Loving the Enemy

Reprinted from American Thinker.

Proclaiming himself a conciliator and a moderate with a vision of Americans “stand[ing] with each other” and “paying their fair share,” President Barack Obama is in fact one of the most partisan presidents ever to occupy the White House. Fine-sounding words notwithstanding, he is a leftist ideologue and no-holds-barred political fighter whose practice has consistently been to demonize the American equivalents of the hated kulaks (farmers) and petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) persecuted in the Soviet Union. Obama’s enemies include those “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as well as the presumably benighted bigots who fail to realize that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” With his anti-American, neo-Marxist outlook shaped by mentors and heroes such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright, Obama is naturally inclined to be suspicious of freedom and to feel sympathy for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Reflex affinities such as Obama’s have a long, bloody history, and anyone wishing to understand the threat posed by the Obama administration to the fabric of America is well advised to place its policies and rhetoric in a comprehensive historical perspective. How is it that an educated person can be attracted to totalitarian ideologies and predisposed to reject the freedoms of the western world? This was, arguably, the central question of the twentieth century, and it has assumed a renewed urgency since 9/11, a time when leftists have applauded terror attacks on the United States and claimed that America’s enemies are in fact righteous victims. What is one to make of their seemingly sophisticated arguments justifying atrocity? Can such people really believe, to cite only a few examples, that the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by a longing for social justice? That the Palestinian leadership is committed to peace with Israel? That people are better off in Cuba, with the highest per capita imprisonment rate in the world, than in the United States?

Jamie Glazov responds to such questions in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror (2009), a brilliant investigation that not only extensively documents leftists’ support for brutal regimes, but also diagnoses their worldview as a psycho-social syndrome of pathological dimensions. Leftist hatred, Glazov demonstrates, has less to do with specific political programs or economic systems than with a deep-rooted disenchantment with democratic freedoms and a corresponding “negative identification” with violence.

The objective evidence for leftists’ love of tyrants is substantial, and Glazov presents it convincingly with a blend of facts, anecdotes, and analysis. We learn, for example, about the massive effort on the part of western Communists to repress, distort, and recast the horrors of Stalinist Russia, including the purges that killed millions and the forced famine in the Ukraine that brought the peasantry to its knees. New York Times reporter Walter Duranty turned the reality of Ukrainian starvation into a cheerful tale of abundance, lying so aggressively in favor of Stalin’s policies that when the Manchester Guardian‘s Malcolm Muggeridge tried to report the truth-that peasant were dying en masse-he was mocked and derided, ultimately losing his job.

When leftists turned their attention to other bloody Communist regimes in Cuba, North Vietnam, China, and Nicaragua, many high-profile members of the western intelligentsia were eager to travel there to report on the miraculous gains that had supposedly been achieved. Susan Sontag wrote of Castro’s Cuba with fanatical admiration, denying the dictator’s atrocities and downplaying limitations on freedom, even going so far as to claim that “No Cuban writer has been or is in jail,” and that “the great majority of Cubans feel vastly freer today than they ever did before the revolution.” Making his pilgrimage to Hanoi in 1970, Noam Chomsky accepted as gospel all the nonsense his North Vietnamese hosts told him about the regime, as did Gunter Grass after a tour of a model Nicaraguan prison, which led him to enthuse that there was no room in the new regime for revenge-this in a country that had executed 8,000 political enemies and jailed 20,000 in the first three years of the revolution. (Hollywood’s Oliver Stone, with his glorification of Stalin and denunciation of the U.S. as “an Orwellian state,” is a current exemplar of this suicidal distemper.)

After the collapse of Communism, it has been déjà vu all over again with radical Islam. Immediately following the terrorist assault of 9/11, a jubilant chorus of university professors and progressives across North America refused to express horror for the attacks; instead, they blamed America, with Ward Churchill calling those who had died “little Eichmanns” and Nation columnist Katha Pollitt lecturing patriots who wanted to fly an American flag that it stood for “jingoism and vengeance and war.” Hundreds of so-called anti-war demonstrations were organized almost immediately to express solidarity with the Taliban regime that had harbored the attackers and to paint the United States as a warmonger. Since then, droves of leftist lawyers have worked to obtain release for the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay and to strike down legislation intended to help the United States guard itself against future attacks. Even when Islamists testify in court that their terror quests are inspired by Koranic injunctions to kill infidels, leftists insist that they are (justly) resisting American oppression. Western feminists routinely defend Islamic misogyny-wife beating, honor killing, genital mutilation, the burqa-and will not admit that women live better lives in the western democracies. And leftist gays march in anti-Israel rallies, joining with Muslim queer-bashers to denounce the only country in the Middle East where homosexuals can live securely.

How to understand such blindness, such moral lunacy, such self-destructive fantasy? The heart of United in Hate is its analysis of the psychological mechanisms that drive the left’s embrace of terror and repression. This is the most fascinating aspect of the book, balancing its riveting survey of progressive misalliance. Glazov argues that underlying the progressive’s disdain for his own culture and his support for its enemies is a deep-rooted alienation from modern democratic life. Feeling that his society has somehow betrayed him by failing to supply him with meaning and purpose, the “believer,” as Glazov aptly dubs him, turns away from it with fury, magnifying its failings and projecting his longing for fulfillment onto a utopian order. Because he rejects the perilous satisfactions and anxieties of individual freedom, he “craves a fairy-tale world where no individuality exists, and where human estrangement is thus impossible.”

With his swollen sense of grievance, the believer identifies with all others supposedly wronged by his society and imagines those who attack his country to be attacking the same injustices that anger him. But his outrage on behalf of his country’s ostensible victims is really a displaced form of his own disillusionment and hunger for collective belonging. Guilt is often a powerful motivator also, for the believer is frequently a member of a privileged class and therefore feels shame “that he is not a genuine victim.” By identifying with the oppressed, he feels “a sense of atonement” for his high caste. As he agonizes over those his own society has putatively harmed, he minimizes or outright denies the suffering of those who are really victimized by the regimes he adulates; their pain and deaths do not count for him, for they stand in the way of the realization of utopia. His greatest longing is to subsume his identity into the totalitarian entity, to experience power and purpose through it. This deep-seated craving explains the two most disturbing facets of the believer’s behavior: his willingness to die for the cause-think of those leftists who wanted to serve as human shields for Saddam Hussein-and the fact that his greatest support for a totalitarian regime tends to occur when its (thrilling) violence is at its height.

Glazov’s emphasis on the pathological element of the believer’s mindset is effectively supported by his book’s roll call of blind allegiances and feverish denials. There is no other way to explain how people so fully formed by western culture and so uniquely equipped to appreciate all that it offers — elite intellectuals and rebel thinkers such as Susan Sontag and Michel Foucault — could actively seek its destruction. Their fanatical commitment is rightly approached as a mental disorder with a specific etiology and symptoms.

The question raised by the book is a disturbing and salutary one: how is one to counter such an illness, colluded in so widely by the intelligentsia and possessing a fascination for so many? Springing from needs and desires that seem to develop with particular vehemence in societies that are most free, the believer’s disorder is by its nature irrational, seemingly immune to proofs and argument. It reminds us of the vulnerability of democracy and the necessity for conservatives to counter leftist delusions with inspirational ideas, images, and stories of freedom. Despite our best efforts, it may take nothing less than a national catastrophe to awaken the general populace to the utopian peril. In the meanwhile, we have no choice but to pursue the truth as winsomely and tirelessly as we can, to confront leftist ideologues with the results of their utopian blueprints, and to write and read powerful books like United in Hate.

Editor’s note: See Jamie Glazov discuss United in Hate with interviewer Josh Brewster in the two part series below:

Part I:

Part II:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Alas, a good rendition of the red/green alliance, and the many reasons why they morph. Bear in mind, their complete, implacable hatred for America and Israel – and the west in general – is their impetus to march in lock step – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/14/the-redgreen-

    Obama's entire apparatus (inside and outside Washington) is emblematic of the above. It is no accident, everything they touch turns into an American disaster on the domestic and foreign fronts. This is their plan.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • Asher

    Very Good information…Only through unity and hatred do the forces of evil destroy that which is good or free.

  • Chanameel

    " In Israel, in order to be a realist, you must believe in miracles." David Ben -Gurion, 1886-1973

  • cxt

    The Left flirts with such destructive ideas, in part, and IMO, because the USA has been so successful. Freed for generations now of the struggle for making a living and worry over serious problems they have the time and leasure (sp) to think "deep thoughts."
    They don't have any clue about what hard work is needed to gain and maintain the civilization they now enjoy. So they have no appreaction (sp) for what they are fiddling with.

    Adding to the problem is that again, since the the 1960's we have not been teaching students that the USA is a cohesive whole but rather a mix of special interests–so many people don't really feel they belong–they feel no sense of kinship with their felow citizens (again working cultures require hard work)
    Take the President–as the article points out his worldview seems rather different than that of many people–but its right at home in many universities.

    • bluffcreek1967

      Very good points!

  • Arlie

    Thank you David and Jamie for fighting on the battle field of the 1st Amendment for truth and freedom. This is the most difficult arena; the unseen mental, emotional and spiritual where the demons work their delusions. The left distracts, and points to an illusion as a fact all the while we are standing in the real miracle and wonders of creation and nothing more is necessary we all ready have it ALL. This is what the devil did to Eve. She was standing in the midst of perfection….and the devil distracted and pointed to an illusion of something "more" when really it would be the destruction of the visible already realized perfection. The Communists cannot improve the Creator's perfection so they destroy and call their destruction creating perfection. How do they do this? With the unseen forces of fear, doubt and unbelief.

  • antisharia

    On the surface you wouldn't think that Islamists and leftists could ever work together. The former is a bunch of crazed theocrats who want to establish a medieval state based on sharia law, the latter are a bunch of moral relativists who pine for the days of the USSR. But the overriding theme is they share a detestation of individualism and liberty. Islamists want to collectivize the world based on religion, with themselves at the top. The left wants to collectivize the world based on race and class, with white people and the middle class on the bottom. I doubt people will ever wake up to how much danger they are in.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Islamists want to collectivize the world based on religion, with themselves at the top. The left wants to collectivize the world based on race and class, with white people and the middle class on the bottom. I doubt people will ever wake up to how much danger they are in."

      Leftist ideology is racist, they just consider their racial theories correct and use Doublespeak to allow them to attack true and alleged racism to appear to be in the moral high ground.

      Leftists consider Muslims to be at least 600 years behind in evolutionary terms. They won't say this out loud. What this means though is that the left believes they can easily use the lower species to get rid of their chief enemy: Jews and Christians, and anyone who joins them to oppose leftism.

      Why? Because leftists see themselves as in direct competition, and just slightly superior to Jews and Christians in the West. They see this is survival of the fittest, with the post-God species defeating their parent species for survival. Muslims should be easy enough to defeat when the man task is done.

      This is not my theory. These are ideas that can be gleaned from statements of theorists and philosophies on the left (or who contributed to inspiring the left).

  • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

    From the time I was at Pacifica through graduate school and onward, I was aware that communist-type radicals were telling the American story wickedly. Here is an informative blog I haven't posted before that treats the vogue for "peace studies" and "conflict resolution" to correct the abominable American superpower that emerged after 1989. In so doing they drew upon Woodrow Wilson's internationalism and the organic society. See http://clarespark.com/2009/10/09/conflict-resolut…. "Conflict Resolution and Ralph Bunche's Nobel Peace Prize."

  • κατεργάζομαι

    The Obama administration has shown it is far more comfortable negotiating across the table from the Islamists than it is with Israel.

    "The ENEMY of GOD is MY Friend!" ~ Barack Hussein

    • JacksonPearson

      When your one of them like Baracky is, than there's not much left to discuss, Allahu Akbar!

      • κατεργάζομαι

        Replying to JacksonPearson

        Q: Wanna hear a joke?

        A: Muslim Women's Rights.

        • JacksonPearson

          LOL, you mean forced to live forever in a tent.

  • Jake Tobias

    Wow. When I was young and alienated, I just did the normal things. I ate too much, watched too much TV, and drank too much, while stalling on marriage as long as possible. And when I didn't want to buy new pant sizes, again, lost some weight instead. It never occurred to me to hate my country, and cheer-lead dictatorships. Or even vote. My first vote was for that original idiot George Bush Sr., on his re-elect. After going back on his word about taxes. Know why? Because he was running against a certain scum-bag hillbilly, who was promising to raise taxes higher than that idiot Bush did, that's why. A hillbilly scum-bag who was impeached, by the way. By definition, a president who has been impeached, is a scum-bag. And now young people search for meaning by voting tax raises on their parents. I am forced to conclude they are dumber than both Bush's put together.