The chill winds of
the Cold War are blowing again. Russia is again bragging about missile
superiority. A Russian leader with a dubious, bloodied background is exhibiting
superpower ambitions and returning Russia, if not to communism, then at least
to authoritarianism. Russian elections are once again rigged.
All that is missing to make the nostalgia complete is shoe-banging at the UN.
than ever, we must turn to history for guidance. Unaltered, history
can tell us which group and which methods helped America win Cold War I.
Altered, history can send the country over a cliff.
Which brings us to Professor John Patrick Diggins of CUNY and his history lesson.
Diggins considers himself a moderate. At CUNY where he teaches, he
is considered a conservative (so too is Arthur Schlesinger Jr.). In
reality, both are standard-bearers for the Democratic Party. Diggins'
latest argument in the December 2003 issue of the left-wing journal The American Prospect, is merely election ammunition for the Kerry campaign disguised as a history lesson.
-Ism that Failed," Diggins argues that neoconservatives are wrong in asserting
they won the Cold War. "As the neocons lead us deeper into the holy
war, it's time for a history lesson," he writes.
In his piece, Diggins quotes voluminously from the center-to-left Commentary as if it were National Review.
He blames its "persistent assumptions about communism" as obscuring the Islamic
threat, thus paving the way for 9-11. But Commentary has always
had a wide spectrum of opinion among its writers, from self-described New
Democrat Sam Tannehaus to then-Troskyite Christopher Hitchens (who incidentally,
has always had his eye on the Islamic ball).
wisely sticks to Norman Podhoretz as the symbolic head of this "disastrous"
school of thought. Podhoretz dismissed the "Islamic revolution" as
a "sideshow concealing the movement of the Soviet Union in the Mideast."
But Podhoretz is hardly a politic seer let alone a conservative, neo or otherwise.
For instance, Podhoretz supported Bill Clinton, who was hardly a conservative
or a fighter against terrorism.
is in the area of the Cold War, his "history lesson," that Diggins commits
his biggest blunders. As proof of the "compromising disposition of
conservatism," he cites the "pecuniary politics" of Henry Kissinger that
proved willing to "accommodate itself to communism." But Kissinger
was no Ronald Reagan, whose call for the masses to overthrow their communist
rulers the former feared would create instability--a component Kissinger
feared more than totalitarianism.
and Nixon both criticized Reagan's assertions that the Soviet Union was about
to collapse as wishful thinking (so too did Diggins' mentor, Arthur Schlesinger
Jr., who claimed he witnessed firsthand a bustling Soviet economy).
To support his thesis that "world communism had nothing to fear from American
conservatism," Diggins lists Dwight Eisenhower as a conservative who allowed
communism in Korea and did nothing about the Hungarian revolt in 1956.
But again Diggins is wrong in his labeling.
like William F. Buckley saw Eisenhower as too moderate and sought to create
a conservative third-party alternative in the presidential election of 1956.
George Bush the first is also cited by Diggins to show the timidity of conservatism
in confronting the butchers of Tianamen Square.
were also deeply dissatisfied with Bush, who was a protege of the China-appeasing
Kissinger and Nixon. Conservatives such as Buckley and Robert Novak
criticized the first Bush administration for rewarding Chinese behavior with
most favored trade nation status. What Diggins is characterizing as conservative are tendencies conservatives shun.
he writes of the "East European forces of freedom that took to the streets
to overthrow communism"-- in particular the Polish Solidarity movement --
Diggins conveniently forgets that it was Ronald Reagan who provided vital
financial aid to the movement in the 1980s (an action praised by Carl Bernstein,
who is hardly a Republican) and that Lech Walesa cites Reagan as the man
who won the Cold War. Indeed, if it is American liberals who won
the Cold War, as Diggins claims, why are there no monuments or streets named
after Franklin Roosevelt in Russia today as there are for Reagan? Those
on the front lines of the Cold War had a different view of which Americans
aided them than Diggins.
has a well-documented habit of countering facts with sweeping rhetoric.
In previous works, Diggins presented no arguments to bolster his assertions
that Thomas Jefferson didn't really believe in individual rights (when presented
with evidence in the Jefferson-authored Declaration of Independence, Diggins
dismissed it as "just rhetorical finery") or that Bill Clinton was not part
of the 60s generation (Clinton was from Arkansas, Diggins argued, and Arkansans
were not hippies, but the people who beat Jack Nicholson to death in Easy Rider).
The same process is at work in his rewriting of the Cold War. For Diggins,
conservatives are one indistinguishable mass; they number among their ranks
such pragmatists and appeasers as Dwight Eisenhower and Henry Kissinger and
that makes it easier to dismiss them with so much rhetorical finery.
Diggins' history lesson has present concerns. His rewriting of the
Cold War is merely the latest attempt by liberals to claim victory for their
side and thus take away the moral authority of the Bush administration to
wage war against terrorism.
Ron Capshaw has written for Partisan Review and Front Page Magazine. He is currently working on a biography of Alger Hiss.
Email Ron Capshaw
this Article to a Friend