creating the
Freedom Center as an instrument to counter the Left's propaganda while raking in
millions of dollars in the process. Yet, the Left's hold on college campuses,
the media, and Hollywood is stronger then ever.

The
Muslim Brotherhood continues their successful penetration of our campuses and
anti-Israel activism such as divestment has gained momentum. A Muslim
Brotherhood operative, Sadia Saifudding, was recently named to the U.C. Board
of Regents, and under the guise of "freedom of ideas in the
marketplace" Horowitz single handedly handed them a win when he publicly
condemned a petition which sought the Muslim Student Association removal from
the UCLA campus. Ironically, in his effort to protect freedom of speech for a
seditious Muslim Student Association whose noblest ideal is to "die for
Allah" he successfully suppressed over 1000 voices who signed the
petition.

Unfortunately,
there is no "freedom of ideas in the marketplace", in our
universities, or in the media. Conservative voices are shunned and shut down
and the only voice heard is that of the Left. Horowitz should know better, and
if not, then he is not the man to lead our effort as we struggle to turn the
tide in our campaign to change the political landscape. The millions of dollars
his Freedom Center receives in donations from those who believe his message
would be better spent elsewhere where deeds actually accompany the rhetoric of
the messenger.

While
Horowitz and Radosh proclaim to have left the Left, it is apparent that the
Left has not left them. While employing Leftist tactics to destroy a fellow
Conservative, they have handed the Left a win. It is also irrelevant if that
was not their intent, because the only winner to benefit from this attack is
the Left. While both men may possess a lot of knowledge, what they are clearly
lacking is wisdom.

I
have not met Diana West nor am I a historical scholar, but as a human being I
along with many others take offense at the vicious and cruel treatment she has
received from Horowitz and Radosh. Neither has proven their case against
American Betrayal, but in their attempt to smear Diana West they have succeeded
in tarnishing their own names. Akin to schoolyard bullies, arrogant in their
self-importance and position of power, they pounced on a woman who dared to
successfully play in their yard. By not confining their criticism to scholarship
they have proven themselves to be assassins guilty of attempting to deprive
Diana of her credibility and livelihood. Decency demands that good men and
women stand up and denounce these assassins for their moral deficiency. The
Conservative movement deserves better and Diana West deserves a public apology.

Shari Goodman is
an educator and a chapter leader for ACT! For America. Her views are her own
and are not necessarily representative of ACT! For America. Her columns have
appeared in Family Security Matters, Israel Today, and the Los Angeles Times.

#
# #

Canadian poet David Solway, a longtime contributor to
Frontpage and Pajamas Media, was unable to place the following piece at his
regular outlets.

Disagreements among
Conservatives

By
David Solway

Family
Security Matters

August
20, 2013

The Proper Way to Handle Controversy

The
controversy surrounding Diana West's new book,
American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on our Nation's
Character
, that
erupted over the last week on the Internet vividly illustrates a point I made,
and perhaps belabored, in several recent articles; namely, a radical split is
occurring within conservative ranks that threatens its long-term cohesion and
presents the liberal/left with a pronounced and supplementary advantage in the
culture wars. West's book, as is now becoming common knowledge among a growing
readership, documents in painstaking detail the Soviet infiltration of the
American administrations during World War II and the Cold War period. According
to West, U.S. policy was substantially impacted by an effective Soviet
espionage and recruitment network. Moreover, the scandal was afterwards covered
up so massively and systematically that very few of us are aware of the extent
of the deception.