Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey

by David Horowitz

Originally a radical socialist, the current driving force behind the rise of the Hollywood right recounts how he moved from one set of political convictions to another over the course of thirty years, and challenges readers to consider how they came by their own convictions.

Genres: Politics, Biography, History, Memoir, Nonfiction, Autobiography, Biography Memoir

468 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 1996

About the author

David 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.

Reviews

[Mike (the Paladin) · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is so much I could say here. I will say a bit about the book but first I want to do something I've done before and also I'd like to dedicate it to a specific group.

As it happens I read this just after the election (2016). Right now a lot of young people are protesting and many are saying things that I believe (and hope) they will regret saying and wish they could take back later. I've heard more than one person call out for the death of the President Elect.

I grew up in the 1960s and was a part of/among the generation of the "New Left", the generation that gave us the Clintons (among others). Those young people also simply KNEW that they had the answer to all the problems in the world and all it would take is a left wing (socialist) government. A government that can give you everything, government education, government health care, government housing, cradle to grave care. They could see it so clearly and with the encouragement of Walter Lipman or Saul D. Alinsky they acted believing "the end justifies the means".

So today do these young people (mostly 18 to 25 but led by hardcore left wing people who are career politicians of the left) believe they have the answer.

David was a hardcore leader of the "New Left". He was involved with most of the left wing movements that my contemporaries rallied to. He lived his life from his childhood raised by hardcore communist parents (in 1939) until he was forced (by a murder committed by members of the Black Panthers against one of their own) to look at his life. He is now a leader in the conservative movement.

Please...keep reading, just a few more lines and then if you want you can forget this and the book I'm recommending.

Conservatives are not a monolithic group. From Libertarians to Republicans and everywhere in between we all think for ourselves...and we don't (generally) shut each other out or attack each other. (Since I originally wrote this sadly some Republicans have decided to break that principal and attack the new president. In the long run a very bad sign.) Two of my best friends (who are as conservative as I) believe strongly in stopping the famous pipeline "up north" as they are strongly concerned about environmental damage. I am concerned about the Earth as well but believe we can use the pipeline to move oil more inexpensively and at the same time provide jobs and do it cleanly... But we still spend a night or 2 a week socializing. On the whole we agree more than we disagree and respect each other's right to think.

The conservative movement in America is full or "2nd thoughters" Mr. Horowitz, Ronald Reagan, David Mamet, even the late Charlton Heston are 2nd thought Democrats former liberals (Progressives).

May I please encourage all of you who are still young to stop and actually look at what you believe and what you think you believe? Also look to your sources of news and information. Don't believe all the main stream outlets say as in general they are run and peopled by those of the left. Most people at first confuse compassion with socialism, it looks good.

In all of history socialism of every type has been tried over and over. When this is pointed out the answer is always, "but it hasn't been done right". That's the problem...it can't be done right. Read Animal Farm. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". The leaders are always human. Socialism ALWAYS leads to want and totalitarianism...always.

This book is a memoir of Mr. Horowitz's journey, his growth, his maturing...the pain it took to bring him to where he is.

Please consider that sometimes experience brings wisdom.

I leave you with a quote attributed to George Washington: "A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything away."

Please read the book before you decide you don't like it.

Recommended.

[Luís · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have studied the issue of anti-Semitism a lot; some Jewish entities have already heard me talk about it and know that I am no novice, no naive, no light guesser in the matter. However, anyone who spends a lot of time on a problem raises questions that would not occur to a newcomer—and sometimes finds answers that seem incomprehensible and shocking to someone who hasn't even asked the questions.
In May 2002, when the leftist media trumpeted the anti-Semitic threat embodied in Mr. Le Pen, I wrote: "Why should the Jews trust anyone who warns them against an unarmed enemy while helping an armed enemy? Why would the world left be so anxious to protect them against a hypothetical future danger in France, when they are striving to deliver them into the clutches of a real and immediate danger in their own land?"
But Le Pen's anti-Semitism, disarming as it was, was at least explicit and undeniable. Mel Gibson proclaims that the Jews were no more guilty than he was for the murder of Christ, and yet, according to the enlightened media, there is reason to fear him as if he were the Inquisition revived.
I'll leave the film that gave rise to the stir to analyze later. For now, I want to focus on one detail: haven't you noticed anything strange in the sudden surge of Philo-Jewishness that has taken hold of the world's leftist intelligentsia? Those same people who endorsed the farce of the "Jenin massacre," who compared Ariel Sharon to Adolf Hitler, appear today with hearts overflowing with fraternal zeal, selling the Jewish people protection against the fearsome genocidal Mel Gibson. Are you going to fall for it? The Pope, who has always been your loyal friend, says there is no danger that "The Passion of the Christ" does not instill anti-Semitic sentiments in anyone (recent polls by the Institute for Jewish Research show that it does not). You will prefer to listen to those guys who, at the Durban conference, plotted to condemn Zionism as a "racist ideology"? Abraham Foxman has already withdrawn the charges, and Zionist intellectuals like David Horowitz assure that Gibson is innocent. And you will give more credit to those beautiful creatures who, against the intervention in Iraq, went screaming through the streets of New York hand in hand with Louis Farrakhan and David Duke? Will they guard against a far-fetched hypothesis while exposing themselves to the manifest danger of accepting the services of untrustworthy lawyers and, through them, Islamic terrorism? Will they allow themselves to be manipulated like the Spanish voters and, deceived by their enemies, turn against their friends? Something inside me says no, that this false tragedy will not lead to the dreadful outcome planned.
But the leftist media knows how to combine the suppression of facts with the production of factoids—utterly excluding the opinions of pro-Gibson American Jews to create the false impression of hostile unanimity. You read it and see the proof that "the" conservative Catholics are anti-Semitic.
My message to the Jews is simple: no harm will come to them from the Christian side. Israel's enemies are Christendom's enemies today.

I don't find the hype around this book.

Source: https://olavodecarvalho.org/tag/anti-...

[Friend to God · Rating 1 out of 5]

Racist and islamophobic demagogue justifying his views by maligning leftist movements that he didn't feel truly accepted him. Dude even believed in the McCarthy list, like cmon. Next.

[Robert Hall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Radical son, while autobiographical, is a thrilling psychological narrative.

Though the book is political in nature and ultimately takes a very strong political stand, the overall tome is an account of David Horowitz's personal experience with a disengaged father, who never met his pleasure. In other words, it's a book about relationships, and the sometimes impossible nature of reconciliation, couched in a political experience.

The book is an exercise in political persuasion—Horowitz spells out his own and others' political hypocrisy on the left—but Horowitz makes a more persuasive plea to stabilize personal relationships. For David, politics was a poor substitute for what was missing in his relationship with his father and other family members, and even those with whom he had been politically aligned.

No matter your political appeal, it is a marvelous book, worth a read. Those who mistake this book for a political argument miss the larger revelation.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Winston Churchill once said, “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” I first read it as a thoroughly conservative 17 year old. And I thought, "Hmm." And filed it away. Nobody had yet actually called me heartless, but most teenagers aren't that articulate. Mostly it was about how much I didn't care about other humans.

Horowitz's autobiography cum memoir takes the same path, although with the added benefit of understanding that his liberalism, or more accurately, his revolutionary radicalism on behalf of a Marxist ideal, was not something he found organically and adopted. Rather, he was born into and knew no life other than the The Party: its ideals, its goals, and its secrets. His first major memories are of marching in protest of the Rosenberg conviction and feeling powerful, a small child making a huge splash in an uncaring world. Revelation of the Rosenbergs' guilt did nothing to change that feeling of power, because young Horowitz had already internalized, even if he couldn't articulate it, that the ends justified the means.

Horowitz traces his childhood in suburban New York and his parents', then eventually his, inclusion in the Communist Party, including cell-meetings and stories of housewives that agreed to deliver letters to Mexico, but never returned. He married young and moved to Europe to experience true socialism by living first in Sweden, then in England, where he was recruited by the USSR as an informant or agent. He declined recruitment, but made all the contacts one could possibly make to be a major figure in the radical Left.

Post-Europe, he settled in Berkeley, the epicenter of the countercultural revolution. He arrived as beatniks were transitioning to Yippies and eventually hippies and helped found several radical publications, where he was known as an editor, writer, and all-around dude who could get funding. His ability to raise money led to his integral involvement with Huey Newton after the formation of the Black Panther party. It was that involvement that sowed the first seeds of doubt.

As Horowitz continued to work with Newton and, as Newton became less and less able to lead the party, Elaine Brown and others, he noticed that much of activity of the party was actually low-level thuggery and an attempt to control the Berkeley-Oakland criminal underground. When a secretary he specifically recommended Brown hire goes missing and is then found murdered, the facade cracks.

Disillusionment with the discrepancy between the ideals and actions of leading Leftist revolutionaries and the dissolution of his marriage and his most productive writing partnership brought Horowitz low. With little else available to him, he began to question. He identified his primary commitments: equality and justice. And he looked for the ways in which the people and organizations he works with actually seek those things. And concludes that he does not. At the conclusion of the Vietnam war, Horowitz realizes that nobody that he as actually protested with cares at all about the Vietnamese people or the government to institute communism in the country. They simply wanted to get out of the draft and protest the government.

And so Horowitz enters a period of deep contemplation where he must contemplate his involvement in any political philosophy. He continues to write as a biographer, having restored his writing partnership, but removes himself from activism and fundraising as he sees a greater and greater number of 60s radicals betraying their stated ideals to live in luxury and snicker about their involvement in murders.

He concludes that he's a conservative only insofar as he has gained an idea of history and what does and does not work. I was particularly pleased to see his remarks on the ever present statement that socialism does work, it's just that nobody has really tried it yet. Every attempt to employ the ideology on a wide scale has lead to what David Mamet called an efficient toll for "...bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death." Horowitz was not nearly so succinct, but his final chapters outline a history, and future, of death, death, death, misery, and death. He realizes, almost a priori, that freedom and equality are impossible. Reality constrains resources and the only way to maximize one is to maximize the other, or else minimize them both to the point where all humanity lives impoverished under the central control of an authority with no respect for life.

It's a remarkable book, not in the least for its utter humility and apology, which never seems self-serving or disingenuous. Horowitz must be considered one of America's great thinkers and, luckily for us, is still thinking and writing.

[Peter Galamaga · Rating 5 out of 5]

David Horowitz is a fairly well-known commentator and activist on the Right. What many folks under the age of 50 may not realize is that he was one of the most influential and outspoken members of the radical Left in the 60s. Many of his writings were used as "textbooks" for many radicals of the time.

This book explores his life - starting with his parents - Jewish immigrants who were active members of the Communist movement of the 30s, 40s, and 50s. Immersed from childhood in a world including some of the foremost communist/progressive activists of the time, Horowitz grew up a committed radical.

However, as the 60s progressed, he became more and more uncomfortable with groups such as SDS, the Weathermen, and especially the murderous Black Panthers. He eventually leaves and becomes an outcast among his former friends and colleagues.

Anyone, liberal or conservative, who is interested in the history of politics in the US should read this book. You may not reach the same conclusions Horowitz did, but he provides a fascinating glimpse into the 50s and particularly the 60s and some of the periods most famous people.

On a personal level, I found the book interesting because I too had a "conversion" of sorts in my life - not on the level of Horowitz - but similar in small ways. Once an ARDENT liberal, I noticed that less and less of what my liberal co-horts had to say and believed matched up with what I see as reality. I became much more conservative as I entered my late 30s and remain so (to some extent - labels are ridiculously limiting) to this day.

Aside from politics, what really appealed to me in this biography was his personal story. His relationships with family and friends over time are often described quite movingly and gave me occasion to reflect on the relationships I have in my own life (especially since I JUST turned 45).

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

Horowitz is a sociopath, but this book is still interesting to read. There are some legitimate criticisms of tendencies toward closed-mindedness in the liberal community, though they tend to disappear among the long passages of paranoia, racism, and self-worship. Worth reading if you'd like to see inside the neoconservative mind, and what influences a progressive thinker to withdraw into xenophobia.

[Eric Bjerke · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful autobiography by a guy who grew up communist in America and eventually renounced his far left leanings to be a conservative Republican. It wasn't easy and along the way you learn some startling things about the inner workings of the communist party in America in the early part of the 20th Century. It took a long time for Horowitz to see the light and it was so interesting to see how thorough his conversion eventually became. It shatters a lot of currently-held myths that glorify The Black Panthers and demonizes the police in California and authority in general in the 60's. Not an easy book to read because he is very intellectual and talks a lot about the philosophies behind communism. I was particularly struck with the rationalization he and his co-horts in the American communist party had towards Stalin's atrocities.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey by David Horowitz is basically his autobiography. Originally a radical socialist from a young age under parental influence he grew up in the environment of the radical left and the communist party. I've read several of his recent books and knew him only as a conservative writer, author, and commentator. Now I understand how and why his political leanings changed, how the radical left melted itself into the democrat party leading Ronald Reagan to comment "I didn't leave the democrat party, the democrat party left me." In a similar fashion conservative author Thomas Sowell was asked what prompted him to abandon the left and communist beliefs and his answer was simply "facts!" If you grew up during the 1960s and 70s, you will recognize many of the names of many of the radicals that the author was involved with from the Black Panthers organization and others preaching violent action against the government. the current driving force behind the rise of the Hollywood right recounts how he moved from one set of political convictions to another over the course of thirty years, and challenges readers to consider how they came by their own convictions.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Communism. Marxism. Berkeley University. Radicalism. The Black Panthers. All contemporary interests and affiliations in the life of a young David Horowitz. A wonderful profile of a former radical who came to grips with his beliefs and engaged the dogma around him, eventually becoming a Reagan-supporting conservative. Born into a Communist home that revered the Soviet Union and Marxism, he attended Columbia with Red professors and eventually headed West to the radicalism of Berkeley. He received his degree in English Literature and was an editor at the '60s magazine Ramparts with his, now, long-time colleague Peter Collier. After becoming involved with The Black Panthers and Bobby Seale he came to see the ugliness of the movement that he loved. He saw the faith of the Left wrapped in its involvement in radicalism (from the urban terrorists The Weather Underground to Tom Hayden's raised fist approach). He, along with Collier, started rethinking their belief in the Utopia and started the Second Thoughts movement of ex-Lefties who rejected their old values.

[Joe Broadmeadow · Rating 1 out of 5]

A convoluted apology

Horowitz book, Radical Son, tries to explain his passage from radical communist to a new conservative. What peeks through is his embarrassment at his former beliefs, whitewashed with denouncing everything he once embraced.

His new found conservatism reflects a less empathetic view of his fellow humans. The one consistency is he again embraces a failed philosophy. He tries to paint progressive liberalism with the brush of failed communism and the callous conservative right he now adheres to as a refined version of the original American spirit. Like all extremists he has little tolerance for dialog or compromise

[Kevin Baker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Radical Son is David Horowitz's autobiographical journey from "Red diaper baby" to neo-conservative. I wanted to read it because I wanted to better understand the mindset of the radical Left, and this was an excellent book for that purpose. I think the thing that struck me hardest was Horowitz's casual statements concerning the facts - as he asserts them - that so many organizations were merely fronts for hardline communism in the U.S. in the 1940's, 50's and 60's. Having been on the inside, so to speak, he would obviously know.

The part I found most interesting was the struggle Horowitz went through during his slow break from radical Leftism, brought on by the murder of a friend at the hands of the Black Panthers - until then just considered "fellow travelers" by Horowitz. It took him literally years to finally break away and see what it was that he and his fellows were promoting and covering up for.

It certainly cemented my understanding that Leftism is a secular religion that will brook no deviations from orthodoxy, will shun and even slay apostates, and will cover its eyes and ears to avoid facing anything that might cause questioning of the Faith.

It also helps me to understand how Leftism has spread to occupy media, education, and politics - being a religion, it's a calling - the creed of the Left is to drag us all, kicking and screaming if necessary, into their promised Utopia, and if it's necessary to cull a few tens of millions to achieve that unquestionably worthy end, then mounds of skulls are worth it.

I think I need to read David Mamet's book next.

[Annie Howe · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book that changed the way I looked at left and right wing politics. Horowitz's story is an incredible journey, and he writes it brilliantly.

[Brian Katz · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book. David Horowitz wrote a great autobiography about his early life being indoctrinated by his parents in all things left. He went to summer camp and participated in many activities to support the communist cause. He takes the reader through his college days, writing, protesting and being an activist. He also writes in great detail about his professional life after college in support of the cause. The time period covered was very interesting, and he put world affairs into context of the left and how they saw the world. I learned a lot. His “red pill moment” came when he learned of the death of a woman that he referred to an organization who was associated with the Black Panthers. From this moment forward, he discussed his transition away from the left and provides incredible detailed criticisms of the worldview of the left. Who better to do this eloquently than someone who spent 40 years deep in the regime. I will definitely read another book authored by David Horowitz.

This book offers a resounding reminder that Marxism / Communism will not work. History is littered with piles of dead bodies that were killed by those trying to implement this ideology. Looking back from 2025 to the prior 4 years of the Biden Administration, one can easily see that many of the policies implemented by the left (men in women’s sports, open borders, anti Semitism, profligate government spending, media control and censorship, etc….) were foolish and ideological insanity. All 80/20 issues.

[Lisa (Harmonybites) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Horowitz's journey from radical to, shall we say, right of center really resonated with me. Like Horowitz, my best friend in childhood was a "red diaper" baby, a child of committed communists. Her family would take me along to political rallies, including one featuring Angela Davis, a Communist candidate for president. It was as if my friend Jenny was an exile in her own country--terribly estranged from America. At one point, both of us as eleven-year-olds had a crush on Captain Kirk--that is until her parents explained to her that Star Trek was evil American militarist propaganda. Even All in the Family was not to be tolerated--as my friend earnestly told me, her mother reminded her it made people "laugh at racism." Of course humor is a time-honored form of political dissent--but there was something so solemn, so religious about their form of Communism. Every year, even though they were nominally Jewish, they'd have a Christmas Tree, and at the top of the tree--I kid you not--was a red star and anchor. And when my Puerto Rican working-class family saved enough to move out of our crime-ridden childhood neighborhood, my friend denounced me as a traitor to my class.

So you can see why I strongly identified with Horowitz's life-story. It made sense of so many things remembered from my childhood. And Horowitz definitely had an interesting perch. He was the editor for a time of the New Left magazine Ramparts and rubbed shoulders with lots of Marxist personalities in Europe and America. His turning point came in his involvement with the Black Panthers when a friend was murdered by them. Even after that, it took a while before he emerged as an activist on the right. I can remember him describing how he felt he was finally at home in America. I suspect the same could not be said of my childhood friend.

[Diane Baker · Rating 5 out of 5]

*Radical Son* is a revealing look at OCL(our current leader)---in the sense that Horowitz likely experienced the same kind of "Red diaper" upraising that OCL did, during the fifties. Except that Horowitz saw the light, and became a conservative. Given that he's *been* part of the Left, Horowitz is a voice we need to listen to. His story points up the many paths that we need to explore in order to wean our fellow citizens from the liberal teat, and take them back to a land of freedom and individual choice. Hooray for Horowitz!

[Robby Delaware · Rating 5 out of 5]

Horowitz is without a doubt a right wing nut, but this book is freaking awesome. Horowitz was a "big libowski" guy back in the 60's who ended up become a Reagan loving conservative.

This may be the guy who actually first used the term "neo-conservative" and the expression "a liberal mugged by reality". Maybe. Anyways, even if you aren't conservative or even political, you will find this book extremely interesting.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Opened my eyes to the many lies that society excepts as truths.

[Nancy · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book has cemented my political bent. Horowitz is still taking a risk telling his story - from Black Panther activist to conservative author and radio TV commentator.

[P · Rating 2 out of 5]

While I applaud Horowitz's transition from insanity to eventually seeing the light, my rating has more to do with the writing than his commendable transformation. For me, there is too much focus on his personal situation, too much name-dropping and generally too much of a puffed-up sense of himself in this, all of which prevented me from coming to like him and from really appreciating his journey.

For anyone looking for the story of how another highly-accomplished, intellectual 'elite' travels a similar road, I highly recommend David Mamet's The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture. It's terrific, without the maudlin pathos recorded by Horowitz when all his 'friends' abandoned him.

[Jeffrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Born into a family

and community of Communists, David was a useful idiot at the vanguard of the new left due to his intellect, writing ability and blind arrogance often assigned to leftists. He is one of the few from that era and fringe to be awakened to the real tyrannical agenda; and thus able to process truths.
His honesty about his crestfallen Dad hits home. When you put your self identity inside a political ideology, you are very much like an alcoholic who is convinced that vodka is good for you , if the rich would I only stop hoarding it and provide enough to the masses. He saw through all of that egotistical haze that politically derived utopia is a dangerous goal.
The best autobiography I have ever read.

,

[Mohammad Ahmad · Rating 5 out of 5]

هنالك مقولة تقول أن القضية أول من تخون فهي تخون صاحبها ، و الكتاب يسرد سيرة حياة ديفيد هورويتز و مسيرته السياسية من اليسار الجديد إلى أحد أعلام المحافظين الجدد و الصهيونيين المدافعين عن أسرائيل و عن معظم القضايا و أجندة اليمين التقليدية بالولايات المتحدة الأمريكية ، توصل هورويتز عن طريق التجربة أن جرائم ستالين و ماو و الخمير و كاسترو و الفهود السوداء لمن تكن نتاج لظروف تاريخية معينة بل نتيجة طبيعية للتوجهات التوتاليتارية لأقصي اليسار و أن الطريق نحو الجحيم معبد بالنوايا الحسنة.

ديفيد هورويتز كان يعتبر من المثقفين اليساريين الراديكاليين و أحد المؤسسين لحركة اليسار الجديد في الستينيات من القرن الماضي و من صناع الرأي و المؤثرين بكتابتهم بمجلة رامبرات علي الحركة الأحتجاجية المناهضة لحرب فييتنام ، ساهم هورويتز بواسطة كتاباته و عمله كمحرر لمجلة رامبرات مع العديد من الكتاب اليساريين في خلق جو عام مناهض لحرب فييتنام و كشف محاولات وكالة الأستخبارات المركزية لأختراق حلقات و إتحادات الطلاب اليساريين بالجامعات ، الأمر الذي دفع السلطات الأمريكية للتحقيق حول مصادر تمويل المجلة للتحقق من وجود أي روابط مالية بين المجلة و العملاء السوفييت ، و في منتصف عقد السبعينات شجب ثلاثة من المحررين السابقين للمجلة اليسار و أصبحوا من أشد النقاد معارضة لأفكار اليسار التقدمي الليبرالي و هم سول ستيرن ، و بيتر كولير ، و ديفيد هورويتز.

بدأ هورويتز نشاطه السياسي وهو في عمر التاسعة في الأول من مايو عام 1948 في التظاهرة السنوية أحتفالا بعيد العمال ، نشأ في أسرة من الشيوعيين الأمريكيين فوالداه كانا عضوين بالحزب الشيوعي الأمريكي منذ ثلاثينات القرن العشرين و أمنوا بأن بذور العدالة و الدرب المنير للأنسانية موجودة بالأتحاد السوفييتي و ستزهر في مقبل السنوات لتضئ الدرب لبقية الشعوب ، جيل كامل من الشباب الحالمين الأمريكيين رأوا في إستيلاء الشيوعيين علي السلطة بروسيا تجربة فريدة من نوعها في تاريخ البشرية ستفتح الطريق نحو أقامة مجتمع أكثر عدلا ينعدم فيه الأستغلال و التمييز و الحاجة ، الأمر الذي دفعهم بمن فيهم أب ديفيد هورويتز - فليب هورويتز - لزيارة الدولة الأشتراكية الفتية في ذروة محاكم ستالين الصورية و حملات التطهير ، و لم تفلح كتابات المنفيين السوفييت كتروتسكي علي سبيل المثال بأقناعهم بأكذوبة المجتمع الأشتراكي الجديد الذي يتم بنائه بروسيا ، ولم يوقظهم من أحلامهم و توهماتهم اليسارية إلا تقرير خوروتشوف الشهير سنة 1956 و مقررات المؤتمر العشرين للحزب الشيوعي السوفييتي ، ليجدوا أن نضالاتهم التي خاضوها لسنوات و الأفكار التي أمنوا و ضحوا في سبيلها من قيم العدالة الأجتماعية و الأنحياز للفقراء و المهمشين لم تكن إلا خديعة كبري ، وأن الواقع يشير ألا أنهم كانوا يخدومون أجندة عصابة مستبدة من المتعطشين للسلطة و الدماء بموسكو تسببوا بذبح ملايين الفلاحين و الكثير من المعاناة الأنسانية ، وتسببت تلك القيادة السوفييتية نفسها في قتل أكبر عدد من الشيوعيين الذين يشاركونهم نفس الرؤية و الأهداف بما يفوق بمراحل عديدة عدد الشيوعيين الذين قتلتهم جميع الحكومات الرأسمالية الأخري مجتمعة منذ بداية التاريخ ، لتأتي بعدها حملة السيناتور الأمريكي جوزيف مكارثي للكشف عن النشاطات التخريبية بداخل أروقة و أجهزة الحكومة الأمريكية لتتسبب في تدمير ما تبقي من معنويات الحرس الشيوعي القديم.

في وسط هذه الأجواء و خلال هذه السنوات نشأ هورويتز و تكون وعيه السياسي ليحاول مع العديد ممن نشأوا معه في نفسه الفترة علي تجاوز سقطات اليسار القديم ، و أن لا يكرروا نفس الأخطاء بأن يكونوا جزءا من قضية يرتكب أعضائها الجرائم و يخفون الحقائق بسلسلة متصلة من الأكاذيب و التبريرات ، ليتكون بصورة عضوية تدريجيا خلال الخمسينيات و بداية الستينيات ما تمت تسميته بحركة اليسار الجديد التي قام أساسها الفكري علي التأكيد بصواب تحليلات كارل ماركس للنظام الرأسمالي وعدم أمكانية أصلاح النظام الأقتصادي القائم علي الملكية الخاصة لوسائل الأنتاج ، وفي نفس الوقت مناهضة السلطة السوفييتية عقب غزوها لهنغاريا عام 1956 لقمع الحركة الأحتجاجية و البيروقراطية و التبعية العمياء للأحزاب الشيوعية التقليدية بدول أوروبا الغربية و شمال أمريكا لتوجيهات و تعليمات موسكو ، فنشأ اليسار الجديد علي مسافة من المنتصف ما بين الديموقراطية الأجتماعية و الماركسية-اللينينية بنسختها المسفيتة ، مع التأييد و التضامن مع حركات التحرر الوطني بدول العالم الثالث و الدعوة للتحرر الجنسي و مناهضة قيم الأسرة و أصلاح نظام العدالة الجنائية تجاه الأقليات الملونة و سياسات الحكومات بأتجاه تقنين المخدرات، فبتالي لمن يكن اليسار الجديد إلا محاولة لغسل اليسار القديم و من ثم اليسار بشكل عام من ملايين الأرواح التي راحت ضحية لمشاريع الهندسة الأجتماعية الضخمة قام بها الشيوعيون في الدول التي أستولوا فيها علي السلطة.

هذا الكتاب هو أدانة لحركة اليسار الجديد و شهادة تاريخية ضد الكثير من الشخصيات اليسارية في تلك الحقبة الزمينة ، مسيرة ديفيد هورويتز المهنية في اليسار كانت مميزة بالفعل فهو عمل مع شخصيات مميزة في مشاريع مختلفة من قلب الحركة اليسارية الدولية ، فخلال فترة أقامته بلندن تعرف علي أسحاق دويتشر صاحب الثلاثية الشهيرة لسيرة حياة تروتسكي ( النبي المسلح ، النبي الأعزل ، النبي المنبوذ) و ترجمها إلى العربية كميل قيصر داغر ، كان دويتشر من أتباع تروتسكي المقربين خلال فترة الثلاثينيات و أصبح صديقا مقربا لهورويتز و أسرته ، أعتبر هورويتز أن دويتشر معلمه و موجهه في بداية حياته المهنية خلال فترة شبابه و عملا معا في محكمة بيرتنارد راسل عام 1966 التي ضمت بجانب كل من راسل و دويتشر و هورويتز كل من الفيلسوف الفرنسي جان بول سارتر و رفيقة حياته سيمون دي بوفوار بجانب شخصيات و مثقفين عامين بارزين للتحقيق بالمزاعم حول جرائم حرب أرتكبتها الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية بفييتنام ، كانت المحكمة مشروعاً لمنظمة أنشأها راسل تدعي منظمة السلام الجديد و مقرها لندن تحت ادارة سكرتير راسل الشاب الأمريكي ذو شخصية الأشكالية يدعي رالف شوينمان ذو لحية شبيه بلحية أبراهام لينكولن وعلاقات واسعة بكثير من المثقفين والكتاب و الفنانين و السياسين البارزين في تلك الفترة من الرئيس الغاني كوامي نكروما إلى رئيس الوزراء الصيني تشو أن لاي ، و تميز كل من راسل و سكرتيره الشاب بأخلاقيتهم وشغفهم العالي تجاه العديد من القضايا السياسية التي دمغت تلك الحقبة الزمنية ، لم يخفي هورويتز أعجابه بشخصية رالف شوينمان و شجاعته و أستعداده بالتضحية بنفسه و الأخرين و حسه العلي تجاه أي ظلم يقع علي أي أنسان بأي مكان بالعالم ، بل حتي أن هورويتز رأي فيه تجسيدا حيا لخطاب و قيم اليسار الجديد ، فالمجزرة التي حدثت بالكونغو في الستينات بأيعاز من بعض القوى الإستعمارية السابقة أشعلت شفغه السياسي و دفعته لزيارة الكونغو و توثيق الحادثة في كتاب أسماه Death amd Pillage in the Congo : A Study of Westren Rule نشره في عام 1965 ، لم تخلو شخصية رالف من الكثير من السلبيات كجنون العظمي الذي كان مصابا به لدرجة أصابت هورويتز بالقلق منه ، كأعداده لخطة مكونة من خمسين صفحة لأنقلاب عسكري ضد نظام جومو كينياتا الكيني مع تعليمات مفصلة بالأستيلاء علي المطار و وسائل الأتصال و تسليم الخطة لأحد قادة اليسار البارزين في كينيا ، أو طلبه في خطاب عام امام كينياتا نفسه بأن تنذر منظمة الوحدة الأفريقية الدول الغربية و تمنحها مهلة زمنية محددة للأنسحاب من الكونغو أو مواجهة الحرب مما دفع كينياتا للتحذير من خطورة رجل يحمل مثل هذه الأفكار.
في عام 1967 قتل تشي جيفارا في بوليفيا و أعتقلت السلطات البوليفية الفيلسوف الفرنسي ريجيس دوبريه الذي وفر الغطاء النظري لحملات جيفارا الثورية فيما سمي Foco Thoery ، و بمجرد علم شونيمان بهذه التطورات زار بوليفيا لحضور جلسات محاكمة ريجيس دوبريه و شجبه أثناء جلسات المحاكمة السلطات العسكرية ببوليفيا مما دفع البوليفيين لطرده من البلاد و لتستغل الحكومة البريطانية هذه الفرصة للتخلص من شخصية مثيرة للمتاعب كشوينمان بإلغأها للفيزا الخاصة به و ترحليه للولايات المتحدة بلده الأصلي ، تهور رالف شوينمان و عبثه بمالية منظمة راسل و تقديره العلي لذاته غير المسنود بأساس دفع بيرتنارد راسل لأنهاء علاقته بسكرتيره لتنتهي بذلك حياة رالف شوينمان العامة.

مضت السنون و انخرط ديفيد هورويتز في مشاريع مع حزب الفهود السوداء – The Black Panther Party- في السبعينيات ، ذلك الحزب الذي أعتبر من قبل مثقفي اليسار الجديد ال��ليعة للثورة الأشتراكية التحررية القادمة بالولايات المتحدة الأمريكية ، عمل هورويتز في حملات جمع التبرعات لصالح الحزب لتمويل مشاريع كان يشرف عليها بصورة شخصية كمركز التعليم المجتمعي الذي تم أنشائه بمنطقة أوكلاند Oakland لتوفير التعليم و الوجبات المجانية للأطفال السود – و مازال المركز متواجدا حتي الأن بنفس المنطقة – و في سبيل ذلك قام بتوظيف أمراءة بوظيفة محاسب لمساعدته في إدارة المركز و تنظيم الحسابات المالية لحزب الفهود السوداء تدعي بيتي فان باتر تمت تصفيتها بتاريخ 13 ديسمبر 1974 بواسطة فرقة الموت الخاصة بالحزب ، كانت بيتي تبلغ حينها من العمر 45 عاماً و تر��ت خلفها أبنا و بنت واحدة ، أشراف بيتي علي الحسابات المالية قادها لإكتشاف خروقات مالية واسعة وتهرب ضريبي بواسطة أعضاء الحزب و قيادته ، الأمر الذي قادها لمواجهة معاونة أيقونة و قائد الحزب هيوي نيوتن أمراءة تدعي أليين بروان و تهديدها بكشف الحسابات و الخروقات المالية للعامة ، ليتم أكتشاف جثة بيتي بعد ذلك في خليج سان فرانسيسكو في 17 يناير 1975 ، وليصرح بعد ذلك بسنوات أحد ابرز أعلام اليسار في الغرب كريستوفر هيتشنز ( أنه بما لايدع مجال للشك أن القيادة العليا لحزب الفهود السوداء أمرت و نفذت تلك الجريمة الشنيعة ) ، كان مقتل بيتي نداء يقظة و لحظة محاسبة مع النفس بالنسبة لديفيد هورويتز ، توصل ديفيد هورويتز بواسطة تحقيقاته الشخصية لكشف خيوط الجريمة و ربطها مباشرة مع قيادة الحزب المتمثلة في هيوي نيوتن و أيلين بروان ، ولتدور عقارب الزمن و يعيد التاريخ نفسه مرة اخري ليجد ديفيد هورويتز نفسه في نفس موقف أبويسه في الثلاثينيات ، ذلك الموقف الذي نذر هورويتز نفسه طيلة النصف الأول من حياته علي تجنبه ، وهو ان لا يكون جزءا من اي حركة سياسية ترتمب الجرائم تحت حجة التبشير باليوتوبيا الأشتراكية القادمة في مقبل السنوات.
منظروا اليسار الجديد أعتبروا أن حزب الفهود السوداء هم عبارة عن طليعة ثورية مضطهدة بواسطة أجهزة أنفاذ القانون الرسمية من الشرطة و مكتب التحقيقات الفيدرالي ، ويتم تجريمه بواسطة شرطة بيضاء عنصرية بسبب الدور الثوري الذي يلعبه الحزب في تحرير السود في أمريكا ، فالحزب بالنسبة لليبراليين اليساريين البيض بالساحل الغربي هو تجسيد مثالي للقيم التقدمية و يجب الدفاع عنه ضد الهجوم الفاشي الذي يتعرض له من قبل الشرطة ، لكن الواقع كان شيئا أخر ، فالحزب لم يكن سوي عصابة من المجرمين شاركت في أرهاب السود أنفسهم في غيتوهات فقراء السود بكاليفورنيا بنفس الطرق و الوسائل التي أرهبت بها العصابة السوفييتية في موسكو العمال و الفلاحين و كل المضطهدين و المهمشين ببلدانهم ، فحزب الفهود السوداء كان جزءا من حرب العصابات بالأحياء السوداء و شارك في الكثير من جرائم القتل و الأبتزاز و تهريب المخدرات ، و أن كثير من جرائم القتل التي قام بها الحزب كانت بدون مبرر أو سبب كافي ، ومع علم شرطة أوكلاند بكاليفورنيا بهذه الجرائم و علاقة الفهود السوداء بها ألا أنها كانت في حالة عجز كامل عن قصقصة الأجنحة الأجرامية للحزب تهيبا من ردة الفعل المحتملة من الشبكات الواسعة من الداعمين و المؤيدين لنشاطات الفهود السوداء من الدوائر الليبرالية و الراديكالية المستعدة للدفاع عن قيادته و عضويته و اجندة الحزب من جماعات ضغط و ناشطين سياسيين و منظمات حقوق مدنية و محامين ذوي أتعاب عالية و مليشيات من الشهود المستعدين للشهادة بالزور ضد كل من يرفع دعوي جنائية ضد الفهود السوداء ، وفر اليسار الجديد درع حماية ضد أي مسألة قانونية ، فالبرنامج الذي أنشأته ادارة ريتشارد نيكسون تحت مسمي (COINTELPRO) الذي كان يتحجج به عضوية الحزب و مؤيديه للتأكيد علي ملاحقة الحكومة الفيدرالية لنشاطاتهم بسبب التوجهات العنصرية و المحافظة و التمييزية ضد السود لمن يكن فعالا بالأساس و ينقصه التمويل بصورة كبيرة و الدليل هو عجز السلطات الرسمية عن أيقاف سلسلة الجرائم المتصلة للحزب.
معرفة هورويتز بتجاوزات الفهود السوداء جعلته مرتابا من يدهم الطويلة بسبب علاقته الشخصية بهيوي نيوتن ، و حتي إن كان قد خرج هورويتز لكشف حقيقة الحزب فتاريخ اليسار في التعامل مع مثل هذه المسائل غير مبشر ، فما حدث لتروتسكي و معظم المنفيين السوفييت بعد طردهم من الحزب و الدولة يقف دليلا علي ذلك ، فهورويتز كان يعلم أن البوح بالحقيقة في تلك السنوات سيكون له تأثير بسيط علي تصرفات اليساريين فالحقيقة غير مهمة بالنسبة لهم ، وستكون الخطوة الأولي هي تجاهله ثم تسفيهه و تشويه سمعتة بأعتباره عقبة رئيسة أمام الشخصيات الرئيسية المدافعة عن القضية التقدمية ، صمت هورويتز لسنوات طويلة قبل أن يخرج للعلن ليكشف حقيقة و طبيعة الحزب ، و ما ثبط عزيمة ديفيد هورويتز عن البوح بالحقيقة هو توجهه لأبنة بيتي فان باتر في دفن امها ، فأبنتها كانت تبلغ من العمر ثمانية عشر عاما عند موت بيتي فصارحها ديفيد بأقتناعها الكامل بأن الحزب هو من قتل أمها ، فكان ردها بأن الفهود فوق حالة الأشتباه و أن كل من يشير بأصبع الأتهام فهو عنصري لأن ذلك هو الصواب السياسي (Politically Correct).

يسرد ديفيد في الكتاب عن دعوي رفعتها أمرأءة تدعي كاثلين سميث ضد هيوي نيوتن ، قام نيوتن قبل بدء جلسات المحاكمة الأبتدائية بقتل الشاهد الرئيسي في القضية و هي بائعة هوي تدعي كريستال جراي أو حادثة أغتصاب هيوي لأمرأة سوداء و أم ثلاثة أطفال لساعات تحت التهديد السلاح ، والصدمة النفسية التي تسبب بها للمرأة كانت حادة لدرجة أنها خافت أن تفتح بلاغا ضد هيوي بسبب علمه بمكان أقامتها و تهديدها بقتل أبنائها ، أو المنطقة الجبلية بسانتا كروز التي يستخدمها الحزب لتدريب عضويته علي استخدام السلاح التي تم أكتشاف قبور جماعية بها لأعضاء سابقين للجزب تبين فيما بعد مخالفتهم لخط الحزب الرسمي ، و بموت هيوي نيوتن عام 1989 بدأت صناعة الأسطورة الثورية للفهود السوداء في الثقافة العامة و ليخبو وهج شخصية مارتن لوثر كنج و معظم قادة حركة الحقوق المدنية الأقل شهرة في مقابل صعود أيقونة مالكولم أكس ، و ليتم أسطرة الفهود السوداء في خلال الثلاث سنة الماضية في الحركة الأدبية بواسطة المثقفين الراديكاليين.

واصل ديفيد هورويتز مسيرته بعد ذلك في نقد توغل اليسار بالجامعات الأمريكية من أساتذة الجامعات و الأدارات الجامعية المختلفة ألي المنهجية التي يتم بها تصميم المقررات الجامعية بكليات العلوم الأجتماعية و الأنسانية أعتمادها لمقررات منحازة للتفسيرات الماركسية بصورة تقلل من الحرية الأكاديمية و مقدرات الطلاب لتطوير ملكات نقدية تمكنهم من تكوين وجهات نظر مستقلة لتصبح الجامعات مرتعا للأفكار الماركسية الفوضوية و الشيوعية.

ديفيد هورويتز منشق يساري تحول في مواقفه ووجهات نظره السياسية نحو اليمين ، لكن مسيرته المهنية و ألتزامه بقضايا اليسار في النصف الأول من حياته لم تلقي أي تقدير من اليسار بشكل عام و أصدقائه السابقين في اليسار الجديد علي وجه الخصوص بعد أنشقاقه ، و تعاقب أنتهاكات حقوق الأنسان في الستينات و السبعينيات بواسطة الحكومات الأشتراكية في مختلف أرجاء العالم من معسكرات إعادة التثقيف في فييتنام بعد أنتصار هانوي نتيجة أنسحاب الولايات المتحدة من الحرب و ترك سايغون لتواجه مصيرها بنفسها مرورا بحقول الموت في كمبوديا أنتهاءا بسجن المثليين في كوبا توصل بها ديفيد هورويتز ان اليسار بشكل عام لا يحركه حب الأنسانية و الأيثار بل الكراهية و العدمية.

مجتمعات الناشطين اليساريين عادة منغلقة علي أفكارها و ترفض أي حقائق تتناقض مع أيديولجيتها الرسمية و كل الدلائل علي خطأ الكثير من مواقفهم السياسية ووجهات نظرهم لن تكون ذات اثر عليهم في تغيير أفكارهم ، فشل التجربة اليسارية في القرن العشرين ورافعتها الرئيسية الأتحاد السوفييتي لم تدفع أعضاء اليسار الجديد الي أعادة تقييم أفكارهم – و ليس كلهم بالطبع – بل ألي رفض النموذج السوفييتي بالتحديد بأعتباره ليس التطبيق السليم للأشتراكية “ Not real Socialism” ، لا هروب من فشل اليسار هكذا يعلمنا التاريخ ، و هذا ما توصل إليه هورويتز بنفسه من خلال مسيرة أمتد 25 سنة من عام 1949 إلى عام 1974 ، ولانجد مثال أوضح من الحرب الأهلية بين الجمهوريين و القوميين في أسبانيا ، كانت الحرب الأهلية في أسبانيا واحدة من أبرز الفترات التاريخية التي ظهر فيها الأنقسام الحاد ما بين اليمين و اليسار ، و كانت تجربة الفوضويين في كاتالونيا مثلا ناصعا في تاريخ الحركة التقدمية ، ولا توجد شخصية نالت كراهية اليسار بكل مدارسه الفكرية الرئيسية و الفرعية كفرانسيسكو فرانكو ، لكن أنتصار فرانكو علي الجمهوريين بأسبانيا فتح الفرصة لأقامة نظام أجتماعي مستقر و تحقيق المعجزة الأقتصادية الأسبانية في السبعينيات و تمهيد الطريق للأنتقال الديموقرطي فورا بعد وفاة فرانكو في حين ظلت العديد من دول اوروبا الشرقية في حالة عجز أقتصادي مستدام بسبب نموذج التخطيط الأقتصادي المركزي المتبع مع تقييد شامل للحريات المدنية و السياسية.
كتاب قيم جدا لحياة ديفيد هورويتز هو أول كتاب أقرأه له و بالتأكيد لن يكون الأخير.

[Mark Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is David Horowitz's autobiography.

The first part talks about him being raised in a family of communists, who worked as agents of the Soviet Union inside the United States, during the 1930s. It also talks about his life as one of the founding members of the New Left, which sought to salvage Marxism from its failure, as exemplified in the Soviet model under Stalin (ie. political and social oppression, and millions dead), and implement a better version of it in the United States.

After a couple decades of his efforts, he came to see that it was also destined to fail, due to its inherent inhumanity.

The closing chapters talk about him coming to terms with this realization, due to the murder of a personal friend by his political compatriots; understanding that his family and compatriots believed in lies about the Western tradition, and its history; and converting to conservatism.

The book is divided into 7 parts. Parts 1 and 2 had value for me, helping to understand what his life was like, living among Soviet agents on a daily basis (his parents, and the housing community in which he lived). It was interesting reading about what motivated his father to join in the Marxist cause.

Part 3 is somewhat relatable. The first part of it on Berkeley tells a lot about the birth of the New Left, in the crucible of Kruschev's revelations about the Soviet Union under Stalin.

However, after that, up until Part 6, I found the book difficult reading, because Horowitz wrote it from the perspective of, "You had to have been there." He introduced people who obviously should be familiar to anyone who was on the Left in the time periods he talked about, but if you weren't, you're going to feel awfully lost. He doesn't tell you anything about them, except what they were doing, and what they were like in the moment. It still makes for some good reading in parts, because if you've exposed yourself to the Left of today, you'll see shades of what he described of the New Left from 50-60 years ago.

I found parts 6-7 relatable, because this is where he described his gradual understanding that the New Left is no better than the Old Left, that the ideology has some basic flaws that are irredeemable. He described various encounters with what he used to regard as "the enemy," where he came to understand that everything he'd believed about them for decades was a lie, and that in fact they exhibited noble virtues.

He also described his conversion to conservatism; that at first, it wasn't so much a desire to convert, as that's where his former compatriots put him. Once he'd committed some unpardonable sins, in their book (revealing some facts to the public they'd wanted to keep hidden, "for the cause"), he was called by them "right-wing," even though that wasn't where he placed himself. After being called that enough, he started seeking allies that turned out to be to the right, and found them friendly. He started learning about their virtues, and found them to be of a wiser vintage than that of the community he was leaving. He found himself moving in that direction, because he was seeking a way of life that wasn't destructive to humanity.

Along the way, he talked about the lessons he learned about the New Left, and he gets into some profound understanding of what they really are, and what they fundamentally do. This is valuable to understand, because this same ideology is a dominant feature of today's Democratic Party. He does this in a humane way. He doesn't damn them completely, so much as he just describes what drives them as monomaniacal exaggerations of certain human desires, which I contend we all have, to some degree. His point is, taken to the extreme that they do, it doesn't produce the result they want. Instead, it creates suffering. I'm tempted to say why that is, but I think that would spoil the book.

Overall, it was a satisfying read. I wish he would've filled in more of a backstory for many of the characters he talked about, but there was enough familiarity that I could remain engaged. The subtitle, "A Generational Odyssey," aptly describes it.

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Best line from the book, "Socialism makes people poor beyond their wildest dreams."

Before reading this book, I'd only known Horowitz as a "former leftist" who would appear on television, primarily to remind viewers that either Democrat Plan A had already been tried many times before, or to say Politician B did xyz 20 years ago, and people have forgotten that. This xyz of 20 years ago may be the same or the exact opposite of what's happening today.

In this autobiography, Horowitz is critical of his own past, while painting a picture of the political left from his position inside the movement. He also reveals what moved him from left fundraiser, writer, and leader to critic. Most important of these, the left's blindness to the failures of Socialism whenever it's been tried and the murder of Betty Van Patter by the leaders of the Black Panther Party. It's not just the murder, but the immunity from prosecution when a left leader commits crimes in a left city/state.

Horowitz is especially critical of the media for not reporting on crimes and violent criminals on the left, and while at the same time being harshly critical of any Conservative who makes any mistake. Although written 20 years ago, Horowitz is obviously correct about that, as the press simply ignores the Clinton Foundation corruption and Hunter Biden's ill-gotten wealth, while riding Conservatives for poor word choices.

I didn't become a newshound until 1995ish. I hadn't carefully followed many of the stories that Horowitz relates. A few jumped out at me.

Doris Kearns Goodwin was a speechwriter for Teddy Kennedy. For decades PBS has had her as a centrist historian, when clearly she was not. It was also a surprise to learn that access to the papers in the Kennedy library was controlled by the Kennedy family. As a taxpayer who pays for that library, I found it ridiculous.

Horowitz calls Sidney Blumenthal out as a liar, while Blumenthal was still working as a reporter. Later he lied as a member of the Clintonistas.

Recently California passed laws forbidding schools from suspending students who are disruptive. Florida, which had passed similar rules, recently rolled them back as coddling disruptive students ruins the leaning environment for all the students. It turns out California already tried this same thing roughly 30 years ago. Horowitz reports that treating criminals as the victim only makes a bad situation much worse.

Early in the 80's there were groups of self-professed left wing "journalists" who were very overt in that they were only writing to promote their side. Ironically, that ethos is now the standard of the lamestream media.

I don't take Horowitz as the definitive truth. I don't believe it when he writes that he just didn't know about the criminality of the Black Panther Party before the murder of Betty Van Patter. Horowitz writes about his extramarital affairs, but I think he was more active than he admits. Lots of famous people are in that boat.

Horowitz also surprised me with insight that go against the "accepted story" and reflects the left's practice of historical amnesia with regards to the early days of AIDS, the Democratic Convention Chicago riots, and the Kennedy's. When Bobby Kennedy comes on to CNN to lecture us on morality, no one mentions he's a heroin addict.

The narrator is OK. There are portions of the book in which the editing goes off the tracks, with many long pauses between sentences.

[Carolyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very important book; I wish everyone would read it. It's the author's autobiography, which tells of his life as a radical in the '60s, particularly his connection with Huey Newton and the Black Panthers, and his slowly and painfully coming to the realization that the progressive left is a destructive force. The journey from left to right has been made by others, including Arthur Koestler, Norman Podhoretz, and me.

The author's parents were communists, and he grew up with the philosophy that society could be improved and men made equal through a painful struggle to conquer capitalism and the American constitution. Huey Newton apparently held the same beliefs; Horowitz was deeply shocked when he learned that Newton had had one of Horowitz's good friends murdured. To come to the conclusion that his progressive dreams were worthless was terrible for him, costing him most of his friends and alienation from his father, and times of deep depression.

I'll include some extensive quotes here to give the flavor of the book.

"In the Sixties, we had scorned liberals *because* they believed in the 'process' - the rule of law that created obstacles to our radical agendas. Now, these same principles appeared to me the essential premise of civil freedoms. It was the procedural orders that constrained human passions, protected minorities, and made liberty possible. Like Norman Podhoretz, I felt that the core politics Peter (his writing partner) and I had embraced were classically liberal.

"In December 1992, I was invited to give at lecture at the Heritage Foundation, the right's most important policy think tank. The subject was 'Are We Conservatives?' The very posing of the question was interesting. It was difficult, for example, to imagine a parallel forum asking, 'Are We Progressives?' I explained this anomaly to my audience by pointing out that conservatism was an attitude about the lessons of an actual past. By contrast, the attention of progressives was directed toward an imagined future. Conservatism was an attitude of caution based on a sense of human limits and what politics could accomplish. To ask whether conservatives *were* conservatives was to ask a practical question whether particular institutions were worth preserving. In the last thirty years, the American political landscape had changed dramatically, so that conservatives found themselves opposing many aspects of a culture with which they could no longer identify. Thus, the answer to the question posed was 'No.' In some sense we were not conservatives, but rebels against the dominant liberal culture.

"The reason why progressives were unable to ask a similar question went to the root of their intolerant attitudes. Because the outlook of progressives was based on the idea of a liberated future, there was no way to disagree with them without appearing to oppose what was decent and humane. To criticize the radical project placed one in opposition to a world in which social justice and harmony would prevail. That was why the question 'Are We Progressives'? was impossible for progressives to ask, and why the question I had once asked my comrades about the practicality of socialism was treated by them as a countercultural threat.

"In my lecture, I tried to identify the core of my new beliefs by focusing on the issues of equality and freedom that once had inspired me as a radical. Surveying the recent past, I pointed out that that socialists had contrived to demonstrate by bloody example what everyone else already knew. Equality and freedom are inherently in conflict. This was really all that socialists had shown, over the dead bodies of millions of people. In talent, intelligence, and physical attributes, individuals were by nature different and unequal; consequently, the attempt to make them equal could only be achieved by restricting - ultimately eliminating - their individual freedom. For the same reason, economic redistribution could be earned only by force. Socialism was theft.

"Socialism could not even achieve the general welfare that its adherents promised. Socialist efforts to create economic equality invariably led, in practice, to the imposition of poverty on society as a whole, because socialism destroyed the incentives to produce. There were entire socialist libraries devoted to the confiscation and division of existing wealth, but not a single article on how people were motivated to create wealth. Socialists did not know how to make a society work. That was the lesson of the communist debacle, which the left had refused to learn.

"In the final analysis, social injustice was rooted in humanity's flaws. There had been social institutions, like slavery and segregation, that were wicked and unjust, and needed to be abolished. But in America's democracy, social injustices - and other evils which leftists decried, were caused primarily by humanity itself. The problem of controlling humanity's dark side was what necessitated institutions of constraint - the economic market and the democratic state. There was no exit from the dilemmas of history.

"It was this perspective - conservative in its essence - that had inspired the creators of the American republic. In _The Federalist Papers_, Madison had defended the American ideal of liberty by means of legal checks and balances as a design to thwart the leveling agendas of the Left - 'a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project.' The conservatism I had arrived at could be expressed in a single patriotic idea: The revolutionary failures of the Twentieth Century had demonstrated the wisdom of the American founding, and validated its tenets: private property, individual rights, and a limited state. Becoming a conservative turned out, ultimately, to be a way of coming home."

*****

My own journey from left to right didn't take nearly as long, nor cost me a lot of pain. I came out of college an idealistic leftist. It was my father who pointed out to me the contradictions in my political beliefs and the ways in which they were destructive. It only took a few months.

Six essays by others who made the same ideological journey from left to right can be found in Arthur Koestler's book _The God that Failed_.

[John Nelson · Rating 3 out of 5]

David Horowitz certainly has led a remarkable life. Horowitz entered life as the son of communist fellow-travelers living in a Marxist enclave in Queens, New York. His childhood was split between the activities of an ordinary American boy of the era such as baseball and trying to fit in with the other kids, on one hand, and left-wing political activism and attendance at Marxist-oriented summer camps, on the other. After college, Horowitz continued on the course his parents had charted by becoming a writer and editor for such hard-left publications as Ramparts magazine.

It was only after Horowitz reached adulthood that he started to question the dishonesty, irrationality, and outright criminality of left-wing organizations he consorted with such as the Black Panthers. To borrow a term from the eminent commentator Irving Kristol, he was mugged by reality. And how could Horowitz not question his former beliefs: indeed, his final break with the Black Panthers did not come until after a friend whom he had recommended for a job as a secretary at the Black Panthers' office was murdered by thugs within the organization.

Horowitz initially stayed quiet and focused his writing on non-political topics such as biographies of prominent American families such as the Kennedys and the Rockefellers. Horowitz's description of himself during this portion of his life reminded me of a mafia gangster trying to leave the criminal life, but reluctant to openly break with his former confederates for fear of the consequences.

Horowitz eventually emerged on the other end as a full-throated critic of everything he formerly had advocated, a relentless critic of the "Destructive Generation" (his own), and a leading member of the "Second Thoughts" school which began to assume prominence during the 1980s and 1990s. On the whole, this is not a great book, and Horowitz is not a great writer. However, he has an important and interesting story to tell, which makes this a book that is well worth reading.

[Sonky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cynicism or Mediocracy?

Mr. Horowitz is either a very brave, convicted man or a very canny, scary one. Or else some of all of those traits.

Horowitz' autobiography starts Tin Drum-like with a romanticized, simplified history of David's parents and early years. Like Jesus' history there are some gaps.

He carefully makes a case against his detractors (including his earlier selves) and their socialism--because Mr. Horowitz has been saved by Reagan-style Conservativism. Being an uncreative sort, he has eschewed the Left he once espoused and favored instead its polar and simple opposite. He contributes to narrowing options for would-be politically involved Americans.

Radical Son gets lucky at points by being emotionally enriching; it is starkly unattached at others. Throughout, it is very plain, unremarkably written, morose, and light on theory and corroboration.

Still and all, I identified with David Horowitz by sheerly the plot of his life so far. In his account of his life decisions, he gives hope of notoriety in the midst of mediocrity.

=======================================================

As critical as I am of Horowitz' irradicality, I do find his critique of the Left convincing; its effect is not the usual quandary I experience when cut from moorings like that, but more a sense of liberation from the absurd uderpinnings and vague, impossible promises of the Left, without feeling compelled to swing Right.

[Maximilian Wolf · Rating 5 out of 5]

Devastating. Beautifully written account of the author's journey from "Ramparts" editor and leading New Leftist, red diaper baby, to neocon activist. Horowitz worked closely with not only the anti-war left in the sixties, but the Black Panthers and knew many leading leftists from Noam Chomsky to Michael Lerner and Bill Ayers . He was in the thick of things and saw up close the deceit of the left as its totalitarian nature was exposed. His own struggle to reconcile deeply held leftist beliefs with actual events and the discovery of murder, the murder of a friend, is riveting. For me, this book was pivotal in ripping away illusions about the nature of the far left, and I recognized so much of what he wrote about from my own experiences, even if they have not been as extensive or as extreme. You can't help but be swept into his life, and feel his integrity and the painful conflicts he experienced as he changed his mind over a long period of time. The child of lifelong Communist party members, he knows what he's talking about and no matter what a person's political perspective, there is something to be learned here. Highly recommended and if you are a leftist, I dare you to read this book.

[Cami · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting read. An autobiography of David Horowitz, who has led a fascinating life being an activist both on the Left and now on the Right.

Horowitz's story emphasizes to me that Marxism is a religion as much as any other with blind followers and informed followers, but unlike any god-based religion, Marxism can (and has) been proven false. Horowitz shows the crimes and tragedies that were committed in the name of revolution and the impact on his life that was based on bringing about that revolution. Particularly disturbing (both to me and to Horowitz) are the excuses and outright lies that the Left has employed to "forward the cause".

Horowitz did rub shoulders with some very influential radicals, but the book has a tone of exaggerated self-importance that I find a bit annoying.

Overall, worth reading. I have read a few biographies/autobiographies that have conversion stories from Left to Right, but would like to read something showing a personal change from Right to Left. Anyone have suggestions?

[Noel W · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although this autobiography is quite long, it is well worth reading. The book is amazingly detailed (dates, places people) & opened my eyes to a world that was oblivious to me. Sometimes I felt there were too many details & yet, when I finished the book, I was appreciative the author was so thorough.

I grew up at the same time as the author. As I was reading the book, I kept wondering how I could have been so clueless about the subtle infiltration of communist and Marxist influence in America. I was 9 years old when my parents talked about Khrushchev’s statement about taking America without firing a shot. They would invade us from within. In so many ways, this book helped me understand the current state of our educational & political environments.