What do you think?
Rate this book
Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion
Radical liberals want to make America a better place, but their utopian social engineering leads, ironically, to greater human suffering. So argues David Horowitz , bestselling author in his newest book Portraits of a Destructive Passion .
From Karl Marx to Barack Obama, Horowitz shows how the idealistic impulse to make the world “a better place” gives birth to the twin cultural pathologies of cynicism and nihilism, and is the chief source of human suffering. A former liberal himself, Horowitz recounts his own brushes with radicalism and offers unparalleled insight into the disjointed ideology of liberal elites through case studies of well-known radial leftists, including Christopher Hitchens, feminist Bettina Aptheker , leftist academic Cornel West, and more.
Exploring the origin and evolution of radical liberals and their progressive ideology, Radicals illustrates how liberalism is not only intellectually crippling for its adherents, but devastating to society.
From Karl Marx to Barack Obama, Horowitz shows how the idealistic impulse to make the world “a better place” gives birth to the twin cultural pathologies of cynicism and nihilism, and is the chief source of human suffering. A former liberal himself, Horowitz recounts his own brushes with radicalism and offers unparalleled insight into the disjointed ideology of liberal elites through case studies of well-known radial leftists, including Christopher Hitchens, feminist Bettina Aptheker , leftist academic Cornel West, and more.
Exploring the origin and evolution of radical liberals and their progressive ideology, Radicals illustrates how liberalism is not only intellectually crippling for its adherents, but devastating to society.
232 pages, Hardcover
First published September 24, 2012
16 people are currently reading
214 people want to read
About the author
David Horowitz
187 books338 followersDavid Joel Horowitz was an American conservative writer and activist. He was a founder and president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC); editor of the Center's website FrontPage Magazine; and director of Discover the Networks, a website that tracks individuals and groups on the political left. Horowitz also founded the organization Students for Academic Freedom.
Horowitz wrote several books with author Peter Collier, including four on prominent 20th-century American families. He and Collier have collaborated on books about cultural criticism. Horowitz worked as a columnist for Salon.
From 1956 to 1975, Horowitz was an outspoken adherent of the New Left. He later rejected progressive ideas and became a defender of neoconservatism. Horowitz recounted his ideological journey in a series of retrospective books, culminating with his 1996 memoir Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey.
Horowitz wrote several books with author Peter Collier, including four on prominent 20th-century American families. He and Collier have collaborated on books about cultural criticism. Horowitz worked as a columnist for Salon.
From 1956 to 1975, Horowitz was an outspoken adherent of the New Left. He later rejected progressive ideas and became a defender of neoconservatism. Horowitz recounted his ideological journey in a series of retrospective books, culminating with his 1996 memoir Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
January 5, 2016
A tsunami of judgemental prejudice and stupidity. Or so it felt. Couldn't finish.
November 7, 2012
This is a very American book - apart from Christopher Hitchens, most of the radicals of David Horowitz's book will be unknown to readers outside the USA. Even so it makes fascinating reading, and I'm sure all western countries have their equivalents. The book struck a chord with me because as a teenager I was active in left-wing and Marxist political activism. I came to my senses by realising the enormity of the crimes committed by Communist governments and dictators, the importance of individual liberty and the impossibility of trying to create heaven on earth by punitive measures. It is fascinating to read about how many influential academics and intellectuals are still willing to justify the most evil crimes in history.
August 30, 2017
This is the first book by David Horowitz that I read. I am just starting in my political studies and I'm looking forward to reading more of his work.
The chapter about Susan Lydon, although different from the others, was very beautiful and touching. I especially liked it.
The chapter about Susan Lydon, although different from the others, was very beautiful and touching. I especially liked it.
December 31, 2024
This is really one of the best books I have read this year. It's a book about the glorified idiots and the vacuous scholars who have tried time and again, and keep on trying, to destroy America, and undermine morality and virtue for an illusory ideal.
David Horowitz was once a radical, one of the brain-washed mouth-pieces of an international movement that seeks to change the world into a social-justice Utopia. He was, like most of us are (or once were), of the same disposition as those who scarcely understand the mechanisms of the world apart from the simplistic ansatz's proposed to allow their activisms to continue.
This book explore several radicals. Among them, Christopher Hitchens, Herbert and Bettina Apthaker, Angela Davis, Malcom X, Cornel West, Herbert Marcuse, Eric Hobsbawm, Barrack Obama, and many others who are really frauds and pseudo-intellectuals, whose scholarly works do not amount to much more than gibberish, who are activists with an ill-defined cause, who are not bounded by morality (in fact, Trotsky even says that ethics is a method by which the ruling classes enforce their rule), who are cunning and conniving (as Alinsky puts it in his Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, where he trains people -- mostly teenagers and early undergrads -- how to align to a radical faith). It's so strange that it has to come from former Radicals, but we have to remind ourselves that often, the greatest anti-radical thinkers were once former radicals.
The book explores their inner lives, their psychopathies, their decrepit lives, their activism as a form or an attempt to alleviate their psychic sufferings. Their envy and hatred and resentment, as Mises and Peterson remind us. And it's simply impossible to discuss anything with them without them pouncing on you and calling you names, trying to humiliate you instead of holding an honest discussions. So much so that they are becoming lame and incapable of even thinking without authorization. This book is an exposee of the radicalism that has been masked with scholarship for the past century, and what a beautiful book it is at that!
David Horowitz is one of the clear-headed thinkers of our times, much needed, and now more than ever! He's one of the rare breed of thinkers who are so articulate at opposition, and morose and sober in his writing, to which of those alive, we have only so few, like Sowell and Brook.
David Horowitz was once a radical, one of the brain-washed mouth-pieces of an international movement that seeks to change the world into a social-justice Utopia. He was, like most of us are (or once were), of the same disposition as those who scarcely understand the mechanisms of the world apart from the simplistic ansatz's proposed to allow their activisms to continue.
This book explore several radicals. Among them, Christopher Hitchens, Herbert and Bettina Apthaker, Angela Davis, Malcom X, Cornel West, Herbert Marcuse, Eric Hobsbawm, Barrack Obama, and many others who are really frauds and pseudo-intellectuals, whose scholarly works do not amount to much more than gibberish, who are activists with an ill-defined cause, who are not bounded by morality (in fact, Trotsky even says that ethics is a method by which the ruling classes enforce their rule), who are cunning and conniving (as Alinsky puts it in his Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, where he trains people -- mostly teenagers and early undergrads -- how to align to a radical faith). It's so strange that it has to come from former Radicals, but we have to remind ourselves that often, the greatest anti-radical thinkers were once former radicals.
The book explores their inner lives, their psychopathies, their decrepit lives, their activism as a form or an attempt to alleviate their psychic sufferings. Their envy and hatred and resentment, as Mises and Peterson remind us. And it's simply impossible to discuss anything with them without them pouncing on you and calling you names, trying to humiliate you instead of holding an honest discussions. So much so that they are becoming lame and incapable of even thinking without authorization. This book is an exposee of the radicalism that has been masked with scholarship for the past century, and what a beautiful book it is at that!
David Horowitz is one of the clear-headed thinkers of our times, much needed, and now more than ever! He's one of the rare breed of thinkers who are so articulate at opposition, and morose and sober in his writing, to which of those alive, we have only so few, like Sowell and Brook.
October 31, 2012
Worth reading for the first chapter alone, which finally lets us understand Christopher Hitchens.
February 13, 2014
A fact finding mission of America's notorious radical extremists
David Horowitz has been a leading fighter for conservative thought in this country for a number of decades, and he has been a constant source of information on left wing and liberal philosophies that are fast driving this country into the hands of Islamists and chaos. In this book, he has focused on the destructive agendas of six known political extremists including Cornel West, Christopher Hitchens, Linda Evans and Kathy Soliah.
Cornel West is a provocative speaker and a controversial figure under the guise of an academic at Harvard and Princeton. Currently he is affiliated to the department Philosophy and Christian Practice at Union Theological Seminary in NY. He is well known for his rhetoric that contains thinly veiled racist attacks on whites. He has a fondness for men like Jeremiah Wright, and James Cone, the founder of black theology. Malcolm X was his hero when he was growing up. He once stated that Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil,' and in calls for 'the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world." Even a notoriously anti-Semitic outfit like the Nation of Islam is in the good books of West. In his view, the 9/11 attacks gave white Americans a glimpse of what it means to be a black person in the United States -- feeling "unsafe, unprotected, subject to random violence and hated for who they are." "Since 9/11," he said, "the whole nation has the blues, when before it was just black people." Referring to Iraq war, he said "We are experiencing the sad gangsterization of America," He is a strong proponent of black liberation theology -- a variation of liberation theology, which teaches that the New Testament can be understood only as calls for social activism, and class struggle to overturn the capitalist order and installing, a socialist utopia where today's poor will unseat their "oppressors," which is absurd and sounds lot like Maoism! This is supported by his views on capitalism, which he calls as the root cause of American lusts. According to him the "Free-market fundamentalism trivializes the concern for public interest. It puts fear and insecurity in the hearts of anxiety-ridden workers. It also makes money-driven, poll-obsessed elected officials deferential to corporate goals of profit."
Christopher Hitchens was listed by Forbes magazine as one of the "25 most influential liberals in the U.S. media" is another strong villain of American way of life and American interest.
Linda Evans and Kathy Soliah are political monsters who are not prisoners of conscience. They are incapable of even a minimal accounting of what they willed and did 30 years ago, or what they are attempting to do right now. It is that their evil is masked by a false idealism and deceptive goodwill, and they have consciously concealed their agendas behind an aura of vulnerability and innocence. Linda Evans and a sinister network of political comrades are supported in their delusions by an academic industry in anti-white, anti-capitalist, anti-male, and anti-American ideologies. Horowitz's last portrait is of Saul Alinksy, whose aim is the redistribution of power and not explaining how this might be accomplished without a descent into totalitarianism. This is an excellent book and fact finding mission of America's notorious radical extremists.
David Horowitz has been a leading fighter for conservative thought in this country for a number of decades, and he has been a constant source of information on left wing and liberal philosophies that are fast driving this country into the hands of Islamists and chaos. In this book, he has focused on the destructive agendas of six known political extremists including Cornel West, Christopher Hitchens, Linda Evans and Kathy Soliah.
Cornel West is a provocative speaker and a controversial figure under the guise of an academic at Harvard and Princeton. Currently he is affiliated to the department Philosophy and Christian Practice at Union Theological Seminary in NY. He is well known for his rhetoric that contains thinly veiled racist attacks on whites. He has a fondness for men like Jeremiah Wright, and James Cone, the founder of black theology. Malcolm X was his hero when he was growing up. He once stated that Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil,' and in calls for 'the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world." Even a notoriously anti-Semitic outfit like the Nation of Islam is in the good books of West. In his view, the 9/11 attacks gave white Americans a glimpse of what it means to be a black person in the United States -- feeling "unsafe, unprotected, subject to random violence and hated for who they are." "Since 9/11," he said, "the whole nation has the blues, when before it was just black people." Referring to Iraq war, he said "We are experiencing the sad gangsterization of America," He is a strong proponent of black liberation theology -- a variation of liberation theology, which teaches that the New Testament can be understood only as calls for social activism, and class struggle to overturn the capitalist order and installing, a socialist utopia where today's poor will unseat their "oppressors," which is absurd and sounds lot like Maoism! This is supported by his views on capitalism, which he calls as the root cause of American lusts. According to him the "Free-market fundamentalism trivializes the concern for public interest. It puts fear and insecurity in the hearts of anxiety-ridden workers. It also makes money-driven, poll-obsessed elected officials deferential to corporate goals of profit."
Christopher Hitchens was listed by Forbes magazine as one of the "25 most influential liberals in the U.S. media" is another strong villain of American way of life and American interest.
Linda Evans and Kathy Soliah are political monsters who are not prisoners of conscience. They are incapable of even a minimal accounting of what they willed and did 30 years ago, or what they are attempting to do right now. It is that their evil is masked by a false idealism and deceptive goodwill, and they have consciously concealed their agendas behind an aura of vulnerability and innocence. Linda Evans and a sinister network of political comrades are supported in their delusions by an academic industry in anti-white, anti-capitalist, anti-male, and anti-American ideologies. Horowitz's last portrait is of Saul Alinksy, whose aim is the redistribution of power and not explaining how this might be accomplished without a descent into totalitarianism. This is an excellent book and fact finding mission of America's notorious radical extremists.
March 1, 2018
This book is a fascinating consideration of the minds and lives of various politically liberal minds. Readers will learn the names and places that underpin "progressive" ideology. It serves as a history lesson for those who do not understand the socialist/communist/collectivist origins of the Cultural Marxist ideas now rampant in our society and government.
September 29, 2018
Bam. Wham. Bada-BOOM. Whomp, there it is. Boo-ya! Horowitz lays out the radicals’ lawless, nihilistic, intellectually and morally indefensible raison d’etre in clear prose. “Know your enemy and know yourself and you will never be defeated in a hundred battles,” says Sun Tzu. Given the detailed and extensive playbook Horowitz summarily describes herein, it becomes clear that every advantage needs playing to counter and defeat the chaos that is rolling forth. Some may snicker at the idea that civilization is heading toward destruction instead of humanistic utopia; but this is caused by the way the radicals have shaped the battlefield. The spiritually and politically blind on the one hand and the useful idiots (doing the radicals’ work) on the other are moving society along the path toward totalitarianism. That is not pessimistic determinism rather prophetic prediction if nothing is done to counter the radicals’ agenda. Just look around and see what is going on today. Why believe Horowitz? Because he used to be one of them.
There are only two corrections to his narrative that I can advise and neither directly affects the theme. First, the 613 prohibitions imposed by rabbis that he discusses are actually in addition to not including the Mosaic Law (pp 40-41). These prohibitions were invented by religious leaders (Pharisees, chiefly) who came into being during the 400 silent years when God did not speak to Israel via any prophets. Thus, these “leaders” and their 613 prohibitions were not legitimate and they imposed an additional yoke of slavery upon the people. Jesus broke this yoke too when He defeated the curse of sin and death. Second, Alinsky seriously erred in using the name Lucifer to describe Satan when he dedicated his book "Rules for Radicals." Lucifer did indeed rebel against God, Who then promptly changed the rebel’s name to Satan, which means adversary. Once God changed the name that is that and no one can reference the old one because Satan does not own it anymore.
There are only two corrections to his narrative that I can advise and neither directly affects the theme. First, the 613 prohibitions imposed by rabbis that he discusses are actually in addition to not including the Mosaic Law (pp 40-41). These prohibitions were invented by religious leaders (Pharisees, chiefly) who came into being during the 400 silent years when God did not speak to Israel via any prophets. Thus, these “leaders” and their 613 prohibitions were not legitimate and they imposed an additional yoke of slavery upon the people. Jesus broke this yoke too when He defeated the curse of sin and death. Second, Alinsky seriously erred in using the name Lucifer to describe Satan when he dedicated his book "Rules for Radicals." Lucifer did indeed rebel against God, Who then promptly changed the rebel’s name to Satan, which means adversary. Once God changed the name that is that and no one can reference the old one because Satan does not own it anymore.
June 16, 2022
Through the biographies of various American progressives, Horowitz illustrates how leftism leads to both intellectual inconsistency and moral instability, most of all in the personal lives of its very proponents.
May 12, 2024
The reformed leftist radical reviews the lives of other he would classify as dangerous radicals. His choice of Christopher Hitchens and Cornel West and how he treats them feels telling. Both have complicated enough and long enough careers to offer opportunities for nuance and empathy from someone like Horowitz. Instead, it feels like sniping as he grumbles about Hitchens not telling us enough about his children, their mothers, and intimates in his autobiography. As he recounts the lives, crimes and criminal associates of Bettina Aptheker etc. he seems to pain establishment liberals with the radical brush. The associations are interesting and culminate in the telling in the Linda Evans pardon and others done by Clinton on his last day. The author charts an ideological lineage from Frank Nitti, the Italian-American organized crime figure based in Chicago and bodyguard of Al Capone, to his protégé and student Saul Alinsky to Barack Obama.
As an aside, Horowitz casually assessed Al Sharpton as an "aronist", I assume based on the Freddy's Fashion Mart attack. That feels rather strong, but is par for the type of conclusions drawn in this book.
As an aside, Horowitz casually assessed Al Sharpton as an "aronist", I assume based on the Freddy's Fashion Mart attack. That feels rather strong, but is par for the type of conclusions drawn in this book.
January 20, 2013
I read this a few months ago dipping into it over the course of about a month. David Horowitz creates a compelling portrait of a sequence of radical leftists from my own generation. One of the things I found particularly interesting is how flawed and in a sense in-denial each of the figures presented were. The figures he addresses are 1) Christopher Hitchens, 2) Bettina Aptheker, 3) Cornel West, 4) Saul Alinsky and others.
I was particularly impressed by the underlying thread running through all these radical of a fundamental alienation from America and American values, while at the same time taking advantage of the freedoms here to try to create some envisioned utopian dream that never was and likely never will be.
Reading Horowitz's book put me in mind of Thomas Sowell's book "A Conflict of Visions" because much of Horowitz's discussion in fact could be a direct illustration of Sowell's points.
I was particularly impressed by the underlying thread running through all these radical of a fundamental alienation from America and American values, while at the same time taking advantage of the freedoms here to try to create some envisioned utopian dream that never was and likely never will be.
Reading Horowitz's book put me in mind of Thomas Sowell's book "A Conflict of Visions" because much of Horowitz's discussion in fact could be a direct illustration of Sowell's points.
December 7, 2012
This book gives an intriguing look into the minds and lives of various polictically liberal minds. It serves as a history lesson for my generation: those who may not know about the socialist or even communist undercurrent in our society and government. Readers will learn or be reminded of the names and places that influence(d) our president and the progressive ideology in general. I particularly enjoyed the intimate portraits of both Christopher Hitchens and Saul Alinsky. This was a timely read during this year's presidential elections. The left is decidedly more "radical" than the right.
February 15, 2014
My brother John Doman loaned me this book and added, "I read it twice." Having finished it, I can see why: it is too short, and I found myself wanting to re-experience this sobering, thoughtful, and compassionate book, written by a former radical who understands what motivates those with whom he now disagrees.
This is the first time I've read a book by Horowitz, but I'm sure it won't be the last.
This is the first time I've read a book by Horowitz, but I'm sure it won't be the last.
January 10, 2022
The section on Cornell West was hilarious! After reading about him I came to realize just much of a buffoon West is. The section on Obama and Saul Olinski, on the other hand, we’re terrifying. For these two chapters alone I have the book 5 stars. The other radicals he describes in the book were less familiar, yet broadened my schema and offered a good history lesson. All in all, if you want to understand the goals and minds of progressives, then this book is for you.
May 13, 2017
2Hitchins, approach truth as depart from life Aristotle, communist family abuse life, politics as form of religious belief, Obama West anti-all, Malcolm murdered by islam followers, always about power and control and self-interest, lie and conceal intentions, idealists created most deaths in past century.
February 24, 2023
In “Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion” David Horowitz commits three logical fallacies. The first is the fallacy of the false dilemma. He implies that the only alternative to the opinion of the handful of radicals he condemns in his book is the conservatism of Ronald Reagan – who he is proud to have voted for.
If Horowitz ever read Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the French Revolution” he should have contemplated the following passage:
“An absurd theory on one side of a question forms no justification for alleging a false fact, or promulgating mischievous maxims on the other.”
Horowitz continues to support the War in Vietnam, complaining about the Vietnamese killed by the Communists. The number of these Vietnamese is very much lower than the approximately one and a half million Vietnamese killed by the American war effort. He ignores the fact that in his Memoirs President Eisenhower estimated that as many as 80 percent of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh.
The feared blood bath predicted for if the Communists won in Vietnam never happened. Some officers in the South Vietnamese military and some leaders of the South Vietnamese government were imprisoned, but they were eventually released.
The bloodbath happened in Cambodia. It was stopped when the Communist Vietnamese Army invaded and occupied Cambodia.
Horowitz defends American capitalism by claiming that workers are constantly becoming capitalists. This happens rarely. American capitalism rewards those born with rich parents, rare and valuable talents, and who have a few lucky breaks along the way.
The working poor have none of these benefits. They play the game by the rules, but win none of the prizes. They do not benefit from the totalitarian methods Horowitz accuses his radicals of advocating. They benefit from a high minimum wage, strong labor unions, and a well financed public sector of the economy. The Republican Party, which Horowitz supports, has rolled back each of these efforts since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Two puzzling radicals described in this book are Christopher Hitchens and Bettina Aptheker, the daughter of Herbert Aptheker. Hitchens spent his adult life as a Trotskyite. Aptheker spent most of her life in the Communist Party. Both felt the need to devote their lives to their causes and to believing in the dogmas of their causes.
This puzzles me because Hitchens graduated from Oxford. Aptheker graduated from the University of California at Berkeley. Of the Trotskyites I knew and liked during the my radical youth in the anti war movement during the War in Vietnam was one who flunk out of medical school. Another one graduated from law school, but could not pass the bar exam. Others were undergraduates who doubted that life had much in store for them after graduation.
These, but not Hitchens and Apotheker illustrate the truth of what Eric Hoffer wrote in “The True Believer,” “The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.”
With their brilliance and their academic credentials Hitchens and Aptheker did not need to become ideologues, but they did.
Horowitz dismisses Cornel West as an intellectual nonentity who owes his fame to playing the race card.
Kathy Budin and Susan Rosenberg were left wing terrorists.
Susan Lyndon was a beautiful Vassar graduate who ruined her life by participating in the sexual revolution and by indulging in drugs. She owed her fame to one rather silly article she wrote for “Ramparts” magazine.
Saul Alinsky is often quoted, or misquoted by those on the right because of his book “Rules for Radicals.” Horowitz claims “Power is the all consuming goal of Alinsky’s politics.” Any American who wants power can more readily achieve it through electoral politics, or by working his way up the hierarchy of a corporation.
The second logical fallacy that Horowitz commits is the Straw Man Fallacy. In the Straw Man Fallacy one distorts an argument in order to make it easy to refute. Horowitz claims that each of these radicals has no real goal but the destruction of Western, and particularly American, civilization.
One can only claim to refute a point of view if he can explain that point of view in a way that one who adhering to that point of view agrees that it is an honest description of the way he thinks. I am confident that if the radicals condemned in this book read Horowitz’s condemnation of the way they thought, they would claim that Horowitz’s condemnation is inaccurate.
Nevertheless, what these radicals believe in merits criticism. What they represent is only destructive to moderate liberals who wish to restore the goals of the New Deal, and smooth over some of the rough edges of capitalism.
Horowitz writes, “The present volume focuses on individuals who are adherents of the progressive faith, a label that has been embraced by Marxists and anarchists, socialists, and liberals alike.” In so doing he commits the Guilt by Association fallacy. There is no “progressive faith.” Marxists, anarchists, socialists, and liberals agree on little, and have much to argue about.
If Horowitz ever read Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the French Revolution” he should have contemplated the following passage:
“An absurd theory on one side of a question forms no justification for alleging a false fact, or promulgating mischievous maxims on the other.”
Horowitz continues to support the War in Vietnam, complaining about the Vietnamese killed by the Communists. The number of these Vietnamese is very much lower than the approximately one and a half million Vietnamese killed by the American war effort. He ignores the fact that in his Memoirs President Eisenhower estimated that as many as 80 percent of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh.
The feared blood bath predicted for if the Communists won in Vietnam never happened. Some officers in the South Vietnamese military and some leaders of the South Vietnamese government were imprisoned, but they were eventually released.
The bloodbath happened in Cambodia. It was stopped when the Communist Vietnamese Army invaded and occupied Cambodia.
Horowitz defends American capitalism by claiming that workers are constantly becoming capitalists. This happens rarely. American capitalism rewards those born with rich parents, rare and valuable talents, and who have a few lucky breaks along the way.
The working poor have none of these benefits. They play the game by the rules, but win none of the prizes. They do not benefit from the totalitarian methods Horowitz accuses his radicals of advocating. They benefit from a high minimum wage, strong labor unions, and a well financed public sector of the economy. The Republican Party, which Horowitz supports, has rolled back each of these efforts since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Two puzzling radicals described in this book are Christopher Hitchens and Bettina Aptheker, the daughter of Herbert Aptheker. Hitchens spent his adult life as a Trotskyite. Aptheker spent most of her life in the Communist Party. Both felt the need to devote their lives to their causes and to believing in the dogmas of their causes.
This puzzles me because Hitchens graduated from Oxford. Aptheker graduated from the University of California at Berkeley. Of the Trotskyites I knew and liked during the my radical youth in the anti war movement during the War in Vietnam was one who flunk out of medical school. Another one graduated from law school, but could not pass the bar exam. Others were undergraduates who doubted that life had much in store for them after graduation.
These, but not Hitchens and Apotheker illustrate the truth of what Eric Hoffer wrote in “The True Believer,” “The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.”
With their brilliance and their academic credentials Hitchens and Aptheker did not need to become ideologues, but they did.
Horowitz dismisses Cornel West as an intellectual nonentity who owes his fame to playing the race card.
Kathy Budin and Susan Rosenberg were left wing terrorists.
Susan Lyndon was a beautiful Vassar graduate who ruined her life by participating in the sexual revolution and by indulging in drugs. She owed her fame to one rather silly article she wrote for “Ramparts” magazine.
Saul Alinsky is often quoted, or misquoted by those on the right because of his book “Rules for Radicals.” Horowitz claims “Power is the all consuming goal of Alinsky’s politics.” Any American who wants power can more readily achieve it through electoral politics, or by working his way up the hierarchy of a corporation.
The second logical fallacy that Horowitz commits is the Straw Man Fallacy. In the Straw Man Fallacy one distorts an argument in order to make it easy to refute. Horowitz claims that each of these radicals has no real goal but the destruction of Western, and particularly American, civilization.
One can only claim to refute a point of view if he can explain that point of view in a way that one who adhering to that point of view agrees that it is an honest description of the way he thinks. I am confident that if the radicals condemned in this book read Horowitz’s condemnation of the way they thought, they would claim that Horowitz’s condemnation is inaccurate.
Nevertheless, what these radicals believe in merits criticism. What they represent is only destructive to moderate liberals who wish to restore the goals of the New Deal, and smooth over some of the rough edges of capitalism.
Horowitz writes, “The present volume focuses on individuals who are adherents of the progressive faith, a label that has been embraced by Marxists and anarchists, socialists, and liberals alike.” In so doing he commits the Guilt by Association fallacy. There is no “progressive faith.” Marxists, anarchists, socialists, and liberals agree on little, and have much to argue about.
June 24, 2014
If half of what is alleged here is true there some people viewed as heroes by many are/were truly damaged people...
February 4, 2021
A well written and well argued book about an important subject. A reasoned account of the perils and contradictions of Utopianism, communism and radicalism that drove most of the radicals depicted in the book. Critics of such a book usually tear down the author rather than address specific critiques of the actions of the people highlighted - especially those radicals advocating and in some cases taking part in violent acts.
Hitchens aside, (although the author is critical of aspects of Hitchens they were friends and Hitchens was aware of Horowitz’s critiques of him) essentially for the radicals in the book the means always justifies the ends in the progress to toward destroying the existing power structures yet there is no plan for a new society just vague notions dripping meaningless cliches.
We have plenty of evidence since 1900 where national socialism (Nazis) and communism ends up taking societies death and totalitarianism yet a number of people in this book never renounced communism or national socialism yet are still lauded in progressive circles.
I found the critiques of West and Alinsky especially convincing.
Hitchens aside, (although the author is critical of aspects of Hitchens they were friends and Hitchens was aware of Horowitz’s critiques of him) essentially for the radicals in the book the means always justifies the ends in the progress to toward destroying the existing power structures yet there is no plan for a new society just vague notions dripping meaningless cliches.
We have plenty of evidence since 1900 where national socialism (Nazis) and communism ends up taking societies death and totalitarianism yet a number of people in this book never renounced communism or national socialism yet are still lauded in progressive circles.
I found the critiques of West and Alinsky especially convincing.
October 26, 2021
Send them all to Africa to a Country with no established government, no streets, no schools, no medical care, no civilized society and let them ALL start there!
Your friends you say… hmm
Oct 26, 2021
Read again and somehow I missed all the parts about Saul’s radical followers and here I thought that was so long ago and yet it is out govt, it is our talking heads paid to ramble on infecting everyone with their tear down destructive sit behind a desk/camera ignorant mentality. I’ve read all of Saul’s writing and was far from impressed to the point of spoiled child with no respect who needed more attention and dare say some corrective action and what do they grow to become that bad apple spoiling the bunch, the mold that infects everything and everyone with their nastiness which is now evident when you turn in the idiot box.
I’m also not impressed with grown men handing out in coffee shops or old book stores sneaking behind the stacks to listen to other idiot trouble makers.
I’ve read it twice and am forcing my self to a 3 of medium / no judgement for the spew I feel for these types and though that is all I will discuss other than my visions of 1 bullet forehead placed precision to eliminate the trouble makers trying to lite fires of aggravation, sewing seeds of discontent, of followers trying to make something of their life worth meaning and failing over and over again.
Your friends you say… hmm
Oct 26, 2021
Read again and somehow I missed all the parts about Saul’s radical followers and here I thought that was so long ago and yet it is out govt, it is our talking heads paid to ramble on infecting everyone with their tear down destructive sit behind a desk/camera ignorant mentality. I’ve read all of Saul’s writing and was far from impressed to the point of spoiled child with no respect who needed more attention and dare say some corrective action and what do they grow to become that bad apple spoiling the bunch, the mold that infects everything and everyone with their nastiness which is now evident when you turn in the idiot box.
I’m also not impressed with grown men handing out in coffee shops or old book stores sneaking behind the stacks to listen to other idiot trouble makers.
I’ve read it twice and am forcing my self to a 3 of medium / no judgement for the spew I feel for these types and though that is all I will discuss other than my visions of 1 bullet forehead placed precision to eliminate the trouble makers trying to lite fires of aggravation, sewing seeds of discontent, of followers trying to make something of their life worth meaning and failing over and over again.
May 4, 2023
A turning point in David's life was his father's death. Unlike many 1960s radicals, David loved and admired his father. When his father's friends gathered to remember him, David realized that they never really knew his father. Every tribute was about his dad's sacrifice for the cause. The human being, his loving father was unimportant outside of the cause. He doesn't say so directly, but that moment was key to why the author would leave Marxism. Nothing was going to be more important than his family.
If you ever catch David Horowitz on TV he seems cranky. It just doesn't prepare you for what a gifted writer he is. His book Radical Son about growing up with communist parents and eventually rejecting the Left reads like a movie. This book is about the other radicals he has known through life, some of which remained friends despite his leaving the cause. It begins with Christopher Hitchens and explores his excesses and their times on the same side or opposite side of issues. Others you may not have heard of, but their stories are varied and interesting. People form their political opinions through their own experiences and although David is unforgiving about the ideology he is compassionate for his friends that were also caught up in it.
If you ever catch David Horowitz on TV he seems cranky. It just doesn't prepare you for what a gifted writer he is. His book Radical Son about growing up with communist parents and eventually rejecting the Left reads like a movie. This book is about the other radicals he has known through life, some of which remained friends despite his leaving the cause. It begins with Christopher Hitchens and explores his excesses and their times on the same side or opposite side of issues. Others you may not have heard of, but their stories are varied and interesting. People form their political opinions through their own experiences and although David is unforgiving about the ideology he is compassionate for his friends that were also caught up in it.
January 20, 2022
It's difficult to navigate the often murky waters of causes and motivations of political radicals, especially nowadays in the 21st century. Horowitz succeeds not only in analysing roots and causes, but also to share this analysis in a way that is easy enough to follow. Each chapter focusses on a different person from recent American history, whose particular brand of political activism is used to illustrate the points in the author's analysis of political radicalism.
It's narrated very clearly, easy to listen to.
This was my first book by this author, I'll definitely try another one.
As a bonus: this book is included in your Audible subscription until 2024, which means it won't cost you a credit!
It's narrated very clearly, easy to listen to.
This was my first book by this author, I'll definitely try another one.
As a bonus: this book is included in your Audible subscription until 2024, which means it won't cost you a credit!
January 31, 2025
Good solid book on some familiar people and some unfamiliar. Its definitely written with bias of course, but still done well. I think he is a bit unfair to some of the people covered at times but overall does a good job summing up their lives.
The reason to read this is the author is going to highlight aspects of these people that is not commonly touched on and thus, complete the picture. Some of the people like Hitchens, the author knew and was something of a friend. He does a fantastic job covering his character and thought.
The reason to read this is the author is going to highlight aspects of these people that is not commonly touched on and thus, complete the picture. Some of the people like Hitchens, the author knew and was something of a friend. He does a fantastic job covering his character and thought.
July 1, 2022
A collection of short biographies/case studies on popular political liberals and their motives. Horowitz certainly sensationalizes things at time, but the material almost sensationalizes itself at times. These men and women have several things in common, but one in particular is that they have let their self-absorption to determine their view of everyone else. They are and were lovers of evil and it materialized in their perspectives on society and government most clearly.
January 31, 2022
I understand why this book is controversial. The author depicts each "radical" in a negative light regardless of their cause and is sure to include facts that mainly support his own viewpoint toward them. This book was a disappointment.
June 9, 2023
A good account on American totalitarianism and how extremists are spreading and destroying US democracy. No different from other totalitarian experiences like in Latin America, where anyone who base themselves in Lenin are already revealing themselves as against democracy and freedom.
May 21, 2024
He covers Christopher Hitchens (who the author knew), Bettina Aptheker (who was molested by her father Herbert a famous Nat Turner adoring Jewish author), and Cornel West the unkempt "professor" that it often wheeled out to give some token legitimacy to the rantings of Al Sharpton and his ilk.
November 8, 2019
The ending of this book should be taught in high schools.
April 15, 2021
Cornel West gers rough handling. Susan Lydon's story is heartbreaking and sweet. The chapter on Saul Alinsky is dark.
February 14, 2016
Good analysis of how these "Americans" use their freedom to deny their fellow citizens of theirs. I was not familiar with several of the people. I mainly bought the book because I had not read any of David Horowitz's work, but had heard him in an interview and found his background interesting as a "recovering liberal." I was interested in learning more about Cornell West in particular. I have heard him interviewed numerous times and could never figure out what his credentials were or what he contributed to the various TV debates. Turns out not much. As Horowitz describes him, he's an empty suit. Very rhetorical in his monologues. Similar to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, but with even less to offer in the conversation.
More surprising was the outline of Saul Alinsky. It was comical to read as President Obama is a devotee. Pretty much the way Alinsky describes things is what the President executes. Obviously, the President is working hard with Congress to ruin the United States. The whole idea of ingratiating yourself with your opposition/competition while stabbing them in the back or in the chest when it is convenient is truly amazing. In order to combat this behavior, you have to understand it and respect it for what it is. Which is why the Republican Party is now a non-factor as a party. They don't recognize the behavior and can't get out of the way of the knife unless they are being allowed to help guide the blade in for the suicide.
Difficult to read because I'm not familiar enough with Marxism so I have to take Horowitz's word on many things which I prefer to read objectively vs. being led.
More surprising was the outline of Saul Alinsky. It was comical to read as President Obama is a devotee. Pretty much the way Alinsky describes things is what the President executes. Obviously, the President is working hard with Congress to ruin the United States. The whole idea of ingratiating yourself with your opposition/competition while stabbing them in the back or in the chest when it is convenient is truly amazing. In order to combat this behavior, you have to understand it and respect it for what it is. Which is why the Republican Party is now a non-factor as a party. They don't recognize the behavior and can't get out of the way of the knife unless they are being allowed to help guide the blade in for the suicide.
Difficult to read because I'm not familiar enough with Marxism so I have to take Horowitz's word on many things which I prefer to read objectively vs. being led.
April 2, 2017
3 stars [Politics]
Writing: 3 stars; Use: 3 stars; Truth: 3.5 stars.
Chapter 6--Writing: 3.5 stars; Use: 4 stars; Truth: 4.5 stars.
Atypical of a book in the political genre, Horowitz does not mention the actions of people as concise examples of political ideas. Instead, his six chapters focus heavily on a personality that defines or began a political idea. As a former radical Leftist, Horowitz had interacted with some of them personally. The six people are Christopher Hitchens, Bettina Aptheker, Cornel West, an assortment of radical bombers and their accomplices including Kathy Boudin, Susan Lydon, and Saul Alinsky.
The sixth chapter greatly stood out. The political methodology of Alinsky was somewhat known to me, but this chapter is the best political critique of him--and by extension a driving segment of the American Left, including Barack Obama--that I have yet seen. It also made me want to read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which I have started but not finished. Alinsky's methodology includes eschewing the radicalist's agitation, and taking over a society's institutions (ahem, the universities) and funneling government money and power to oneself. Horowitz provides a few examples of the Obamas' rhetoric with Alinsky for comparison.
I am not sure the book is good enough for me to recommend broadly. But the sixth (and final) chapter is a must-read.
Writing: 3 stars; Use: 3 stars; Truth: 3.5 stars.
Chapter 6--Writing: 3.5 stars; Use: 4 stars; Truth: 4.5 stars.
Atypical of a book in the political genre, Horowitz does not mention the actions of people as concise examples of political ideas. Instead, his six chapters focus heavily on a personality that defines or began a political idea. As a former radical Leftist, Horowitz had interacted with some of them personally. The six people are Christopher Hitchens, Bettina Aptheker, Cornel West, an assortment of radical bombers and their accomplices including Kathy Boudin, Susan Lydon, and Saul Alinsky.
The sixth chapter greatly stood out. The political methodology of Alinsky was somewhat known to me, but this chapter is the best political critique of him--and by extension a driving segment of the American Left, including Barack Obama--that I have yet seen. It also made me want to read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which I have started but not finished. Alinsky's methodology includes eschewing the radicalist's agitation, and taking over a society's institutions (ahem, the universities) and funneling government money and power to oneself. Horowitz provides a few examples of the Obamas' rhetoric with Alinsky for comparison.
I am not sure the book is good enough for me to recommend broadly. But the sixth (and final) chapter is a must-read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews