Higher Un-Learning and the Attack on Black Scholarship: The Political and Racialist Demagoguery of David Horowitz

To say that popular writer David Horowitz is a staunch conservative is not very useful or important to the following discussion about this strange and confused Jewish man. Indeed, whatever happened to Horowitz’s integrity and commitment (as a young man) to the cause of liberal ideas and principles, such as racial equality, equal rights for all; and specifically, justice for the poor and the downtrodden? Did Horowitz sell his soul to the devil for selfish reasons (and recognition), and/or for money? Horowitz, no doubt, enjoys his role immensely as an academic provocateur or troublemaker, and champion of the new conservative right. We are dumbfounded by Horowitz’s neo-ignorance. But he is certainly making more money as a rabid conservative than when he was an avowed left-wing radical of the sixties. So Horowitz has essentially sold-out the traditional liberal cause with his hackneyed criticism of black, public intellectuals and black liberal scholarship. But he should know that all Americans do not share his conservative points of view and mistaken philosophy on many political issues.


8
Published by SCHOLINK INC. constantly on the look-out to attack (in writing) anyone who doesn't agree with him. More to the point, Horowitz is incredibly cruel when he can't understand what black authors have written. So is Horowitz a threat to our political discourse? Or is he just plain ignorant of his own intellectual limitations? Horowitz wants everyone, if possible, to know how smart he is. But he is not that great or brilliant.
Indeed, much of what he writes, as mentioned, is hack work, with no real -authenticity.‖ This is to say, the objectivity of his works are almost irrelevant to black politicians, academics and other black intellectuals.
Furthermore, Horowitz often pounces (verbally) on progressive black scholars with vim and gusto, probably thinking that he will score some points with right-wing conservatives. But his bitter writings about black people, in general, are frustrating and annoying more than anything else. Right-wing conservatives are comforted by what they read by Horowitz, especially his outright bigotry and attacks against black academics who question the old, limiting Eurocentric way of thinking about higher education, religion, social issues, politics, economics, and philosophy. But we must ask: What is so threatening about the views of black scholars? And why should we be saddled with Horowitz's racialist ideas and bad intentions? David Horowitz makes no bones about his racial prejudices and personal biases. He certainly means to disparage any black scholar that disagrees with what he writes, as if only conservative black scholarship is all that matters; or that only black conservatives can write relevant books with ideas of lasting value. Indeed, Horowitz writes incessantly about public intellectuals and the worthlessness of liberal, black scholarship. Perhaps he thinks that there is no need for any discussion about radical or transgressive black scholarship. But Horowitz's perspective about such matters are limited, as he continues to pooh-pooh, and berate black scholars every chance he gets. This is to say that he critiques black scholars at every opportunity. The sad reality is that Horowitz has a very cursory level of knowledge about black scholarship.

The Race-Baiting Demagoguery
Equally important, Horowitz is guilty of believing anything negative about black liberals, as his work is given to racial indignation and white people's victimhood. Moreover, he believes that conservatives have the moral and political high ground on almost every social issue-not liberal black intellectuals and others of good will. For example , Horowitz writes (1999a): -There is a whole generation of racially Kelley, and Patricia Williams, to name a few-whose cultural elevation is not only unrelated to any serious intellectual achievement, but has eliminated the possibility of one.‖ Clearly, Horowitz has been pushing back against a universal world view with his incorrect assumptions. What exactly is he trying to insinuate? No doubt, Horowitz thinks that he is smarter than most African Americans, and will never accept that he is not a genius. Indeed, he tries adroitly to make his readers believe that black intellectuals have it all wrong when it comes to discussing our modern-day social and political woes. to advance her cause, not in the coffee-house venues of political vanguards, but in the temples of high culture once reserved for the intellectual aristocracy (Horowitz, 1999b).
Horowitz admits that he is resentful of bell hooks, a black woman, for her -success and the accompanying accolades conferred on so young (and pedestrian) a mind… (Horowitz, 1999b (Horowitz, 1991b). For example, the dominant group in America will always be -irretrievably hostile‖ to some people of color, as they are judged because of who they are. Indeed, how can anyone think otherwise, given the ongoing racism and discrimination still taking place in the in the same way that he views black liberal scholarsthat is, his works should be open for critique and checked for accuracy too.

The Art of Political and Racial Warfare
There is no better way of familiarizing ourselves with the hyperbolic works of David  Horowitz also believes that, -Conservatives are, in fact, reformers demanding a universalist standard of one right, one law, one nation for all (Horowitz, 1998),‖ without providing any reliable information to back up this claim. Therefore, nothing could be further from the truth, as Horowitz's statement is a myth. To say the least, black liberal intellectuals find it hard to believe such a confounded, fanatical idea, because conservatives (today) have never really been about protecting the rights of all Americans in our country. The reality has been that conservatives only look out for themselves. Yet, Horowitz (2013) writes: The conservative vision does not exclude compromise; nor should it condemn every attempt, however moderate, to square the circle of political liberty and social welfare. A conservative view does not require that all aspects of the welfare state be rejected in favor of free-market principles. After all, conservatives are (or should be) the first to recognize the intractable nature of the human condition. The perfectly free society is as untenable as the perfectly just society, and for the same reason. We would have to rip out our all-too-human hearts in order to achieve it.
What exactly is he talking about? Horowitz should know that the preamble statements to the U.S.
Constitution tells us that our republic must always try to form a more perfect union, where we should try to change the hearts and minds of all Americans, and take care of people, for the good of our nation.
Nevertheless, Horowitz has helped shape the new conservative ideology, and wants us to believe that, -Conservatism… is not an ideology in the sense that liberalism is or the various forms of radicalism are.‖ He goes on: -Conservatism is not an -identity politics‖ whose primary concern is to situate its adherents in the camp of moral humanity and thus to confer on them the stamp of History's approval  (Horowitz, 2013).‖ With such an inexplicable and confusing statement, Horowitz wants to keep liberal scholars off-balance; and to have feelings of dread and foreboding. Therefore, black people need a counterpoint when it comes to their ideological beliefs; and they should know that Horowitz's voice as a pundit will be drown out one day by the forces of good, and what is right. A caveat: African Americans must also fight back against Horowitz's attacks on black, liberal scholarship, which he believes is undermining our higher education and society. And this warped idea of blacks' taking over the various universities is all in Horowitz's mind, and sad imagination. It is also noteworthy that he (Horowitz) believes that liberals and: Progressives are necessarily forced to choose between the future they desire and the reality they inhabit. The primary moral obligation of a revolutionary is to destroy the existing social and political framework in order to prepare the revolutionary future; and radicals perceive America as the principal defender of the capitalism they hate all over the world. Consequently, a radical politics generally leads to uncertain loyalties to country and community (Horowitz, 2013 about what is really going on-that is, with some African Americans. About black men, for example, hooks explains in exquisite detail the following: -Today many smart black men who have been well-educated know that they are not supposed to be critical thinkers and they do not try to be.‖ Hooks (2004) goes on, -A black man, even an educated one, who thinks critically is still regarded suspiciously in mainstream culture. Often times educated black males in well-paying jobs learn to assume a ‗go along to get along' pose so as not to appear threatening to white co-workers.‖ As we can perhaps ascertain from the aforementioned explanation of how educated black men stand in our society, bell hooks writes from the heart and offers unique understandings for the black community. champion of the -Have-Nots‖ in this country, because he must certainly know that there will always be an unbridgeable gap between the rich and poorand between blacks and whitesthat is, when it comes to personal wealth.

Demagoguery and the Attack on Cornel West
Another source of frustration for David Horowitz is professor Cornel West, who rankles him to no end.
So disgusted is Horowitz by Cornel West that he can't think straight about this intelligent, proud black man. So he resorts to name-calling. Among other things, Horowitz has accused Cornel West of being a demagogue, and -playing the race card.‖ He has also called West an idiot, a buffoon, and -the kingfish himself (Horowitz, 2004).‖ Also, according to Horowitz, Cornel West is one of the black professors behind the Black Reparations Movement, which he (Horowitz) considers a scam, and an -attempt to turn black America against this country (Horowitz, 2004 Perhaps Cornel West and other black scholars and intellectuals should shrug off Horowitz's prolific criticisms. What he (Horowitz) should know is that many black liberals are not particularly impressed by Horowitz's rants and ravings, which he calls -critical thought.‖ In fact, his style of writing is troublesome, confusing and disjointed at best. Take for example this odd passage from his book

Radical Son:
It had come to seem inevitable to me that my political testament would have no impact on the [liberal] community I had left behind. It was-after all was said and done-a community of faith, hermetically sealed from knowledge that might wake it from its dream. (Horowitz, 1997) What is Horowitz talking about? Or what exactly does he mean by this confusing insipid statement?
Perhaps he should get his own academic act, and scholarship together, rather than criticizing black scholars. To say the least, Horowitz is extremely jealous of Cornel West's superlative intelligence and extraordinary achievements, as he is much maligned (in some unknown way) by the man. Horowitz also belittles and denounces Cornel West every chance he gets. Nevertheless, Cornel West is an articulate black social critic of the first order, who will be remembered, especially in the black community, as he is leaving a legacy that will be hard to ignore or duplicate in the future, unlike with Horowitz. And West's pragmatic voice is more relevant than ever; and his important philosophical writings are highly quoted. Horowitz protestations aside, there is much for us to glean from West's prophetic works, in the grand scheme of things, as he continues to challenge social conventions. Finally, Cornel West and other black scholars are preparing the intellectual ground for future black scholars and black students everywhere in the United States.

Conclusions
The American people need to know about contemporary black intellectuals and black scholars who can write about the black community with righteousness and true feelings, like Ta Fortunately, black scholars are in a position today -to challenge the onslaught of Horowitz's old-fashion, conservative, racialist ideas.