Daily Archives: October 9, 2002

The trouble starts right with the title “Goodbye, All That: How Left Idiocies Drove Me to Flee.” For it leaves one wondering about the missing “to” while evoking Groucho Marx’s seduction of Thelma Todd in Monkey Business — “Come, we’ll lodge with my fleas in the hills.” But Ron Rosenbaum isn’t that sort of joker. And The New York Observer has never sported much of a sense of humor.

So I went up to the antiwar demonstration in Central Park this weekend, hoping to hear some persuasive arguments. After a couple of hours there, listening to speeches, reading the hate-America literature, I still don’t know what to think about Iraq—will an attack open a Pandora’s box, or close one?—but I think I know what I feel about this antiwar movement, or at least many of the flock who showed up in the Sheep Meadow.

Meaning, of course, that his mind was already made-up. With Hospital Corners.

A movement of Marxist fringe groups and people who are unable to make moral distinctions. An inability summed up by a man holding a big poster that proudly identified him as “NYC TEACHER.” The lesson “NYC TEACHER” had for the day was that “BUSH IS A DEVIL … HANDS OFF NORTH KOREA, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN ….”

And so one individual comes to “sum up” an entire crowd of anti-war protestors whose opinions Rosenbaum will never know. And that’s because he knows better, you see.

Yes, Bush is “a devil” compared to those enlightened regimes that torture and murder dissidents (like “NYC TEACHER”). Bush is certainly “a devil” compared to enlightened leaders like Kim Jong Il, who has reduced the North Korean people in his repulsive police state to eating moss on rocks; or to Saddam Hussein, who tortures and gasses opponents, and starves his people to fund his germ-war labs;

Created with our express assistance and approval.

or to the Taliban in Afghanistan, who beat women into burqas.

And that is indeed quite funny. Apparently Rosenbaum feels the Burqua is a newly-minted invention of these Third World Karl Lagerfeld’s. As if there were no history to this garment save the one confected since last year.

Yes, surely compared to them, Bush is “a devil.” Thank God New York’s schoolchildren are in such good hands.

Don’t worry, Ron. Vouchers will save their bruised little souls!

Back in 1929, Robert Graves published a memoir with the endlessly evocative title Good-Bye to All That. He was leaving England, saying goodbye to a society he felt was deeply implicated, however triumphant, in the horrors he’d witnessed firsthand in the trenches of the First World War.

Goodbye to all that. The phrase occurred to me when I heard the sad news that Christopher Hitchens was leaving The Nation. Sad more for The Nation, a magazine I’ve read on and off since high school, now deprived of an important dissenting voice amidst lockstep Left opinion.

That’s quite a jump-cut from the trenches of World War I to Christopher Hitchens (scarcely unexpected) departure. Only their country of origin ties Graves and Hitchens together, but you can’t stop a pendant when he’s on a roll.

Mr. Hitchens was valuable to The Nation, to the Left as a whole, I argued back on Jan. 14 in these pages, because he challenged “the Left to recognize the terrorists not as somewhat misguided spokesmen for the wretched of the earth, but as ‘Islamo-fascists’—theocratic oppressors of the wretched of the earth.” He was leaving in part, he said, because he’d grown tired of trying to make this case in a venue that had become what he called “an echo chamber of those who believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden.”

I don’t know who Hitchens was talking about then and I don’t know now. But suffice to say the death and destruction of September 11th 2001 has led to an undermining of the Constitution of this country by Ashcroft and company that Hitchens and Rosenbaum may feel free to ignore, but others do not. Needless to say those others have been cast in the role of traitors — even if horrified by the
attack, and disdainful of burquas.

The Nation still has assets of course: the incomparable polymath literary critic, John Leonard; the fierce polemical intelligence of Katha Pollit, which I admire however much I might disagree with her; some serious investigative reporters. And recently Jack Newfield, who long ago co-authored an important book on the populist tradition—still a faint hope for a non-Marxist Left in America.

Lovely touch that “faint hope.” Need one examine the Left (or what’s left of the Left) any closer? Not if you’re Ron Rosenbaum. After all, you’ve got Christopher Hitchens to speak for you.

But Mr. Hitchens’ loss is a loss not just for the magazine, but for the entire Left; it’s important that America have an intelligent opposition, with a critique not dependent on knee-jerk, neo-Marxist idiocy. And it’s important that potential constituents of that opposition, like Nation readers, be exposed to a brilliant dissenter like Christopher Hitchens.

The “brilliance” of Hitchens’ “dissent” was everywhere apparent over the last eight years, which found him veering from attacks on Mother Theresa and Henry Kissinger (real hard to do, no?) to cheerleading the anti-Clinton jihaad, and speaking at Freeper rallies — surely the most responsible thing for any “Leftist” worth his or her salt to do.

And the level of idiocy one finds in knee-jerk Left oppositionalism is sometimes astonishing. I’d like to focus on two particular examples that have led me to want to say my own goodbye-to-all-that as well.

Before I get into the two idiocies that tipped the scale for me, I want to make clear that saying goodbye to idiocies on the Left doesn’t mean becoming a conservative, neo- or otherwise.

At which point I’m reminded of Fiona Lewis in Strange Behavior in her starched nurse’s uniform looming over Dan Shor with the largest hypodemic needle I’ve ever seen saying “Now Pete, this isn’t going to hurt a bit.”

I think I made that clear in a column published here on Jan. 28 of this year, “Where Was the Values Crowd When Dr. King Needed Them?” In that column, I argued that just as the Left had failed to come to terms with its history of indifference to (at best) and support for (at worst) genocidal Marxist regimes abroad, the Right has failed to come to terms with its history of indifference to (at best) and support for (at worst) racism and racist political allies here at home.

And what about its history of support and encouragement of genocide abroad, specifically in Latin and Central America during the Reagan era where “Death Squads” were trained on U.S. soil at the “College For The Americas.”

It’s ironic, considering what I’m about to write, that I got a nice note from that hard-core Old Red folkie, Pete Seeger, thanking me for my Dr. King column. But you know, I still can understand people like Pete Seeger joining the Party back in the 30’s during the Depression, when it looked like unregulated capitalism had cruelly immiserated America, when racism and lynchings reigned down South and it looked (looked, I said) as if the Soviet Union was the only force willing to stand up to Hitler. But to cling to Marxism now, after all we’ve learned in the past 50 years—not just about the Soviet Union, but China and Cambodia … ?

is as bad as embracing the U.S. as if all that “bad stuff” were in the past, and support for murderous dictators like Augusto Pinochet — installed by our hand in Chile one September 11th not all that long ago — was a mere detail.

I must confess that my own learning curve was on the slow side, having grown up reading The Nation and The New Republic and believing that the evils of Soviet Communism were a figment of J. Edgar Hoover’s imagination. My slow learning curve had a lot to do as well with coming of age during the Vietnam War and covering antiwar demonstrations, where I found myself seduced by the brilliant Groucho Marxism of Abbie Hoffman (I still miss his anarchic spirit).

If it took Abbie Hoffman to “seduce” Rosenbaum into moral reason, then that took place at a relatively late date. I first heard of Vietnam in the early 60’s when I was attending the High School of Music and Art (Class of ’64), a spirted place (we scooped the “Summer of Love” by seven years) filled with “Red-Diaper Babies” like Tim Hunter. The individual who first brought Vietnam to my attention was one Mike Zagarell, a loud and loutish youth who later became president of the American Communist Party. I was never moved to join the party, and was highly suspicious any position Zagarell adopted. But I came to oppose the war on my own — through reading, reason, interrogation and later, action.

And (more culpably) I was fascinated by the Dostoevskian moral absolutism of the Weather Underground, although never, thank God, by the pretensions of Marxism to be a “science of history.”

Rosenbaum really loses me here. Why he, or anyone else, became attracted to those pretentious showboaters (the forerunners of the “Symbionese Liberation Army”) is beyond me.

Of course he could be lying.

I still identify myself as a contrarian, libertarian, pessimist, secular-humanist, anti-materialist liberal Democrat

Quite a laundry list there, Ron!

who distrusts the worship of “the wisdom of the market.” Someone who was outraged (and outspoken in these pages) about the Bush-Baker election tactics in Florida, for instance. But not stupid enough to think we’d be better off with Al Gore as President now; not stupid enough to think Al Gore is smart.

But stupid enough to become a “useful idiot” for the Right.

(See my Nov. 6, 2000, column, “Al’s Screwy Scrawlings Can’t Pass for Intelligence”).

Oh, why bother?

Anyway, all this is a preface to the Tale of Two Idiocies that has led to my own goodbye-to-all-that moment.

Let’s begin with the little idiocy, the later one, because I think it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. In fact, I think I came across it shortly before I had heard of Mr. Hitchens’ farewell. One irony of it is that this little bit of idiocy was penned by a former Hitchens acolyte, a sometime Nation writer now living in London who appended a cruel little addendum to what ostensibly was a review, in London’s Times Literary Supplement, of Tom Hanks’ Road to Perdition.

At the close of an uninspired review of an uninspired film (How many times must wannabe intellectuals quote Robert Warshow when speaking of gangster films? Shouldn’t there be some kind of statute of limitations?), the writer graces us with this final reflection:

“Still, if Road to Perdition ultimately fails as entertainment, it offers rich material for allegory. Maybe it was because I attended a screening on Sept. 11, but I couldn’t help seeing Hanks as an American everyman, a pure-hearted killer who will commit no end of mayhem to ensure a better life for his children. Imagine Willie Loman with a tommy gun, and you’ll see what I mean. ‘You dirty rats! Attention must be paid.’”

But of course! What a brilliant point he’s making in the course of preening his anti-Americanism before his audience of U.K. intellectuals. What does Sept. 11 remind him of? The way Americans are killers. Sept. 11 becomes, in his lovely leap of logic, really about Americans being pure-hearted killers capable of “no end of mayhem,” infinite evil deeds. Doesn’t everybody think that way? (Everybody in his little circle, I imagine). Sept. 11 reminds them that Americans are first and foremost murderers,

No, but Road to Perdition does. For it presents us with a hired killer in the form of Tom Hanks — Family Man. The only thing the film lacks is a scene where the boy playing Hanks’ son is lectured by his father “You’ll understand all of this when you’re older.”

so let’s not spend a moment acknowledging that little matter of Sept. 11 being a day on which 3,000 Americans were murdered by the “pure-hearted killers” of Al Qaeda.


Who, when not committing mass murder, stone women as punishment, torture gays, crush free thought by executing dissidents. No, they get a pass (and the 3,000 become non-persons). Because they hate America, they must be for liberation, and so we can’t blame them; we must accuse ourselves of being killers.

Quite a number of twists there, Ron. Like one of those pretzels Bush so-famously chocked on.

In fact, we should thank them for providing our witty writer with an occasion for reminding the world that the “American everyman” is a killer.

No, dear that’s what the film does. Directed by a Brit named Sam Mendes.

That one paragraph is a useful compression of the entire post-9/11 idiocy of one wing of the Left. That’s what Sept. 11 has come to mean to much of the Left: a wake-up call for American self-hatred. Mr. Hitchens was one of the few who challenged that consensus.

Quite frankly I don’t know what he’s talking about. What “consensus”? People’s feelings about those horrendous events (reduced in a manner of weeks to tear-jerking kitsch by the mass media) have run the gamut from screams of rage to whimpers of pain to total silence, but pointing out the shortcomings (can I use that word without having Ashcroft haul me in?) of U.S. policy, both foreign and domestic is scarcely tantamount to talking off for the caves with Osama Bin Ladin. Or does Rosenbaum feel the haplessly idiotic John Walker Lindh pressages a mass movement?

But when I say goodbye-to-all-that, it’s a goodbye that’s been brewing ever since the Really Big Idiocy, the one I encountered barely a month after Sept. 11, from a more illustrious figure on the Left, an academic Left paragon.

It was a mixed gathering with a heavy representation of Left academics, and people were going around the room and speaking about the attacks and the response. Over and over, one heard variations on the theme of, “Gee, it’s terrible about all those people who died in the towers and all”—that had already become the pro forma disclaimer/preface for America-bashing—”but maybe it’s a wake-up call for us to recognize how bad we are, Why They Hate Us.” The implication was evident: We deserved it. It would be a salutary lesson. It was the Pat Robertson wing of the Left in full flower: Sinful America deserved this Judgment from the sky. Crocodile tears could be shed for those people who died in the towers, but those buildings were so ugly, they were such eyesores, they were a symbol of globalist hubris—it was as if the terrorists who flew the planes into the towers were really architectural critics, flying Herbert Muschamps, not mass murderers.

My what a bunch of idiots Rosenbaum hangs out with. “Why?” one wonders. Who are these people. Or are they mere fig newtons of his feverish imagination (as Bullwinkle would say)?

we must search for the “root causes,” the reasons to blame the victims for their unfortunate but symbolically appropriate deaths. And on and on, until I felt myself already beginning to say goodbye to the culture that produced this kind of cruel, lockstep thinking. Until finally, the coup de gr�ce—the Big Idiocy, the idiocy di tutti idiocies. It came from the very well-respected and influential academic, who said that there was at least one thing that was to be welcomed about 9/11: It might give Americans the impetus to do “what the Germans had done in the 60’s”—make an honest reassessment of their past and its origins, as a way to renewal.

“Cruel lockstep”? ” Must have been out of town for that dance class.

Reassessment of our past: Clearly he was speaking admiringly of the 60’s generation in Germany coming to terms with its Nazi past, with Germany’s embrace of Hitler.

When was this? In Fassbinder movies? Is Ron a Syberberg fan? Did you see Die Nacht, Ron?

that point, having sat silently through an accumulation of self-hating anti-Americanism, I couldn’t take it any more. I’m not a demonstrative patriot; I don’t believe in putting God in the Pledge of Allegiance, for instance. I don’t believe in making people pledge at all—there’s something collectivist about it.

Now thats a neat one. Objecting to Fascism because it reminds you of Communism.

But this last was too much: We should be grateful for 9/11 because it would allow us to reassess our shameful, even Nazi-like, past?

“Isn’t there an implicit analogy you’re making between America and Nazi Germany?” I asked. “It’s just an analogy,” he said. Well, goodbye to all that, goodbye to the entire mind-set behind it: the inability to distinguish America’s sporadic blundering depradations (dissent from which was sometimes successful) from “Germany’s past,” Hitlerism. It was “just an analogy.” O.K., then, let me make an analogy here, one that I believe goes to the “root cause” of Left idiocy of this sort.

Of course this would be a good time to point out that America’s ‘blundering” has been far from “sporadic” — as Noam Chomsky has been only too dedicated to pointing out. (Oh come on — you knew I had to mention him sooner or later.)

The analogy that occurred to me grew out of a conversation I had several years ago with the philosopher Berel Lang, author of Act and Idea in the Nazi Genocide, a talk that took place in the course of researching my book, Explaining Hitler. Mr. Lang is an extremely thoughtful and meticulous thinker on the question of degrees of evil, and the role of intentionality in determining them. He was speaking about the question of whether one could say there was “a history of evil”—whether Hitler represented a new fact, a new landmark in that history, and if so, what the next step might be.

I suggested the “next step” might be Holocaust denial, because the deniers had found a diabolical way to twist the knife, compounding the pain of the survivors by negating and slandering the memory of the murdered.

Mr. Lang demurred, because he had his own notion of what the next step in the history of evil might be. The paradigm for it, he told me, was the postwar career of Martin Heidegger, the Nazi-friendly philosopher beloved to distraction by postmodernists (and Hannah Arendt).

You all remember Hannah, don’t you? Always the first one to raise her hand in Jacques Derrida’s class. Michel Foucault just hated her. And don’t dare to bring her up to Baudrillard. He had to stay after class and clean erasers when the professor caught him dipping her braids in the inkwell.

All of whom apologized for him, despite an increasingly damning series of revelations that disclosed his toadying to Hitler’s thugs in order to attain professional advancement, hailing Hitler’s Reich as the ultimate synthesis of politics and his philosophy.

Oh who has the time to actually read Derrida. Certainly not Ron.

But that wasn’t what made Heidegger a new chapter, Mr. Lang said; it was his astonishing postwar behavior. After everything came out, after it was no longer possible to deny at least post facto knowledge of the Holocaust, nothing changed for Heidegger. He felt no need to incorporate what happened into his philosophy. “His silence,” Mr. Lang said, “it wasn’t even denial. For him, it wasn’t important! It wasn’t important …. Now if you ask which of them is worse … the Revisionists [Holocaust deniers] deny it occurred, but their official position, at least, is that if it occurred, it would have been wrong. But Heidegger knows it occurred, but it’s just not important—it’s not something to distort history to deny. For Heidegger, this is not history to concern oneself with.”

Not history to concern oneself with ….

Here’s the analogy: Heidegger’s peculiar neutrality-slash-denial about Nazism and the Holocaust after the facts had come out, and the contemporary Left’s curious neutrality-slash-denial after the facts had come out about Marxist genocides—in Russia, in China, in Cambodia, after 20 million, 50 million, who knows how many millions had been slaughtered. Not all of the Left; many were honorable opponents. But for many others, it just hasn’t registered, it just hasn’t been incorporated into their “analysis” of history and human nature; it just hasn’t been factored in. America is still the one and only evil empire. The silence of the Left, or the exclusive focus of the Left, on America’s alleged crimes over the past half-century, the disdainful sneering at America’s deplorable “Cold War mentality”—none of this has to be reassessed in light of the evidence of genocides that surpassed Hitler’s, all in the name of a Marxist ideology. An ideology that doesn’t need to be reassessed. As if it was maybe just an accident that Marxist-Leninist regimes turned totalitarian and genocidal. No connection there. The judgment that McCarthyism was the chief crime of the Cold War era doesn’t need a bit of a rethink, even when put up against the mass murder of dissidents by Marxist states.

Here’s the analogy: Ron’s retreat from the Left (if he indeed was ever part of it, which I doubt) and embrace of the Right in the face of the entire history of American Imperialism and its sponsorship of state terror in countries both far and wide and so close to our you can drive there by car is like —

Nah. Too strenuous.

It’s no accident that Marxist-Leninist regimes turned totalitarian. Likewise it’s no accident that the U.S. sponsored and nurtured totalitarian regimes on the basis of the fact that they weren’t Marxist. Absolute Power Ron. Heard of it?

The point is, all empires commit crimes; in the past century, ours were by far the lesser of evils.

Well you could have fooled me. But dead Nicaraguan babies — speared on bayonets the way we taught their country’s soldiers to do — tell no tales. At least not the sort of tales “The New York Observer” is willing to publish.

But this sedulous denial of even the possibility of misjudgment in the hierarchy of evils protects and insulates this wing of the Left from an inconvenient reconsideration of whether America actually is the worst force on the planet. This blind spot, this stunning lack of historical perspective, robs much of the American Left of intellectual credibility. And makes it easy for idiocies large and small to be uttered reflexively. (Perhaps the suggestion I recently saw on the Instapundit.com Web site calling for an “Anti-Idiotarian” party might be appropriate.)

But I’ve already pointed out Ron’s lack of historical perspective (apparently he’s “forgotten about” Reds), so why repeat myself? Oh what the hell!

Recently I saw the strangest documentary, a film with a title that sounds like a Woody Allen joke: Blind Spot: Hitler’s Secretary. It’s a New York Film Festival pick and well worth seeing, just for the example of willed, obtuse blindness on the part of the secretary when she claims that she was insulated from all the terrible things happening during the war. But even Hitler’s secretary—unlike Heidegger, unlike the knee-jerk anti-American Left—feels the need to make some gesture of dismay at her “blind spot” in retrospect. But not the know-it-alls of the Left, who have never been wrong about anything since they adopted Marxism as their cult in college. What would the harm be in admitting that one didn’t know as much at in college as history has taught us now?

But noooo … (as John Belushi liked to say). Instead, we get evasions and tortuous rationalizations like the Slavoj Ziz^ek zigzag: This extremely fashionable postmodern Marxist academic will concede the tens of millions murdered by Stalin, etc., but it’s “different” from the millions murdered by Hitler, because the Soviet project was built on good intentions, on utopian aspirations; the tens of millions dead were an unfortunate side effect, a kind of unfortunate, accidental departure from the noble Leninist path that still must be pursued.

But my thoughts turn, as they frequently do, to an unrepentant leftist named Abraham Polansky, a screenwriter whose directorial career began in 1948 with a film called Force of Evil and was not resumed until 1969 with Tell Them Willie Boy is Here followed not long afterwards by Romance of a Horse Thief. Abe was a Communist and was blacklisted. But he was hardly a doctrinare Commie — or doctrinaire left-winger of any sort as Force of Evil (his masterpiece and the most uncompromising political film ever made in this country) shows. And he wasn’t idle all those years. He wrote The Goldbergs starring America’s favorite Communist, Gertrude Berg. And through “fronts” he wrote such films as Odds Against Tomorrow. More important, he lived to see most of his enemies die — and got a chance to work again.

Back when I started writing Open Secret I had a notion that there might be a connection between Hollywood’s schizoid attitude towards leftist politics and its skittishness about same-sexuality. So I went to lunch with Abe at Neiman Marcus, which was walking distance from his condo on McCarty Drive. “It’s McCarty Drive — not McCarthy Drive!” Abe said with a hearty chuckle. The connection I was considering was tenuous at best, and from our talk I saw there was no point in pursuing it. But I got to meet Abe — something I’ll always treasure.

The last time I saw him was at the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards Banquet where he was being honored for “Career Achievement.” LACMA prides itself on honoring those individuals other orgs would barely consider. But giving it to Abe had a special flavor this year.”Well was it worth it?” he asked on mounting the podum.”Was it worth putting up with the shit you’re going to get for giving me this award? Cause there’s another group in this town that’s giving an award like this one to a RAT!”

He was, of course, speaking of the Oscar being given that year, amidst considerable controversy, to Elia Kazan. Warren Beatty, present at the awards banquet, whose screen career began under Kazan’s direction in Splendor in the Grass, thought Abe’ jibe was hysterically funny. But no one laughed at what Abe said next.

“Everybody says you should forgive and forget. Well I never forgive because I never forget!”

And so to finish with Rosenbaum:

It’s sad, though, because one senses that Mr. Hitchens forced a lot of people on the Left to confront their blind spot, their on-bended-knee obeisance to anyone in the Third World who posed as a “liberator,” from Mao to Castro to Arafat and the Taliban. This was why Mr. Hitchens was so valuable and hopeful in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, hammering away at the point that the Islamo-fascists weren’t friends of the oppressed, they were oppressors—of women, gays, poets and all dissenters.

Gays? When did we win a place on the laundry list?

But now, a year later, it seems that despite Mr. Hitchens and a few other voices, such as Todd Gitlin’s, the blind-spot types have won out on the Left—the blind spot to Marxist genocide obscuring any evil but America’s. You could see it at the Sheeps Meadow. You can see it in the hysterical seizure on Enron and other corporate scandals: See, we were right all along—corporations and businessmen are (surprise!) greedheads.

Well they are. But apparently it’s our Patriotic Duty to ignore it.

This excuses averting their eyes from anti-American terrorism—from people and regimes preparing to kill Americans rather than merely diminish their 401(k)’s. Enron was the fig leaf many on the American Left needed to return to their customary hatred of America. Because America isn’t perfect, it must be evil. Because Marxist regimes make claims of perfection, they must be good.

Only to minds as reductive as Rosenbaum’s.

So, for my part, goodbye to all that. Goodbye to a culture of blindness that tolerates, as part of “peace marches,” women wearing suicide-bomber belts as bikinis. (See the accompanying photo of the “peace” march in Madrid. “Peace” somehow doesn’t exclude blowing up Jewish children.)

Goodbye to the brilliant thinkers of the Left who believe it’s the very height of wit to make fun of George W. Bush’s intelligence—thereby establishing, of course, how very, very smart they are. Mr. Bush may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer (I think he’s more ill-informed and lazy than dumb).

As opposed to declaring Al Gore stupid.

But they are guilty of a historical stupidity on a far greater scale, in their blind spot about Marxist genocides. It’s a failure of self-knowledge and intellectual responsibility that far outweighs Bush’s, because they’re supposed to be so very smart.

Goodbye to paralysis by moral equivalence: Remind me again, was it John Ashcroft or Fidel Castro who put H.I.V. sufferers in concentration camps?

Excuse me dear — just how long did it take for Ronald Reagn to so much as mention AIDS? And are you aware of the Bush administrations ongoing attack on AIDS service organizations because they distribute condoms, and decline to teach absintence and marriage to the opposite sex as the “cure” for HIV?

Goodbye to the deluded and pathetic sophistry of postmodernists of the Left, who believe their unreadable, jargon-clotted theory-sophistry somehow helps liberate the wretched of the earth. If they really believe in serving the cause of liberation, why don’t they quit their evil-capitalist-subsidized jobs and go teach literacy in a Third World starved for the insights of Foucault?

who Rosenbaum has obviously never read.

Goodbye to people who have demonstrated that what terror means to them is the terror of ever having to admit they were wrong, the terror of allowing the hideous facts of history to impinge upon their insulated ideology.

Goodbye to all those who have evidently adopted as their own, a version of the simpering motto of the movie Love Story. Remember “Love means never having to say you’re sorry”?

I guess today, Left means never having to say you’re sorry.

Goodbye Ron. Don’t let the door smack your lying ass on the way out!

As for me, I’ll have what Abe was having.