11 thoughts on “Revisiting the Diana West Controversy”

1. Solway zeroes in on tangents, and ignores the crux.

   “I readily admit that I am no expert on the subject West’s volume addresses. Was Harry Hopkins the infamous KGB agent 19 or was it Laurence Duggan? Was American WWII policy subtly shaped and surreptitiously directed by Soviet espionage and penetration of the inner circles of the White House—and if so, to what degree? Was Eastern Europe lost to “Uncle Joe” Stalin owing to American ineptitude or to Communist infiltration of the decision-making process? I am in no position to weigh in on the matter.”

   The crux of the Diana West imbroglio is only peripherally related to historical content and historical debates about historical WW2 andCold War events such as those listed by Solway. Nor is this centrally about, as Solway puts it —

   the fact that West “is surely deserving of scholarly consideration, whether pro or con. Whether one agrees with her conclusions or not, one must recognize that her argument is meticulously researched and abundantly footnoted. It seems to me that David Horowitz was wrong to remove a review that he had originally vetted and, furthermore, to substitute a largely personal imprecation in its stead rather than, say, to post a countervailing review and let the reader decide.”

   The crux of the Diana West imbroglio is the fact that both Horowitz and (even more outrageously and egregiously) Radosh in subsequent descriptions and responses to West’s mature and meticulous defenses, repeatedly twisted her words, distorted her words, ignored her words, created straw men and red herrings, and resorted to personal attacks. A little of this behavior is not unusual even among heated intellectuals disagreeing on some cherished position. But the degree and quantity of instances of this behavior by both Horowitz and (even more outrageously and egregiously, with Horowitz steadfastly defending him) Radosh, indicates that this was no mere intellectual disagreement nor even personal emotional episode. The more plausible explanation, given their behavior (which most analysts and readers, apparently, haven’t fully assimilated by actually reading Diana West’s rebuttal and her essays prior to the rebuttal) is that Horowitz and Radosh have been engaging in a campaign of deliberate distortion and disinformation, simultaneously trying to deflect West’s arguments and trying to obfuscate the entire conversation.

   Indeed, when we read analysts like Solway, Takuan and others scrupulously ignoring the crux while magnifying peripheral issues, it seems that Horowitz and Radosh have succeeded in their campaign.

2. Quite correct that the whole episode would have been more salubrious if Horowitz had left up the first review and allowed Radosh his counter-argument, but with the heavy dose of nastiness edited out.

   On a smaller point, I think West misconstrued the line that Horowitz put at the top of Radosh’s review saying that West had “refused” the opportunity to rebut Radosh’s review. West took it as meaning she had “refused” to reply in any forum, and therefore said DH’s opening line was dishonest. I read the line as pretty clearly meaning she had refused to submit a rebuttal for publication in FPM, and I don’t fault DH for being indignant at the claim that it was a lie. I don’t think DW deliberately misconstrued the statement, though, and her mistake might have revolved around DH’s choice of the word “refused” rather than, e.g., “declined the offer.” But the rare move of quickly deleting a favorable review gave her reason to be suspicious — and the person insults that followed would have confirmed the distrust.

3. Saying that West refused to submit a rebuttal is dishonest because Horowitz had already censored the positive review without reason, indicating that she would not be granted the normal latitude to make her case without editorial interference. Horowitz should have kept silent on the matter or said what West said, that she did not wish to allow Frontpage editorial control over her work due to the irresponsible actions they had already taken.

   Leaving aside this particular skirmish and looking at the wider controversy between various schools of conservatives, it is becoming increasingly clear that a sharp divide has opened between those who wish to conserve the principles of the American revolution as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, and those who wish to conserve the incremental Fabian Socialism which was introduced into American politics as Progressivism over a hundred years ago. While apparently united for a time in opposition to the revolutionary strains of communism which have rocked America’s foundations over the past sixty years, the old and irreconcilable hostility of original Constitutionalism and Progressivism has come to the fore again as the radical danger to America has necessitated developing a responsive strategy on which the two strains of conservatism cannot agree.

   Diane West’s book presents evidence that is absolutely devastating to the claims of incremental Fabian Socialism to be an effective ally in resisting Communism, and it is the leading entry for another work that is likely to be just as devastating to the claims of resistance against Islamic Jihad. Because the historical grounds are so meticulously researched using abundant material which the conservators of incremental Fabian Socialism have ignored in their own self-serving narratives, it amounts to a total attack on the claims of Progressivism to be a legitimately American heritage rather than a frankly anti-American ideological stance. The same problem is arising everywhere in “conservatism” as those who wish to restore the founding principles of America call for measures in resisting radical totalitarianism which would necessarily undo much of the ground gained by incremental Fabian Socialism.

   Diane West’s case is special because the evidence that she has presented is so utterly devastating. Those wishing to conserve the gains of incremental Fabian Socialism have no choice but to absolutely destroy her credibility and anathematize association with her work. But it is essential because the failure of Progressives to resist Communism she reveals is real and has dire implications for any plan of continued dependence on incremental Fabian Socialists to protect America against other forms of totalitarian ideology. It proves that those who wish to conserve the incremental progress which Fabian Socialism has made in American institutions are not real allies of those who wish to conserve the founding principles of American independence, whatever they may claim.

   • The fact that DH removed the Tapson review does not prove that he was going to edit her reply to Radosh out of all recognition. But that isn’t exactly the point anyway. DH said he offered her space to reply to Radosh’s review and she “refused” (or declined) to take the offer. DW herself acknowledges as much. Her claim that he was really saying she refused to reply in any forum looked rather strange, because that is not what his actual words said — and it was those actual words that she called dishonest.

     I’m basically on West’s side, but to be fair, I think she was wrong on that point — though not willfully wrong — and since it was the beginning of her rebuttal, it started things out on a dubious footing. DH had good reason to be indignant that his words were characterized as a deliberate lie, considering that DW did, in fact, “refuse” to submit a rebuttal to FPM.

     • Horowitz dishonestly misrepresented her reasons for refusing by failing to note the clear evidence of bad faith on his part, including responding to her query as to the reason for pulling the favorable review with the infamous line “because the reviewer was as incompetent to provide an informed assessment of your book as you were to write it.”

       That is an exchange worth noting. However, West quite reasonably objected to the failure of Frontpage to mention that they had already had a favorable review and had pulled it without any creditable explanation (unless you think Horowitz was going to publicly admit to his little gem about her being incompetent to write the book).

     • “Her claim that he was really saying she refused to reply in any forum looked rather strange, because that is not what his actual words said — and it was those actual words that she called dishonest. ”

       She didn’t make the claim you claim here she made. Where’s your evidence?

   • devastating to the claims of incremental Fabian Socialism to be an effective ally in resisting Communism – Chiu

     Bingo.

     Social Democrats only disagree with Communists on the means, not the ends. Not all were Anti-Communist either, Id say most were Anti-Anti-Communist, in effect and deed if not conciously so.

4. Endnote e-zine commissions Clark Faucetfather to review my new book. The review is a favourable one. The Editor-in-Chief of Endnote, Darryl Schochowitz, apparently, from the fact it was published, approved of the Faucetfather review. A very short while later the Faucetfather review of my book is removed from Endnote’s website, without any explanation to its readership, e.g. “We have learned that Mr Faucetfather was sadly in the grip of a psychotic episode at the time he wrote the review and my PA, Doris, misunderstood my e-mailed instruction that it should be rejected for publication”.

   In place of the Faucetfather review is a very hostile review by one Donald Galoshes. His review is replete with sneering and condescending attacks on my scholarship, my methodology, my knowledge of military history, my honesty and my mental health. Mercifully, I was not accused of using a split-infinitive or having poor taste in clothes.

   Amongst many other calumnies the Galoshes’ review claims that in my book I describe an American military hero, who later became the President of the USA, as a “Communist” when I had written no such thing in my book. Nor did I describe said ex-President as a
   “Communist sympathiser” or any similar term.

   Schochowitz himself chooses the title for the Galoshes review; such title being the eponymous phenomenon of the surname of America’s most reviled, demonised and disgraced politician with “on steroids” added to it. The use of the descriptor “on steroids” by Schochowitz implies that my book (and by extension its author) is more reprehensible, more dishonest and more worthy of condemnation than the demonised politician. I don’t think I’m being thin-skinned, overly precious or suffering from clinical paranoia to regard this titling as a being intended to deter people from reading my book.

   I am, however, invited by Mr Schochowitz to provide for Endpiece a rebuttal of the Galoshes review. This invitation does not offer any explanation of why the Faucetfather review was initially deemed suitable for publication then abruptly deemed unsuitable. Or any apology for any offence such action may have caused me. I decline. Does any reasonably-minded person imagine that I would or should accept such an invitation? What self-respecting person would, in those circumstances, accept?

   Shortly afterwards I read that Mr Schochowitz responded that he had not taken legal action for breach of copyright against another e-zine that published the deleted Faucetfather review without Endpiece’s permission. The reader is left to infer that this act of magnanimity on Mr Schochowitz’s part is clear proof of his commitment to freedom of expression. Am I alone in thinking that one should insert “, thus far,” between the words “not” and “taken”? And see this as a veiled threat to any other publication that they have a potential lawsuit on their hands if they publish the Faucetfather review?

   • Julius

     You summarize what has now become a long and confusing spat crisply, succintly and humorously ! How I wish some of the other parties involved in these ‘reviews’, ‘counter reviews’, ‘editorial statements’ etc had resorted to some humour to get their point across. Or maybe ‘Mr Radish’, ‘Mr Horrorhits’ and the other persons involved in this disgusting attempt at censorship and personal defamation do not have the journalistic competence to use humour in this way.

     Of course you haven’t even touched on the Lopez review and her treatment by Gatestone.

     • Thank you for the complimentary remark. No, I didn’t touch upon the hugely disturbing saga of Ms Lopez and Gatestone – I did elsewhere on GoV earlier.

       I was trying to put a spotlight on important issues:

       1.Mr Horowitz has never explained why he published then unpublished the Tapson review; and

       2.Why it was perfectly explicable, in human terms, for Ms West to decline the invitation to provide a rebuttal for FPM.

       Regarding point 2 above, there is also the matter of whether Ms West, if she had been minded to accept the invitation, could have any confidence that her rebuttal would not be interfered with, ie tendentiously edited and bowdlerised. In her position I would have had none whatsoever.

   • This brings back memories of a fine short story by Donald Barthelme, “Letters to the Editore” (first published in his 1974 collection Guilty Pleasures, later republished in his 1987 collection 40 Stories).

Comments are closed.