Oliver Stone’s
Untold History of the United States
is a ludicrous encapsulation of the Kremlin’s view of the Cold War,
amplified by the Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Hamas
version of the post-Communist decades. Indeed, America is portrayed by
the Stone-Kuznick author-team as such an evil force in the events of the
last 75 years, they evoke overt sympathy for the Germans and the
Japanese during World War II, as well as for Stalin himself, and then
for really any self-declared enemy of the United States, not excluding
Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
I consider the reception of this latest Stone travesty to be a
significant cultural event signifying a final coming out of the closet
of what can only be termed the Communist left. It is the well-known
views of the Communist left that undeniably constitute the Stone-Kuznick
version of the events of the last seventy years, and their portrait of
the United States.
The fact that Henry Wallace, the hero of their
malevolent work, was a Communist and Soviet pawn, is a perfect summary
of the pathetic Stalinism that is the heart and soul of the world-view
of
Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States.
Some years ago I made a case for characterizing the progressive,
liberal left, including the organizations that form the heart of the
Democratic Party — the government unions, the Soros Shadow Party, the
Center for American Progress, and the Netroots activists – as
“neo-Communists.”
I made the argument for calling them neo-Communists on
the basis of the fact that there was no discernible difference between
the view these political actors took of American capitalism –
corporations are evil, capitalism is bad, America is the great
imperialist Satan – and the view taken by the Communists of the Stalin
era.
Of course, time changes everyone somewhat. Even Communists like
Khrushchev, who spearheaded Stalin’s purges, came to find it politically
wise one day to be anti-Stalinists. So with the progressives. They may
decry Communists who have been dead for fifty years but they are busily
burnishing the Communists’ ideas and preserving their legacies and
passing them on in the curricula of our schools and now on cable TV.
In light of these fairly obvious (if widely unspoken) facts,
“neo-Communist” seemed to me an apt term to describe progressives and
their liberal fellow-travelers. It seemed just as apt a term as, say,
“neo-fascist” and more apt a term than “neo-conservative” (since even
Norman Podhoretz says that neo-conservatism is no longer distinguishable
from conservatism – although for Paul Gottfried and others that is
undoubtedly a controversial statement).
What is striking about the Stone-Kuznick myth-making adventure, and
the reason I am making these points once again, is its reception. The
Untold History has been widely embraced by the leftwing academic establishment, by the Huffington Post pundits, by the
Dissent historian, Michael Kazin, by
The Nation and by the progressive culture generally (although not, be it said, the
New York Times).
Even more impressive has been the silence of the liberal lambs. This is
in striking contrast to their reaction to the appearance of Stone’s
equally awful
JFK. When that piece of rot appeared twenty years
ago, there were thunderous and near hysterical denunciations of its
lies from leading Democratic Party figures. No such dissents have
greeted Stone’s Stalinist revival, no outcries over the libels committed
on the memories of Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson,
not to mention America.
I read this as concrete evidence that neo-Communism is alive and well
and is now the heart of the progressive movement and the Democratic
Party, at least its activist center. I would include in this category
the president, his likely new Secretary of State, and his chief
political advisors.
[After writing the above I sent it to a conservative academic
listserv with the following query: I am interested in the list’s
thoughts on this. I would ask one favor, however. Please don’t bring up
the fact that few people are still talking about the “dictatorship of
the proletariat” or “taking over the means of production” in those
words, or identifying themselves as card carrying Communists.
First, the
left has a history of studied and disciplined mendacity in pursuit of
its goals. Second, its goals shift with its accretions of power.
Finally, it has been to school with Saul Alinsky (about whom I have
written quite a bit) and has absorbed his two main lessons: lie about
your agendas; and remember that the end – the destruction of American
capitalism – justifies any means.
[There were no responses to my query. I then sent the list this
observation: When I posted the question of whether the term
"neo-Communist" is not appropriate to describe the current generation of
"progressives" I suspected there would be no takers no matter how
persuasive the case I made for such an appellation. And that suspicion
has been confirmed.
What I conclude from this is that the left -- the
neo-Communist left if you will -- has been so successful in its ongoing
campaign of political intimidation of any critics of its loyalties,
allegiances and endorsement of views that are totalitarian in origin and
result -- few are willing to risk even speculative thoughts on this
matter. I think this is one of the most significant political problems
that confronts anyone who wishes to raise his or her voice against this
march to serfdom.]
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
