Archive for the ‘Communism’ Category

The American wordplay – The Tribune India

Vivek Katju

Ex-Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs

IN his address to the second in-person Quad summit held in Tokyo on May 24, US President Joe Biden said, Prime Minister Modi, its wonderful to see you in person and I thank you for your continuing commitment to making sure democracies deliver, because that is what this is about: democracies versus autocracies. And we have to make sure we deliver.

For all its claims of respecting democracy, the US doesnt hesitate to support dictators if its interests demand.

Two months earlier, Biden was in Warsaw to underline NATOs unity to meet the challenge of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In a speech on March 26, he reminded the world of the power of the people in the face of a cruel and brutal system of government. The totality of the speech indicates that he was referring to the Cold War and the ideological struggle between the West and the Soviet Union, though he avoided using the words Cold War and communism. At the same time, seeking to link the Cold War times to present contestations, Biden implied that then too there was a battle between democracy and autocracy. However, the word autocracy was not generally used by the US during the Cold War. The popular formulation was the free world versus godless communism.

Through the Cold War, the US stressed that its system was based on freedom, respect for individual rights and choices while communism crushed individual rights and aspirations by punishing dissent. It also emphasised that communism sought to spread its predatory wings throughout the world and had to be contained. Today, as the West and its allies seek to meet the political and diplomatic challenge of an aggressive China in the Indo-Pacific and worldwide, and of Russias actions in Ukraine, it is making the same ideological points in a different vocabulary, necessitated by changes in China and Russia.

China and Russia, decades ago, consigned to history their communist economic systems which were based on full state ownership of all economic assets as well as denial of any private enterprise. Now, private enterprise is the norm, though within the parameters set by the state; in Chinas case determined by the Xi Jinping-controlled party and in Russias by President Vladimir Putin. The political systems of both countries, though, are in the control of strong leaders. Besides, in China the Chinese communist party does not allow any other vehicle of political expression. As the economic ordering of these states has changed, the West cannot call them communist. Hence, the use of the term autocracy, which implies one-man authoritarian rule unconstrained by state institutions. The democracy versus autocracy binary therefore is the replacement of the Cold War binary of free world versus evil and godless communism.

The end of the Cold War witnessed a reassertion by the West and its allies on the nature of global order, which they premised on an expansion of democratic polities which would be committed to an open and rules-based system. Now, Biden is asserting that the worlds leading autocracies China and Russia are undermining the rules-based international order by their policies and actions which are violating the sovereignty of states and eroding the institutional structure which is upholding global order. And he is placing all this in the democracy versus autocracy binary. Certainly, Russias invasion of Ukraine is indefensible and China has become aggressive.

History bears witness to the non-static nature of global orders. What is common to all global orders are the dichotomies that are underlined by states that uphold international order and benefit from them. These states always project their systems as enlightened and on the right side of history, holding at bay the forces of darkness and barbarism. It is fascinating that the West is now emphasising that a global order based on the ascendancy of democracies which can deliver is threatened by autocratic polities. The US is finding it necessary to show that democracies can deliver, perhaps, inter alia, because of the different way in which China and its own system handled the Covid pandemic.

Through the Cold War period, the US and its allies enjoyed greater prosperity than the communist countries. They attributed this to the advantages of the market economies. The West also outstripped the communist world in science and technology with the beginnings of the digital age. In some areas, especially those related to the military, space and nuclear, the Soviet Union managed to compete, but by the 1980s, it had become clear that it was lagging behind. However, the rise of China has been astonishing in the past three decades in manufacturing, and increasingly, in technology. This is leading it to assert that unlike the democracies, its own system is delivering growth and making its people prosperous. It is also pointing to the success of the way it has handled the pandemic and is contrasting it with the performance of the democracies in pandemic management. It is in this context that Bidens praise of Modi for making sure that democracies deliver has to be placed. Modi would be gratified by Bidens assessment that India has done well in its overall management of the grave global dislocation because of the pandemic, the consequent international economic difficulties which have been further compounded by Russias invasion of Ukraine. But the test of the performance of a government does not lie in the views of outsiders, but of its own people.

For all its claims of respecting democracy, the US did not hesitate to support the most autocratic dictators during the Cold War who terrorised their peoples as long as its interests were served. In some cases, it deposed popular governments, as in Iran and Chile, and replaced them with ruthless dictators. All this was justified in the cause of democracy against communism! Today, too, the US does business with autocrats if its interests demand. So much for democracy versus autocracy.

Read the original post:
The American wordplay - The Tribune India

The Long, Sordid History of the Gay Conspiracy Theory – New York Magazine

Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer

A specter is haunting America the specter of sexual degeneracy.

Across the country, Republican state legislators are proposing bills to prohibit discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in classrooms, purportedly to protect students from the perverted designs of predatory gay teachers. Prominent right-wing activists bandy about groomer as a term of opprobrium, accusing their political adversaries of trying to sexually exploit children while invoking hoary stereotypes of gay men being pedophiles. According to PEN America, a third of the books banned in public schools over the past academic year contain LGBTQ+ characters and themes. And in a troubling sign that a movement once confined to the fringes of American politics may be shaping its contours for years to come, some 30 candidates pledging fealty to QAnon, the far-right conspiracy theory envisioning a ring of cannibalistic child-sex traffickers at the heart of the American republic, are running for Congress.

Sensing political opportunity, some Republicans in Washington have exploited the passions brewing in the provinces. During last months confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson, Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley attempted to outdo each other in flinging accusations that the newest addition to the Supreme Court had betrayed a soft spot for child-sex predators during her tenure as a federal district court judge. Outgoing representative Madison Cawthorn raised eyebrows with his tales of the sexual perversion specifically, cocaine-fueled orgies that goes on in Washington. Responding to news of an infant-formula shortage, Elise Stefanik, the third-ranking House Republican, blamed pedo grifters.

Moral panics are nothing new in America. We ought to learn by our mistakes, President Harry Truman bitterly complained in 1950 as Senator Joseph McCarthy accused him and his administration of knowingly harboring communist subversives. Weve repeated this sort of hysteria over and over in our history, Truman continued, reeling off a series of dates referring to the Salem witch trials, the Alien and Sedition Acts, an Anti-Masonic Party presidential campaign, the cresting of the anti-Catholic Know Nothing movement, the founding of the Ku Klux Klan, and the first Red Scare.

While McCarthyism would exhaust itself several years before the death of its namesake in 1957, a concurrent mass frenzy, chillingly resonant with the present-day fixation over sexual degenerates atop the commanding heights of American politics, would continue for decades. In December 1950, just a few weeks after Truman issued his gripe about the perennial susceptibility of his countrymen to moral panics, a Senate investigative subcommittee released the bipartisan report Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government. Commissioned in response to the shocking revelation, uttered in passing by an undersecretary of State at a congressional hearing earlier that year, that the State Department had dismissed 91 employees on the grounds of homosexuality, the report stated, One homosexual can pollute a Government office.

During the 1952 election that would see them achieve control over both houses of Congress and the White House for the first time since the Great Depression, Republicans placed the problem of gays in the State Department or, as McCarthys colleague Everett Dirksen colorfully called them, the lavender lads at the front and center of their campaign. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover disseminated the rumor that the Democratic presidential nominee, divorced former diplomat Adlai Stevenson, was one such violet-hued fellow. (That Hoover himself was the subject of similar whisperings because of his conspicuous bachelorhood and hobby of collecting antiques a pursuit commonly associated with gay men at the time in no way inhibited him from destroying the lives and careers of countless gay people over the course of his nearly half-century career as the most powerful man in American law enforcement.) About three months after taking office, President Dwight Eisenhower fulfilled his partys pledge to clean up the mess in Washington by signing Executive Order 10450, prohibiting those guilty of sexual perversion gays and lesbians from working for the federal government or federal contractors. Not until 1975 was the gay ban in the civil service lifted, and it would take another two decades for President Bill Clinton to overturn the prohibition on gay people receiving security clearances.

As the long tail of the Lavender Scare demonstrates, and what the current spate of bills stigmatizing gay people as sexual predators lamentably still shows, fear of homosexuality has played a large, yet largely unappreciated, role in American politics and society. It has impacted not just gay people but the country itself, poisoning perceptions of reality and dividing us unnecessarily. Thousands of qualified people lost their jobs, and untold numbers more refrained from entering public service because of the irrational terror homosexuality once inspired in the hearts of most Americans.

Central to this fear has been the sense that gay people, by virtue of the secrecy once intrinsic to their existence, operate through subterfuge. (At the signing ceremony for the Parental Rights in Education law, dubbed the Dont Say Gay law by critics, Florida governor Ron DeSantis declared that the measures opponents support sexualizing kids in kindergarten and camouflage their true intentions.) The fear underwent a dramatic change during World War II, when the concept of national security became a paramount concern and the federal government began developing a bureaucracy for the management of confidential information. If, prior to Americas rise as a global superpower, the conventional view of homosexuality held it to be immoral and a mental illness, by the time the Cold War began, it was elevated to a national-security threat, with gays allegedly more vulnerable to blackmail and therefore potentially enemies of the state. Sexual and political nonconformity came to be conflated, and sexual deviants assumed a place in the American political imagination rivaled only by, and frequently intertwined with, that of communists. Indeed, the standing of the homosexual was worse. A communist could leave the party, repent of his evil ways, and inform on his erstwhile comrades. Medically pathologized, morally condemned, and legally proscribed, the homosexual had no such escape from his fate.

Compelled to live in secret, gay people became fodder for all manner of political agendas and social anxieties. What some now lightheartedly refer to as a velvet mafia operating in certain artistic fields like fashion and entertainment once had sinister connotations. Gays were accused of subverting schools, communities, even whole nations, and its within the context of this long and ignoble history that the present hysteria over malevolent groomers working surreptitiously to corrupt the countrys youth must be understood. To comprehend Americas latest moral panic, it is necessary to recognize homophobia as not only a form of prejudice like any other but as a conspiracy theory.

The American penchant for associating sexual and gender nonconformity with political malice dates at least as far back as the election of 1800. Shortly after Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams for the presidency, a pamphleteer supporting the former accused the latter of possessing a hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman. But the mode of conspiratorial thinking that would come to characterize much of the popular discourse around homosexuality did not take off until the early 20th century. An awesome explanatory power would be imputed to the love that dare not speak its name as the motive force behind the decline and fall of ancient empires, the rise of fascism, the advance of communism, and a whole host of other events and phenomena both epochal and mundane. This was a function of two trends associated with western modernity: the growing understanding of gayness as a human identity trait (rather than a mere set of sexual acts) and the rising power of the popular press. A series of high-profile cases involving gay men in the corridors of power congealed into a cultural and political archetype one whose literary implications Norman Mailer would explore in his 1955 essay aptly entitled The Homosexual Villain with far-reaching consequences across the western world.

Gay rights activist Frank Kameny, second in line, and others protest against the exclusion of gays in the military in 1965. Photo: Bettmann via Getty Images

Like many stereotypes related to sexual decadence, the origins of the gay conspiratorial mythos can be traced to Germany. In November 1906, the editor of a Berlin-based newspaper, Maximilian Harden, started publishing a fusillade of attacks against Prince Philipp Eulenburg, a friend and adviser to Germanys last emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II. Eulenburg, Harden claimed, sat at the center of a homosexual clique exercising a malign and perverse influence over the German ruler. As evidence, Harden cited a collection of intimate letters he had obtained in which Eulenburg and his confederates address one another by a series of effeminate endearments. (Eulenburg was called Philine, and Wilhelm was referred to as Liebchen, or sweetheart.) According to Harden, what the late chancellor Otto von Bismarck had called a camarilla of pederasts surrounded the kaiser, manipulating him into a pacifist and internationalist foreign policy that would lead imperial Germany to ruin. (One of the men Harden named as part of this gay intrigue, the French ambassador to Berlin, was referred to by the chief of the citys police department as the king of the pederasts.) Loyal not to king and country but rather to their own deviant kind, these men, Harden wrote, were responsible for nothing less than a national calamity that risked danger to the fatherland. In language that would come to be used against gay men decades later when they were decimated by a deadly disease, the liberal politician Friedrich Naumann referred to them as an international infection of sin.

Comprising a series of libel trials and military courts-martial that continued for three years, the Eulenburg Affair was the first gay panic of the modern era. More than 50 journalists from around the world descended upon Germany to cover the scandal, which was comparable to the 1895 trial of Oscar Wilde for the adverse cultural and political impact it had upon what was then still a nascent popular conception of the homosexual, a term that had been coined less than three decades earlier. Hardens allegations were amplified by another relatively new phenomenon: the popular, scandal-hungry yellow press, which zealously weaponized the charges against what it portrayed as a weak and lily-livered aristocracy. In the words of one newspaper, the Eulenburg circle was the actual carrier of this meager and unmanly policy of reconciliation whose after-effects we still suffer from today. Another called for the military to be mercilessly purged of homosexuals. Chancellor Bernhard von Blow demanded Wilhelm eliminate those disgusting boils as part of a necessary cleansing process.

According to the historian Robert Beachy, More than any single event or publication, the Eulenburg scandal broadcast and popularized the notion of a homosexual identity. And it was an identity perceived as being inextricably linked with conspiracy, treason, and moral corruption. Homosexuals were confederates in what one Swiss journalist termed a new Freemasonry transcending national borders, covert enemies of the state who advocated cosmopolitanism and diplomacy over nationalism and martial virtue. During one of the libel trials his articles provoked, Harden complained that, because of the notoriety of the Eulenburg faction, the prevailing view of the German government in foreign courts was that they are homosexuals and for that reason, there is no need for political anxiety on our part.

Much in the way QAnon has emboldened a new generation of far-right media outlets dedicated to exposing the depraved sexual peccadilloes of Americas corrupt ruling class, so did the Eulenburg affair mark a major moment in the ability of the mass media to instigate and shape populist passions. By leveraging public anger over an elite circle of pederasts, the German popular press exerted unprecedented influence over traditional institutions of authority such as the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the military. In 1914, five years after the furor subsided, the Berlin correspondent for the New York Times observed that the upheaval caused by Hardens revelations was the most stirring victory wrought in the name of public opinion which Modern Germany has yet witnessed. Some faulted the attitudes inflamed by the scandal for the policies that plunged the Continent into war. In 1933, the year another authoritarian and militaristic political movement took power in Germany, the pioneering gay-sex researcher Magnus Hirschfeld reflected that the Eulenburg affair was no more and no less than a victory for the tendency that ultimately issued in the events of the World War.

Whatever the accuracy of these claims, the verdict issued by one liberal German newspaper at the time of the scandal would prove prescient: No more insulting accusation can be made against a man than that of abnormal sexual inclination. It ruins him psychologically and socially.

The myth of the traitorous homosexual would seemingly be reinforced through two more political scandals, both from the German-speaking world. In 1913, the intelligence service of the Austro-Hungarian Empire discovered that its own counterespionage chief, Colonel Alfred Redl, was spying for czarist Russia. Redl was given a pistol with which to commit suicide, and after his death, the regime encouraged a narrative conflating his homosexuality with his treason. Citing evidence acquired after raiding his thickly perfumed homosexual pleasure cave, Austro-Hungarian authorities claimed the Russians had blackmailed Redl into working for them. When Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary the following year, the story of Redls treason swelled into that of legend as self-serving generals blamed their battlefield defeats on the dead colonel who had disclosed their military plans. Redls disgrace was so notorious that his two surviving brothers changed their surnames, and in a feature about the Redl case published more than a quarter of a century after he committed suicide, the New York Daily News, then one of Americas highest-circulation newspapers, denounced him as the Murderer of a Million Men who had betrayed his country so he could buy a boyfriend a car.

The Redl affair convinced generations of western spymasters (Allen Dulles, the first civilian director of the Central Intelligence Agency, most prominent among them) that gay people were inherently susceptible to treason. According to documents uncovered in Russian government archives in the early aughts, however, Redls treachery was motivated by what his Vienna neighbor, Stefan Zweig, termed the pleasures of the senses, not the pleasures of male flesh. Like many traitors, Redl had very expensive tastes, such that recruiting him required no effort, in the words of an officer from the Italian intelligence service, to which Redl also sold secrets. Redls gayness was also apparently unknown to his Russian handler, who referred to him as a lover of women.

The next gay man to solidify the apparent link between political and sexual corruption was Ernst Rhm. Founder of the Nazi paramilitary Sturmabteilung or SA, also known as the Brownshirts Rhm was unapologetic about his homosexuality. Though this made him the target of left-wing attacks, with one Social Democratic newspaper publishing his intimate correspondence with other men, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was willing to overlook his brutish lieutenants deviation from sexual norms. After all, he said, the SA was not an institute for the moral education of genteel young ladies, but a formation of seasoned fighters. Soon after taking power, however, Hitler began to view the SA as a threat, and in 1934, he ordered the execution of Rhm and his top deputies in the infamous Night of the Long Knives. In an impassioned speech before the Reichstag, Hitler cited the trait he had quietly tolerated for years as the reason for liquidating the Rhm cabal, denouncing

within the SA a sect sharing a certain, common orientation, who formed the kernel of a conspiracy not only against the moral conceptions of a healthy Volk but also against state security. A review of promotions carried out in May led to the terrible discovery that, within certain SA groups, men were being promoted without regard to National Socialist and SA service but only because they belonged to the circle of this orientation.

The association of Nazism and gayness burlesqued most famously in The Producers, with its prancing, nelly Hitler and Busby Berkeleystyle musical number featuring German soldiers dancing through France, played by chorus boys in very tight pants was one taken quite seriously at the highest reaches of the U.S. government. Just weeks after America entered the Second World War, the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the CIA, considered a proposal to draft patriotic homosexual men, otherwise barred from military service, for the purposes of infiltrating the Nazi high command. A few months later, the New York Post perpetrated the first outing in American politics when it named Massachusetts senator David Walsh as the patron of an all-male brothel near the Brooklyn Navy Yard heavily populated with sailors and, allegedly, Nazi spies. Commenting on the case, the newspaper columnist and radio host Walter Winchell (who in 1933 had accused Hitler of being a homo-sexualist, or as we Broadway vulgarians say an out and out fairy) crowed about swastika swishery.

The development of the homosexual villain reached a milestone in 1948, the year, John Cheever observed, everybody in the United States was worried about homosexuality. The root cause of their worry was Alfred Kinseys study Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which found that 10 percent of American men were more or less exclusively homosexual for a period of at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. The report shocked America. No longer was homosexuality a rare aberration, associated with only criminals and other disreputable elements, but one to be found in every age group, in every social level, in every conceivable occupation, in cities and on farms, and in the most remote areas of the country. Homosexuality was a shockingly widespread if invisible threat. If these figures are only approximately correct, a leading psychiatrist observed, then the homosexual outlet is the predominant national disease, overshadowing cancer, tuberculosis, heart failure, and infantile paralysis.

The same week Kinseys report sparked a nationwide opening of closet doors, a young writer named Gore Vidal published his third novel, The City and the Pillar. Its title a reference to the biblical tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, the book was the first major work of American fiction to feature a gay protagonist sympathetically. Later that month, another quasi-autobiographical novel by a precocious young gay man, Truman Capotes Other Voices, Other Rooms, made the Times best-seller list, propelled in no small part by its scandalously come-hither author photograph. Theres a lot of queers here, one of Vidals characters observes of New York City. They seem to be everywhere now.

That June, Congress passed and President Truman signed into law a measure providing for the indefinite commitment of sexual psychopaths (a vague category including habitual homosexuals) at St. Elizabeths Hospital, a mental institution. And later that year, homosexuality played a prominent if subterranean role in the nations first live televised congressional hearing, at which Time magazine senior editor and confessed ex-Soviet spy Whittaker Chambers told the House Un-American Activities Committee that the former high-ranking State Department official Alger Hiss had been a co-conspirator in the communist underground. Hiss and his allies began a whisper campaign alleging that Chambers, who had secretly confessed his past homosexualism to the FBI, was a spurned lover out for vengeance against Hiss, and the drama between the two men established in many prominent minds a link between communism, treason, and sexual deviancy.

The politician who exploited this presumed link most effectively was McCarthy, whose infamous February 9, 1950, speech to the Republican ladies of Wheeling, West Virginia, alleging a vast communist conspiracy in the State Department was followed just weeks later by the revelation that 91 gay people had been fired from working there. Of the 25,000 letters sent to McCarthys office in the ensuing weeks, only one of four was primarily concerned with communist infiltration; the vast majority decried sex depravity. McCarthy read the public mood and tailored his message accordingly. The State Department, he declared that April, was honeycombed with Communists and queers who have sold 400 million Asiatic people into atheistic slavery and have the American people in a hypnotic trance, headed blindly toward the same precipice. According to the Washington columnist for the New York Daily News, the foreign policy of the United States, even before World War II, was dominated by an all-powerful, supersecret inner circle of highly educated, socially high-placed sexual misfits, in the State Department, all easy to blackmail, all susceptible to blandishments by homosexuals in foreign nations. In its attribution of national disaster to a gay clique, the article was a direct echo of what one German paper claimed at the height of the Eulenburg scandal: Since 1889, German policy, especially foreign policy, has been under the aegis of the unmanly, effeminate, indecisive soft-soap Eulenburg. This perverse eunuch-and-homunculus-policy without backbone, without juice and strength, has greatly reduced Germanys prestige and influence in the world.

The notion of a Homintern a play on the Comintern, or Communist International was devised in the late 1930s to refer to a particular set of interwar gay English literary figures. After the defection of Guy Burgess, a flamboyantly gay British diplomat, to the Soviet Union in 1951, this sly portmanteau acquired an ominous new meaning. If Redl was the archetype of the traitorous homosexual who sells his countrys secrets under threat of blackmail, Burgess became the classic subversive of the nuclear age, the sinister queer who sabotages his country by abetting its enemies. The following year, an article in the conservative magazine Human Events warned darkly about the threat that the Homosexual International posed to the free world. Echoing Marcel Prousts timeless observation (and Kinseys scientific validation) of gayness as a phenomenon numbering its adherents everywhere, among the people, in the army, in the church, in the prison, on the throne, the articles author claimed, This conspiracy has spread all over the globe; has penetrated all classes; operates in armies and in prisons; has infiltrated into the press, the movies and the cabinets and it all but dominates the arts, literature, theater, music and TV.

Like antisemitic conspiracy theories, which have blamed Jews for both communism and capitalism, for being both rootless cosmopolitans and national chauvinists, the concept of the Homintern offered its purveyors an ideologically adaptable frame for simplifying complex and disturbing events. In 1967, New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison charged a gay businessman, Clay Shaw, as the ringleader of a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. The murder, Garrison privately told reporters, was a homosexual thrill-killing perpetrated by a coterie of right-wing, anti-communist high-status fags. In a cover story forConfidential,a scandal magazine that pioneered the practice of outing closeted gay public figures in the early 1950s, one of Garrisons investigators wrote, Two shocking parallels tie the various suspected plotters together at every turn: overt homosexuality and frustrated attempts to liberate Cuba, culminating in the Bay of Pigs affair. Though the jury took less than an hour to acquit Shaw, Oliver Stone made Garrisons reckless prosecution the basis of his 1991 film JFK, and he reiterated the slanderous case against Shaw in his 2021 documentary JFK Revisited.

No president was more obsessed with the gay menace than Richard Nixon, a fascination that offers a window into his paranoid, conspiratorial mind. Repeatedly in conversations with his aides, fortunately preserved for posterity by his White House taping system, Nixon can be heard blaming fags for everything from the collapse of ancient Greece (You know what happened to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them) to the ruining of womens fashion (One of the reasons that fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women). The obsession went beyond mere locker-room talk. It was partly in hopes of finding evidence of Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsbergs nonexistent secret gay life that Nixon ordered the break-in of his psychiatrists office, the incident that led to the unraveling of his presidency.

No less an icon of the American right than Ronald Reagan was once tarred with the brush of the homosexual conspiracy. Early into his first term as governor of California, Reagan was rocked by a scandal involving alleged homosexuality among his staff. Because he came out of the Hollywood scene, where homosexuality was almost the norm, Reagans thencommunications chief Lyn Nofziger recalled, I also feared the rumors would insinuate that he, too, was one. As I reveal in my book Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington, Reagans 1980 presidential campaign was nearly derailed by charges from adversaries within his own party that he was a Manchurian candidate being manipulated by a cabal of right-wing homosexual advisers. The allegations were taken so seriously by Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee that he ordered a team of his top reporters, including Bob Woodward, to investigate. Though the Post did uncover the presence of several closeted gay aides, the imputation that they were up to something nefarious lacked proof, and Bradlee killed the story days before Reagan was nominated. Nonetheless, the fear that Reagan would be perceived as too chummy with gays or possibly even gay himself helps explain why he kept silent about the AIDS epidemic for the duration of his first term.

One of the reasons the allegations of a right-wing gay cabal controlling Reagan didnt stick is that, by 1980, political homophobia had taken on a new guise. The increasing visibility of gay people in the years after the 1969 Stonewall Rebellion, and the concomitant rise of the religious right in reaction, fundamentally altered the politics of homosexuality. Once gay people were permitted to work for the federal civil service in 1975, the charge that they were secretly conspiring to subvert the government on behalf of foreign paymasters lost its charge. Although they would still be formally barred from obtaining security clearances for another two decades, in the eyes of a wary public, gays posed less of a threat to the security of the nation than they did to the integrity of the family. Homophobia still had a conspiratorial tinge, to be sure, but the fearsome machinations of the Homintern were updated to that of a homosexual agenda whose goals (equality in marriage, military service, and the workplace) were now out in the open.

Surveying the broad sweep of American history, the recurring waves of anti-gay hysteria form a pattern, with episodes of progress and visibility provoking cultural backlash and political repression. The historian John DEmilio has likened World War II to a national coming-out experience as the mass mobilization brought millions of gay people, seemingly isolated in their existence as sexual minorities, into contact with one another for the first time. This greater societal awareness of homosexuality, described in postwar American literature and given the imprimatur of science in the Kinsey Report, collided with the nuclear anxieties of the Cold War, generating a Lavender Scare whose effects would be felt for decades. Likewise, the post-Stonewall efflorescence of gay liberation contributed to the rise of the Christian right, Anita Bryants Save Our Children campaign, and the revival of social conservatism more broadly. What Vanity Fair lauded as the Gay Nineties, an era of unprecedented gay cultural visibility and a progression from what Frank Rich had described as the Gay Decades of the 70s and 80s, was followed by a campaign to insert anti-gay discrimination into the U.S. Constitution in the form of an amendment barring same-sex marriage. Today, seven years after the Supreme Court legalized gay unions, two years after it outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and with the first openly gay Senate-confirmed member of the Cabinet, we are witnessing but the latest sex-themed moral hysteria in a country sadly prone to them.

Also uniting these panics is their character as expressions of anti-elite populism, with homosexuality singled out as a trait supposedly prevalent among a revolutionary vanguard seeking the destruction of Americas moral foundations. It is a common habit among people lacking power to devise conspiracies that explain their lack of it. From the supporters of McCarthy to the QAnon diehards of today, the purveyors of anti-gay panic speak the language of dispossession, of anger at the bewildering changes taking place around them in a country they no longer recognize. The paranoid style is an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent, the historian Richard Hofstadter famously wrote in 1964. In the minds of those gripped by thiscomplex, America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. In our time, that final destructive act is being undertaken by liberal elites who both control the levers of power and prey on Americas children and turn them gay.

For those engaged in it, the moral panic over grooming accomplishes what earlier iterations of the Homintern, like any conspiracy theory, did: offer soothingly simple explanations for perplexing phenomena. If the latest anti-gay hysteria could be attributed to a single statistic, it would be the one reported by Gallup last year that the percent of adults identifying as other than heterosexual has doubled over the past decade from 3.5 percent in 2012 to 7.1 percent. Much of this increase owes to the 21 percent of Gen Z that identifies as LGBTQ+. While its certainly possible the LGBTQ+ proportion of Americans born between 1997 and 2003 is twice that of millennials and nine times that of baby-boomers, a more likely explanation is that as societal acceptance of nonnormative sexual orientations and gender identities has increased, so has the propensity of young people to claim those orientations and identities for themselves or at the least experiment with them.

For a loud minority of Americans, the enormous social progress won by gays and lesbians over the past 75 years the most dramatic transformation in the status of any minority in history is deeply unsettling, as is the increased visibility of trans people. And it is for the purpose of explaining this dramatic transformation that groomer discourse has proliferated. As gay people marry and serve openly in the military with no adverse consequences for the rest of society, the anti-gay movement has become increasingly desperate, to the extent that it is now ginning up hysteria about pedophile elites. During an earlier time, when gay people were forced to lurk amid the shadows like communist agents, this rhetoric was fatally effective. Today, nearly every American knows somebody who is gay. Fortunately, we are no longer living under the specter of the Homintern.

On a cruder level,laffaire Eulenburgwas largely responsible for the enduring stereotype associating Germans with homosexuality. The French term la vice allemande, the Italian Berlinese, and the English the German custom became popular euphemisms for same-sex attraction. In Britain toward the end of the First World War, when anti-German sentiment was at a fever pitch, a right-wing newspaper alleged the German intelligence services had accumulated the names of 47,000 gay Englishmen and women in a Black Book. Their identities, according to the paper, had been collected by agents so vile and spreading such debauchery and such lasciviousness as only German minds can conceive and only German bodiesexecute. Over 20 years later, when Germany was once again the instigator of a world war, the Hollywood screenwriter Ben Hecht disgustedly observed that he had met more of them in one day in Berlin than I had encountered in nine years in Chicago.Long before armchair psychoanalysis of the American president became a national hobby, two prominent authors insinuated that the failure of the Treaty of Versailles was due to President Woodrow Wilsons repressed homosexuality. InThomas Woodrow Wilson: A Psychological Study, the former senior American diplomat William C. Bullitt and Sigmund Freud alleged that Wilson suffered from an Oedipus complex that compelled him to seek an affectionate relationship with younger and physically smaller men, preferably blond. Wilson, they explained, met the leaders of the Allies not with the weapons of masculinity but with the weapons of femininity: appeals, supplications, concessions, submissions. Published in 1966, the book caused a scandal upon its release, drawing a critical reception thatThe Times Literary Supplementcharacterized as a practical unanimity of condemnation that has had few parallels in recent historical controversy.During the war, the federal government commissioned two studies by acclaimed Harvard medical doctors, both of which dwelled at length upon the supposed connections between homosexuality and Nazism. The fact that underneath they feel themselves to be different and ostracized from normal social contacts usually makes them easy converts to a new social philosophy that does not discriminate against them, Walter C. Langer observed of homosexuals inThe Mind of Adolf Hitler. Being among civilizations discontents, they are always willing to take a chance on something new that holds any promise of improving their lot, even though their chances of success may be small and the risk great.Ribaldry linking the State Department with gay men was hardly limited to the right. In his 1949 bookThe Vital Center, no less a paragon of mainstream American liberalism than Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote of the State Department as a repository of effete and conventional men who adored countesses, pushed cookies and wore handkerchiefs in their sleeves. A 1950New Yorkercartoon shows a job applicant pleading with an employer, Its true, sir, that the State Department let me go, but that was solely because of incompetence.At best the elimination of homosexuals from Government agencies is only one phase of combating the homosexual invasion of American public life, the author R.G. Waldeck wrote before offering an observation that would not be out of place in todays debates over how sexual orientation ought to be discussed, if at all, in schools. Another phase, more important in the long run, is the matter of public education. This should be clear to anyone who views with dismay the forbearance bordering on tenderness with which American society not only tolerates the infiltration of homosexuals everywhere but even allows them to display their perversion in public.

Read more:
The Long, Sordid History of the Gay Conspiracy Theory - New York Magazine

Book Review Tested by legacies of colonialism and apartheid – Morning Star Online

Red Road to Freedom: A history of the South African Communist Party 1921-2021by Tom LodgeJames Currey 70

BUILDING on earlier seminal texts such as RE Simonss voluminous Class and Colour in South Africa and Michael Harmels more celebratory account Fifty Fighting Years, Tom Lodges latest work is a monumental, fascinating and painstakingly researched book that provides by far the most up-to-date and comprehensive history of the South African Communist Party.

Unlike liberal and Trotskyist commentators, Lodge also emerges as a critical but undoubtedly sympathetic observer who skilfully captures a dramatic and compelling story that has film-like qualities.

Lodge kicks off his book by demonstrating how the organised left in South Africa can effectively date its history back to the 1890s, a period in which a myriad of socialist, anarchist and syndicalist organisations began to be formed.

Many of these organisations were effectively derived from movements in Europe and North America. British migrants, for example, were often involved in South Africa branches of the Independent Labour Party and the Social Democratic federation.

Italians tended to favour syndicalist ways of organising, Jews from Tsarist Russia focused on the Bund and the more broadly based Friends of Russian Freedom and Germans veered towards the orthodox Marxism of their home country.

Sickened by the failure of avowedly socialist bodies to oppose imperialist war and at the same time inspired by the world changing Bolshevik revolution of 1917, more radical elements eventually came together to form the Communist Party of South Africa in 1921.

In this unflinchingly honest account, Lodge argues that much of the work the party carried out in the 1920s and indeed the 30s was of a propagandistic nature and, even then, activity was intermittent and localised with most branches outside the main cities lasting no longer than a few years.

Despite the erstwhile contributions of formidable characters such as Bill Andrews, WH Harrison, Rebecca Bunting and Johnny Gomas and the recruitment of influential trade unionists, membership remained at just a few hundred, a recurring problem being when the organisation did manage to recruit rapidly during periods of labour militancy it rarely managed to retain newcomers.

Lodge relates this to three fundamental and often interrelated weaknesses.

The first being whether the party was effectively functioning as a Leninist organisation. Lodge convincingly demonstrates how interpretation of policy diverged widely, national decisions and detailed Comintern interventions about the need to struggle for a Native Republic notwithstanding.

Second, although the CPSA was undoubtedly operating in a difficult and in many ways unique environment, most members were of white, European descent and prioritised work in the more proletarian but overwhelmingly white, skilled industries. Trade unions occasionally took it down some horrific paths. The most notorious of which being when party militants unfurled a banner reading white workers of the world to unite for a white South Africa during the incredibly bloody and often since ignored miners strike of 1922.

Third, although some tangible links with individuals in the wider national liberation movement were created, operational connections between itself and the then small African National Congress were surprisingly weak and fragmentary, marked as much by an atmosphere of mutual suspicion as by anything else.

The late 1930s and the war years were to see a limited upsurge in the partys fortunes.

Popularity rose among all groups other than far right nationalist Afrikaners who remained as violently opposed as ever. An emphasis on anti-fascist popular front style organising and the increasing prestige of the Soviet Union brought some dividends. Just as significantly the party showed a growing inclination to Africanise its approach to labour struggles, something helped by over 100,000 black workers being brought into industry, a 40 per cent increase on pre-war levels.

Party influence was similarly strengthened by a willingness to work in rural areas and by imaginative campaigns against the infamous pass laws, in defence of squatters rights and against profiteering.

Again, though, while this period did see significant gains, it sometimes came at a cost, inner party factionalism and sometimes justified criticism for restraint in labour militancy during the production first war years being not least among them.

As the nightmare of apartheid began and as the Suppression of Communism Act started to be brutally enforced, the party was quickly driven underground and forced to function very much as a party in exile.

Ideologically, however, its probably fair to say that during this time the party developed its outlook in a much more concrete and sustained fashion, eventually publishing its detailed programme titled The Road to South African Freedom.

In terms of contents this owed much to the experiences of the peoples democracies of Eastern Europe in the immediate post war period and to Soviet theories about how post-colonial states could effectively by pass capitalist stages of development.

Party work accordingly began to stress the need for a national democratic revolution against what they considered to be colonialism of a special type, an analysis which enabled it to develop a growing respect and influence with the now mass based African National Congress.

Following the Sharpeville massacre of 1961, the ANC was to abandon non-violence, and again communists were pre-eminent in the Peoples War of its armed wing, uMkhonto we Sizwe.

Just as importantly, the party became a key player in the tripartite alliance alongside its comrades in the ANC and Cosatu. By 1985 of the 35 members elected to the national executive, 21 were communists.

In 1990 legal restrictions were lifted, the party published its new programme The Path to Power and negotiations as to how apartheid was to end began.

Assessing the historic contribution of the party to ending racist rule, Lodge draws attention to the importance of its intellectual analysis of what South Africa was and how it could best be changed, its influence in the national liberation movement being out of all proportion to its size.

Lodge additionally emphasises the partys efficient and targeted organisational prowess, particularly within the ANC and Cosatu where cadres, rightly or wrongly, often never drew any distinction between work for the party in particular and work for the tripartite alliance in general.

In terms of the armed struggle, the organisations heroic role remains unchallenged and indisputable, the incorrigible Joe Slovo and martyr Chris Hani having attained iconic status even among those who would offer no support for communist politics.

On an international level, the party was a central body in securing political, economic and military support for the anti-apartheid struggle. The ANC received a huge amount of aid from the Soviet Union and the GDR, solidarity that contrasted sharply with the relentlessly pro-apartheid politics of, for example, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Finally, the SACP was multiracial and multinational to its core and received popular acclaim for its resolute fight against all forms of racism, anti semitism and communalism.

And today? The ANC government still continues to command overwhelming support and gains have been made in housing construction and in the provision of utilities. In terms of foreign policy, South Africa tends to play a broadly progressive role as well.

However, the country remains one of the worlds most unequal societies, unemployment is at record levels and a failure to nationalise mines and initiate land reform has led to an increase in support for somewhat opportunist and politically unstable bodies such as the Economic Freedom Fighters.

The brutal response of the stateto strikes such as at Marikana strike in 2012 alienated many who had assumed that such anti-working-class violence would never be repeated in the post-apartheid era.

Led by the more than capable and comparatively youthful leader Blade Nzimande, in 2007 the party launched its new programme The South African Road to Socialism and membership was said to stand at 50,000. Ten years later it stood at 284,000 and by 2019 to an all-time high of 319,108, becoming in effect the countrys second largest political party

Although four leading communists continue to hold ministerial portfolios, it is not surprising that cracks have appeared in the SACPs longstanding alliance with the ANC.

The party openly campaigns against corruption, has been vocally critical of recent presidents and there have been some recent cases of it fielding independent candidates with limited but not necessarily negligible results.

By no means an easy read, like all in depth historical accounts it raises as many questions as it manages to provide answers and whether or not South African communists will succeed in building socialism in the coming years is obviously a moot point.

What is beyond question is that the party is as central to South African politics today as it has been over the past century and as a guide to understanding its development then, now and in the future Red Road to Freedom is unapparelled.

More here:
Book Review Tested by legacies of colonialism and apartheid - Morning Star Online

Is the United States Totalitarian? – Lawfare

In the three months since Russia began its war of aggression, the character of the country has been changing before our eyes. Its much-vaunted military has been exposed as not only weak, disorganized, and corrupt, but also criminal, engaging in pillaging and the torture and mass slaughter of unarmed Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war. Resorting to a practice not seen since the Stalin era, Vladimir Putins government has also been deporting captured Ukrainians, apparently by the hundreds of thousands, to distant portions of Russia, first passing them through filtration camps where prisoners are interrogated for nationalist leanings and selected out for punishment. The Russian judicial system has been mobilized to crack down on dissent against the war; among other things, it is a crime punishable by up to 15 years in a labor camp to refer to it as anything but a special military operation. To the extent that there were independent media before the war, they have been shut down and the only voices now in print or on the air are official propaganda. Access to independent news sources on the internet has also been sharply restricted. In sum, Russia has taken a number of steps back toward the repression of the Soviet era.

But as draconian as these various measures all are, Russia is not yet properly called totalitarian as it rightly was during the reign of Joseph Stalin or even much of the Leonid Brezhnev era. About a century ago, Benito Mussolini called fascist Italy a totalitarian state, a concept that he defined with brilliant clarity: Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. But whether the label of totalitarian actually applies to Mussolini-era Italian fascism, or, again, to Putins Russia today, is open to serious question. All-encompassing statism was more of an aspiration than an Italian accomplishment. Even the more thoroughgoing oppression of Nazi Germany did not quite fit the totalitarian model, at least according to the criteria set forth by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carl Friedrich in their influential 1956 volume, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy.

To Brzezinski and Friedrich, totalitarian rule was an extreme form of authoritarianism possessing six characteristics: an all-encompassing ideology, a single party, a terroristic police, a communications monopoly, a weapons monopoly and a centrally directed economy. All six were necessary to fit the bill of totalitarian. Absent one, and the definition was not fulfilled. Stalins Soviet Union was the premier case. Nazi Germany, with its only partially centralized economy, was a close second. Putins Russia is moving alarmingly closer, but it still lacks some of totalitarianisms key features.

Here at home and in the West, the concept of totalitarianism came under assault as the Cold War consensus unraveled in the 1960s and 1970s. Revisionist scholars saw it as offering an intellectual foundation and implicit justification for the VietnamWar and the Cold War. A barrage of journal articles and books was launched in an attempt to demolish the construct. As the counterculture emerged, it became fashionable in some quarters of the left to identify the United States itself as totalitarian, or pre- or proto-totalitarian, on a plane with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In this, the novelist Norman Mailer was a pioneer, opining in his famous 1957 essay, The White Negro, that citizens were trapped in the totalitarian tissues of American society, doomed willy-nilly to conform if one is to succeed. Herbert Marcuse, the political theory guru of the New Left, came next, arguing that all industrial societies, very much including the United States, were totalitarian. To some on the extremes, we were not America but Amerika, the spelling signifying a shared identity with Nazi Germany. We shall not defeat Amerika, proclaimed Abbie Hoffman, leader of the leaderless Yippies, by organizing a political party. We shall do it by building a new nationa nation as rugged as the marijuana leaf.

Today, in one of those remarkable inversions of history, the charge that the United States is totalitarian no longer comes from the left but the right, from Americas growing contingent of self-proclaimed post-liberal intellectuals.

To Rod Dreher, senior editor at the American Conservative and the author of a number of best-selling books, liberal democracy is degenerating into something resembling the totalitarianism over which it triumphed in the Cold War. To be sure, qualifies Dreher, [t]his totalitarianism wont look like the USSRs. Its not establishing itself through hard means like armed revolution or enforcing itself with gulags. Rather, it exercises control, at least initially, in soft forms. Dreher has in mind contemporary progressivism: Under the guise of diversity, inclusivity, equity, and other egalitarian jargon, the Left creates powerful mechanisms for controlling thought and discourse and marginalizing dissenters as evil.

Patrick Deneen, professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame and the author of Why Liberalism Failed, maintains that U.S. constitutional libertiesfreedom of speech, freedom of association, free and fair elections, and freedom of religionhave become an empty faade: [O]ur capacity for self-government has waned almost to the point of nonexistence. We live under what he calls liberalocratic despotism, in which the liberal state expands to control nearly every aspect of life. Liberal totalitarianism is a phrase he has taken to employing.

To Yoram Hazony, the Israeli-American leader of the new U.S. national conservative movement, liberal democracy has become a kind of totalizing dictatorship: [T]he opponents of liberalism have been vanquished one by one, and universal liberal empire has seemed to come within reach. The consequence: There are increasingly insistent demands for conformity to a single universal standard in speech and religion. Liberalism has taken on the worst feature of the medieval Catholic empire upon which it is unwittingly modeled, including a doctrine of infallibility, as well as a taste for the inquisition and the index.

To Adrian Vermeule, an integralistthat is, an advocate of establishing a Catholic confessional stateand a chaired professor at Harvard Law School, communism and liberalism have far more in common than it would seem at first glance. According to Vermeule, [t]he stock distinction between the Enlightenments twinscommunism is violently coercive while liberalism allows freedom of thoughtis glib. Liberal society celebrates toleration, diversity, and free inquiry, but in practice it features a spreading social, cultural, and ideological conformism. And in his account, those who decline to conformilliberal citizens like himselflive much like refuseniks in the totalitarian USSR: They are trapped without exit papers, suffer a narrowing sphere of permitted action and speech, shrinking prospects, and increasing pressure from regulators, employers, and acquaintances, and even from friends and family.

What can one say about this vision of America as a repressive society?

One of the arresting features of the supposed American totalitarianism is that it is invisible. Dreher explains that, given its soft form, [i]ts possible to miss the onslaught of totalitarianism. To Deneen, liberalism is more insidious than its competitor ideologiesfascism and communismprecisely because, unlike highly visible fascist or communist repression, it is unseen: [L]iberalism is less visibly ideological and only surreptitiously remakes the world in its image. [A]s an ideology, it pretends to neutrality, claiming no preference and denying any intention of shaping the souls under its rule.

Of course, another obvious explanation, other than unwitting enslavement by an invisible tyranny, is that the contention that the United States is under totalitarian rule is simply false. The definition of an onslaught is a very violent or forceful attack. If it is possible simply to miss the onslaught of totalitarianism, as Dreher claims, perhaps it is not really much of an onslaught at all. If one considers the six characteristics enumerated by Brzezinski and Friedrich, not a single one of them obtains in the United States. There is no over-arching ideology to which it is mandatory to adhere. No single party dominates with an autocrat at its head. There is no government monopoly on communications or force. No secret police is hounding dissidents. No central economic planning is in place.

To assert, as Deneen does, that the liberal state expands to control nearly every aspect of life is to make a mockery of the real horrors of totalitarian societies, past and present, like North Korea, where such control is a grim reality. In lamenting the impossibility of obtaining exit papers and the narrowing sphere of permitted action and speech in which he and like-minded colleagues find themselves, Vermeule, a distinguished professor of law who prolifically expresses himself in public lectures, books, articles and even tweets, is doing nothing more than engaging in a vicarious form of victimhood. Likening his (highly privileged) position to that of someone trapped without exit papers is a particularly ugly exercise in America bashing, on a par with anything ever said or done by the Yippies. At any moment, of course, Vermeule is free to resign his Harvard chair and emigrate to the country of his choice; no exit papers are required. As for Drehers soft totalitarianism, on inspection it is a mere oxymoron, a nonsense phrase akin to gentle terror, that serves as a rhetorical grenade to toss in the culture war.

In characterizing America as totalitarian, post-liberals like Dreher are reacting to an over-bearing strain of American progressivism that travels under the name of political correctness and, lately, wokeness, a pejorative term that sheds more heat than light. Dreher would be on target if all he claimed is that some corners of the left have succeeded to a disturbing extent in putting in place mechanisms that attempt to control discourse in educational institutions and corporations. There is indeed a censorious cultural movement afoot that has spread widely, committing outrages along the way. But these outrages are overwhelmingly the handiwork of private actors, not overreaching government. Moreover, countervailing forces are in play: Organizations like the Academic Freedom Alliance and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education have sprung up to defend freedom of thought and expression. There is no shortage of thinkers across the political spectrumthe names of Jonathan Chait, Anne Applebaum and Robert P. George come to mindwho offer withering criticism of progressive authoritarianism without rushing to the conclusion that America has descended into some sort of totalitarian nightmare.

The fact of the matter is that in whatever direction one looks, the left-wing progressive agenda is in retreat. A dont say gay bill that bans discussion of sexual orientation in kindergarten through 3rd-grade classrooms has passed in Florida, and copies are under consideration in numerous other jurisdictions. Theres a well-publicized backlash to the participation of transgendered athletes in womens sports. The teaching of critical race theoryor just the perception of the teaching of critical race theoryhas provoked a backlash, leading to books being removed from school libraries, not by the left but by the right. Supposedly woke mega-corporations are under assault from lawmakers, their tax benefits targeted, their antitrust status questioned. The landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion is almost certain to be overturned, and one state after the next is subjecting the procedure to tighter restrictions if not an outright ban. If one looks at the composition of the Supreme Court, it appears that conservatives have been faring rather well. Whatever one thinks about any of these developments, they are not exactly the hallmarks of a left-wing dictatorship, let alone a totalitarian one.

Ironically, even as the post-liberals deplore their own countrys totalitarian character, they have a soft spot for genuine authoritarians. Putin has presided over a regime with a long record of murdering rivals and journalists and engaging in aggression against neighboring countries. This did not deter Dreher from piling praise on the Russian leader for his Christian virtues in articles with titles like Putin Gets It. Why Dont We and Putin, Our Tsar Protector. Only after Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine did Dreher evidently have a change of heart. Now his articles bear titles like Clarity About Russian Brutality, in which he expresses disappointment that the master of the Kremlin, his erstwhile hero of the culture wars, is an utter disgrace.

If the sun has set on one deity, it has long risen on another, namely Viktor Orbn, prime minister of avowedly illiberal Hungary. Hazony and Deneen have made pilgrimages to Budapest to pay homage to the Hungarian leader. At Orbns meet-and-greet with Deneen, reads the official press release, the American academic spoke highly of Hungarys family policy measures, stressing that the future would rest on local communities based on national and family values rather than on liberalism. To Dreher, who had gone to live in Hungary for a spell, Orbns election victory in early April was a moment of triumph: Make no mistake, Dreher pronounced in a tweet, #ViktorOrban is the leader of the West nowthe West that still remembers what the West is. Under Orbn, says Dreher, the Hungarians are defending democracy and national sovereignty over and against the culturally imperialistic liberals of the West.

Never mind that Hungary is a kleptocracy in which the media is overwhelmingly controlled by the state and the ruling Fidesz party. Never mind that Orbn has packed Hungarys courts with cronies. Never mind that, as Arch Puddington has shown, Orbn has adopted a fawning posture toward a true totalitarian state: the Peoples Republic of China. Never mind that Orbns party and government have engaged in a thinly veiled campaign of anti-Semitism, rehabilitating vicious Jew-hating fascist figures of the pre-war era, white-washing Hungarys extensive role in the destruction of Hungarian Jewry, and turning the Jewish Hungarian-born American philanthropist George Soros into a national bogeyman. Like Putins Russia, Hungary makes a show of upholding family values and Christianity, and what is a little state-sponsored anti-Semitism compared to that? Soft totalitarianism may be a self-refuting oxymoron, but a more useful analytical term, creeping authoritarianism, certainly applies to Drehers new political paradise.

What follows from the notion that America is a dictatorship? One logical conclusion would be that the tyranny must be brought down. It would be foolish in the extreme to maintain that the mob that swarmed the Capitol on Jan. 6 was inspired by post-liberal theorists. The chief inspirer was Donald Trump himself. But a climate has been created, and wild ideas are in circulation, which Trump exploited.

Deploying violent imagery, the post-liberal theorists are contributors to that climate. Vermeule calls for seizing a strategic position from which to sear the liberal faith with hot irons. Civility and decency are secondary values, says the integralist Sohrab Ahmari, another post-liberal and an editor at Compact magazine. It is necessary, Ahmari says, to fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy. The goal of the war is to enjoy the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good. The common and the Highest Good are to be determined, of course, by Ahmari and his like-minded post-liberal comrades themselves. Ahmari, it is pertinent to note, is a supporter of Frances far-right Marine Le Pen, leader of a political party whose roots lie in French fascism.

If there is a whiff of fascism in the air or, perhaps, more precisely, a longing for a Franco or a Salazar, that is unsurprising. Ahmari and his fellow post-liberals hold liberal democracy in contempt. They despise the individualism that is liberalisms underpinning. They valorize national solidarity and cultural homogeneity. They exude a loathing of America as decadent and depraved. We are an evil civilization, and we will be judged, declaims Dreher in a tweet. They follow the Italian philosopher Augusto Del Noce, who contended, as Deneen approvingly summarizes his view, that the great totalitarian threat of our age emanated not ultimately from the dictatorships of so-called communist regimes of the Soviet Union or China, but from the unfolding liberal logic of the West (emphasis added).

Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them, said George Orwell. But the claim that the greatest totalitarian threat emanates from the unfolding liberal logic of the West is worse than stupid, it is morally despicable, standing on its head the epic struggle between freedom and barbarism while erasing memory of the millions who perished at communist hands. Just as there is something called Holocaust denial, there is something called Gulag denial, and this is an instance of it. It would be interesting to ask Deneen, who has a doctorate in political science, to compare the number of people murdered by the Soviet Union and China with the number murdered by governments operating under the unfolding liberal logic of the West. He would discover that the resulting ratiotens of millions of deaths on one side, zero on the otheris a telling measure of what constitutes a totalitarian threat and what does not. One is only left wondering why Deneen calls the Soviet Union and China so-called communist regimes. While tarring the liberal West as despotic, does he simultaneously harbor doubts about the communist character of these two countries?

Whatever lies behind such confusion (if that is what it is), both the post-liberals calumniation of their own country and their adoration of authoritarian leaders abroad seeps down from the intellectual sphere into the popular culture, where an entire ecosphere of illiberalsactivists, journalists, aspiring politicians, militia members, crackpots of various stripeshas been energized. While retaining his affinity for Vladimir Putin, Tucker Carlsonthe keynote speaker at Hazonys first gathering of national conservativeshas broadcast from Budapest, bringing the supposed virtues of Hungary to the broad masses of the Fox television audience. This very month, the Conservative Political Action Coalition (CPAC), hosted a convocation in Hungary in Orbns honor. A strange assortment of characters is now lauding Hungarys illiberal democracy, while lambasting America as a tyranny. Dictator Joe Biden started phase 1 of the Dems Communist takeover of America, is how Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene sees the world. The United States needs to be liberated like Ukraine, says Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert. Rod Dreher makes an excellent case that totalitarianism has just about arrived in the U.S., writes Abe Greenwald, an editor at conservative Commentary magazine, addingwith the self-indicting irony escaping himthat the label totalitarian is much abused.

A segment of the right is infected with arrant nonsense, but the content of that arrant nonsense did not spring from nowhere. At a moment when American liberal democracy is coming undone, a group of supposedly serious thinkers has been engaged in a travesty, slandering the United States while simultaneously trivializing the extraordinarily brutal history of 20th century totalitarianism. It is a scandalous falsehood, a perversion of language for political ends, to contend, as Dreher does, that American liberal democracy has degenerated into something resembling the totalitarianism over which it triumphed in the Cold War. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn spent much of his life caught in the maw of such a regime. His masterwork, The Gulag Archipelago, a chronicle of the torture and murder of millions, makes plain what totalitarianism is and what it is not. Live not by lies is Solzhenitsyns indelible admonition to those who would seek freedom. In a case of intellectual hijacking, Live Not By Lies is also the title Dreher gave to his most recent book. It is past time he and his fellow post-liberals began heeding Solzhenitsyns famous words.

See original here:
Is the United States Totalitarian? - Lawfare

Get ‘Em While They’re Young Current Affairs – Current Affairs

Whatever misdeed I committed in a previous life must have been a doozy indeed, because a certain cruel editor of a particular leftist magazine, lets call it Contemporary Episodes, has once more sent me a fever dream in a box. On my desk is a package containing copies of the Heroes of Liberty library, a series of right-wing books for kids 7-12 years of age. I have a childrens book on Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one on conservative pundit Thomas Sowell, and finally U.S. president Ronald Reagan.

The box of books is on my desk because of a very slightly critical review I wrote in 2020 for this magazine of a publishing project called The Tuttle Twins, which is a series of kids books that teach a variety of libertarian lessons, like that some workers are more valuable than others and that governments suppress free markets. My review of this political propaganda for kids of pre-critical thinking age was extremely gently critical, concluding that the series was a hideous fraud and an ugly twisted farce. My good-natured ribbing led to it being covered by some of the big, well-funded libertarian propaganda entities and right-wing think tanks, including the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the CATO Institute. This coverage largely consisted of gloating that the mean review made for good ad copy and that more copies of the books had been sold as a result. Typical for the right, the response was to brag about their economic power rather than respond to any of the substantive arguments I made.

I am now, then, this magazines designated book reviewer for the niche but apparently burgeoning subgenre of reactionary childrens literature. And so let us proceed to the present offering: Heroes of Liberty. These new books have the characteristic giant size and conspicuous thinness of books for kids still learning how to read and enjoy it. Theyre sturdy, with pretty colors and pleasing art design.

They are also the dark bile of the infected toe of the Devil himself. Lacking even the dark sincerity that came from the dedication of the writer of the dreadful Tuttle Twins series, these books are pure synthetic propaganda made to appease the demand of a Sheldon Adelson or a Charles Koch that the children get more naked conservative propaganda in their diets. So lets have a look at the effort to make some really young Republicans.

Lets start with Justice Barrett. Barrett, of course, is most popularly known for her recent receptiveness to striking down major portions of the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion for the first trimester of pregnancy. Striking down the ruling would activate various trigger laws and related acts enacted in a majority of U.S. states that ban the practice, drastically restricting access to family planning and reproductive health care for millions of womenespecially women without the money to travel to a blue state for the procedure. Access to abortion remains widely popular in the U.S., but our limited level of democracy means this need not shape policy.

The Heroes of Liberty book does not trouble its juvenile reader with such unpleasantness. We learn that Barrett works in the Supreme Court, in a big, white, majestic building, and Amy has a very sharp mind. She also has a very big heart: shes the mother of seven children, two of whom she adopted because they had no home of their own. We get her life storybig Catholic family, good student, oldest kid driving the little ones around in a LeSabre. Great humanizing detail.

The art in this book is truly abhorrent, the worst in the books I read. Its a really weird watercolor-y software-generated look with Munchian flowing colors next to photorealistic renderings of peoples faces. The artist credit doesnt specify a medium, but Id guess an illustration program named MigraineSoft.

Barrett goes to Notre Dame and learns about our Constitution which gives us freedom and democratic government, with a fun Supreme Court to make sure that our laws and our government follow the Constitution. Barrett gets married, has kids, and adopts a Haitian child who was very quiet and rarely got enough to eat. She was too weak to sit up or even to cry. This is followed by an illustration of a TV-ready moment showing her taking the child from their hellish country. The couple wanted to collect more orphans, but they couldnt. The government of Haiti had made everything so complicated: there were too many offices and too many officials who created so much red tape. In the end, the government would not let him go.

But then, great news! The catastrophic Haitian earthquake of 2010 strikes, and the government has a change of heart. Amys eyes welled with tears. Notably, the orphanage where the Barretts adoptee, John Peter, lived was typical of many in Haiti, as the New York Times observed, as many werent literal orphanstheir parents simply couldnt afford to care for them. Notably, the U.S. overthrew the government of Haiti three times in the 20th century.

Barretts career takes off as she becomes a federal judge. She would get up early in the morning to work quietly at her desk while everyone else was still asleep. This way, she would have time to spend with her family later in the day. We learn the criminal justice system will put criminals in jail yet gives everyone a chance to try and prove his innocence. Barrett clerks for a jolly-looking man with impish eyes, a Justice Scalia who believes our laws should follow the Constitution precisely. Amy liked Justice Scalia a lot. She loved his big rolling laugh and his sense of humor. And his boyish charm while upholding sodomy laws and overturning the main part of the Voting Rights Act!

Barrett gets confirmed, and everyone is impressed that shes speaking without notes at her hearing. Barrett learned that as a justice she would have to put aside her own feelings. This is called being impartial. When you are a judge, your job is not to impose your own thoughts or views on someone else. It is to make sure that the law is followed and the Constitution is upheld.

The book concludes that her children are lucky to have her as a mother, and we are lucky to have her as a Supreme Court justice. Great kids stuff here, no way Star Wars can compete with this. Just a story about a lady who is smart and nice and becomes powerful and its our lucky day. Bet your life that one day a kid will read this book without realizing they exist because Barrett helped take away their moms ability to pick a family size.

Next, Thomas Sowell: A Self-Made Man. Readers familiar with the nonstop nightmare hellscape of U.S. media may recognize Sowell as a prominent Black conservative pundit, a libertarian with Ivy League credentials, an economics PhD from the conservative stronghold of the University of Chicago, dozens of books, and a nationally syndicated opinion column. He spent decades at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, a conservative think tank where he was the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy (readers will be familiar with my intergalactically best-selling book Capitalism vs. Freedom on the Friedmans and their bad ideas). Sowell was as regular a guest on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News as the phrase Black conservative intellectual makes you think he would be.

Thomas Sowell started out in life at a huge disadvantage. He was raised by his great aunt in a poor town in the South. Growing up, he never got the chance to know his mother and father. And he often had no money for new shoes or even for bus fare. But Thomas Sowell succeeded because wherever he went, and whatever he did, he never accepted anything he didnt think he deserved. He wanted nothing unearned and asked for nobodys pity. Thomas Sowell was determined to make it on his own. And he did.

Get it? Black people who dont take welfare succeed! Meaning they become nationally-known minority supporters of taking away income support and benefits from poor people, often disproportionately minorities. This is the real dark message of the whole reactionary kids publishing project: Take it from me, kid with no critical thinking skills, if you dont ask or expect anything like welfare or healthcare from the rich and powerful of society, and instead get a degree in defending them and then work in what is basically a parallel unaccredited university system of think thanks, you can be rich and go on big-time right-wing media and, as a nonwhite person, speak utterly conventional conservative platitudes and be a stupendous smash hit that brings down the house every time. Sure, the working class will slow-glide into misery and fascism while the ice caps melt, but by then youve had quite the career!

We get many pages on Sowells humble beginnings, with no water or power, in the days of Jim Crow laws in the South. These laws separated Americans based on color. It was unfair. There is no suggestion that this condition had anything to do with right-wing conservatism. (The book does not, for instance, mention that the leading conservative intellectual of the 20th century, William F. Buckley, spent these years defending Southern segregationism.) Sowell learns to read at a young age. His aunts partner takes him to church and presents him to the congregation, where the partner declares he is stepping down from his church duties to help raise Sowell, illustrated with a glowing scene before a gigantic cross.

The family moves to New York City, where teachers are alleged to have wanted Sowell to repeat the third grade, and because its a right-wing indoctrination book, the teachers are depicted as a bullying crowd of sneering freaks. Fortunately the principal, who is handsome, takes young Thomass side after he proves he can do fourth-grade math. Thomas stands up to bullies, moves out, takes part-time jobs, and when he loses his job, the book notes that he was sure about one thing, though: the answer wasnt begging or asking for favors. He would solve his own problems by himself, thank you very much. He cuts back on food until he gets a new job, with the clear implication: Kids, if you lose your job in some recession wave of million-person layoffs, solve the problem yourself ! Eat less! Eat day-old bread! That is literally what is depicted.

We get page after page of Sowell working with eyes downcast, and when he struggles, He didnt dwell on the past or blame Aunt Molly, their poverty, his teachers, or American society. He takes night classes, attends Harvard, and teaches economics at Cornell as an esteemed professor. He helps a Black international student through college by tutoring her rather than giving a mercy grade, and returned to the question of undeserved favors in his many books. He insisted that in the long run, they just dont help people improve their lives. If you give people something they didnt earn, they wouldnt learn how to earn it themselves.

Conspicuously, Barrett and Reagan are both portrayed as mainly responsible for their successful life trajectories, due to their hoary, clichd conservative values of Family and Work Ethic. But its just part of the story, as in most Western individual narrativesonly Sowells book foregrounds his self-madeness. Could it be because hes the Black one and the Right has a miles-long paranoid legacy of disparaging the work ethic of the Black population originally imported for slave labor? No, it could not.

One consolation in this monumentally evil celebration of knowing your place and conforming to the system is the art. Illustrator Carl Pearces work here is by far the best in the books I reviewed, with really lovely composition, and incredible feeling in the faces and playful charm in the children. Its a conservative book, so the teacher characters are evil, but their funny evil faces are fun to look at. Pearce does a ton of fine work here, especially considering the script hes working from. Just an impressive talent. Carl, draw for Current Affairs!

The books all end with a fun facts section, and Sowells includes this: Hes known for his witty observations. He once said: Its amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites. Hope you werent eating while reading that cheeky zinger, ho ho!

For his years of valuable service to the U.S. right wing, Sowell had his brushes with real power, too. He was offered the position of Secretary of Labor and, later, Educationterrible things to contemplate by president Ronald Reagan. His book is my last to read on this parade of disgrace.

Finally, Ronald Reagan. Leftist writers are known to have a habit of trying to be cool and neutral when discussing his administration and legacy, only to eventually crack and explode into ranty towering condemnations. Im sure that wont happen this time!

Ronald Reagan: Its Morning in America is a marquee selection for the series and longer than the others, as Saint Ronald is a mainstream conservative icon, often voted the greatest U.S. president. His administration has the real legacy of moving the worlds most important country firmly into todays neoliberal era of deregulated corporations, lower taxes on the rich, and crushed labor unions. Get ready, folks.

Ronald Reagan was one of Americas toughest presidents. That is why he was able to lead the free world to victory in the Cold War. The Cold War was a contest between two visions: freedom and communism. The United States led the free world. The fate of the world hung in the balance. But Ronald Reagan was not afraid. He called the communist bloc an Evil Empire, which is exactly what it was.

But the first story is of President Reagan being deeply moved by the story of Reginald Andrews, an unemployed Black man who saved a blind person who fell on subway tracks. Reagan called a meatpacking plant where Andrews had recently interviewed for a job. He put in a good word for Mr. Andrews. Mr. Andrews was overjoyed when he got the job. He had eight children to feed. It was December. Christmas was just a few days away.

Its an oddly-placed effort to whitewash Reagans racial record, which included fighting doggedly for years against sanctions on South Africas cruel apartheid regime. Reagan also doggedly resisted the creation of a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., resistance which continued until veto-proof Congressional majorities forced his hand.

Then its off to the mans life story. Salesman father, moves a lot, blows a ball game (aw!). Daddy drinks, little Ronald has to drag him in the front door one night, and, like a lot of children of dysfunctional families, he goes to Hollywood. Long before he became president, Americans all over the country came to know his warm and friendly voice, his big gleaming smile, and that twinkle in his eye when he delivered a punch line. But he worried about communism in particular. It posed a major threat to the American way of life.

In America, our government should protect our freedom, not run our lives for us. It should be up to each person to decide what is best for him or her, like which billionaires warehouse empire to work for. But the rotten Communists think the government knows better and that it should control every aspect of peoples lives. In communist countries, governments also think that people should believe in communism and not in God. There are people in America who believe in communism, too, and they want the government to have more control of our lives. Reagan thought they were dangerous. He decided to enter politics to oppose them.

This is a very healthy and even-handed portrayal of politics for young minds, and theyre right, socialists are dangerous. Youre in danger of socialists inflicting health coverage on you and negating your student loan debt. Youre in huge danger of a popular jobs program building clean energy. Look out! The real danger here is keeping kids from being seduced by our cool sexy ideas.

We see Reagans days as governor of California as he suppresses a hippie demonstration which in reality was about Israel-Palestine, but in the book is just because the demonstrators wont leave a public park. The signs in the illustration literally all say Our Park and We will not surrender this park, rather than, for example, Israel commits crimes against humanity. Some of the kids are even supporters of communism, and in the story they erupted in riots, attacking innocent cops. Reagan sends in the National Guard, who are shown helping the police while surrounded by mysterious clouds of something that is not commented upon.

Reagan gets elected and, when asked what his policy on the Cold War would be, he answered like a tough guy from the movies. His policy, he said, was simple: We win. They lose. Reagans speech writers did pitch at a level that feels natural in a kids book, Ill say that. Then, of course, we get the failed assassination attempt, which gets page after page of dramatic portrayal, but with no twist ending, sadly.

We then get the childs version of the end of the Cold War, because Reagan was bravely unsatisfied with the containment strategy that kept the USSR encircled by allies and bases, and he had a very smart plan. Since our free system incentivizes people to work harder and makes us much richer than the communists were, we could win by means of economic power to develop large, advanced, and expensive defense technologies which the Soviets couldnt afford. Ha, we out-waste-spended them! No mention of Russia also being poor because it hosted World War II. The Berlin Wall falls and the Soviet Union disintegrates.

The book concludes with Reagan shown next to Mount Rushmore, the Capitol, the Constitution, a Western landscape, a gigantic American flag, and a soaring eagle, declaring Ronald Reagan believed in God, family, and patriotism. He believed in personal liberty, democracy, and the free market. The government should never try to do for people what they ought to do for themselves. We should all be free to choose our own path in life. It concludes: as Ronald Reagan liked to remind us, its always morning in America.

Of course, the day that dawned with the Reagan Revolution was one of increasingly powerful billionaires, giant crash-prone banks, a labor movement smashed to smithereens, active denial of AIDS for years, a drug war that incarcerated millions of people (a disproportionate number of them Black people), years of austerity cuts to school lunches and public programs, steadily rising global temperatures, and U.S. support for blood-soaked dictators from Zia-ul-Haq to Saddam Hussein. It remains to be seen whether humanity can overcome his calamitous legacy of classes, crashes, and climate change. Reagan and his supporters belong to historys darkest pages, even if those pages are oversized and filled with pictures for kids.

The Heroes of Liberty series is growing, with a new book out this month on John Wayne, continuing the TV cowboy theme begun with Reagan, I guess. But the existing books are enough to draw the conclusion that the Heroes of Liberty series is an abhorrent enterprise to pack the minds of unsuspecting kids with excremental political brainwashing and to prejudice them against any progressive program of social uplift, from universal health care to closing the racial wealth gap. These godforsaken junior texts are the product of a leviathan of hyper-reactionary dark money and an online ad-buying conservative echo chamber striving to take the candy of social democracy away from the babies of the next generation. For years to come, in Americas bookstores, these books will be a lurking threat in the childrens section, like a creep in a raincoat.

I wash my brains of it!

See original here:
Get 'Em While They're Young Current Affairs - Current Affairs