The failings of David Horowitz

Thanks to Ralph Luker at Cliopatra, I discovered that Swarthmore's own Tim Burke recently joined David Horowitz in a discussion about the latter's DiscoverTheNetwork. The Network "identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left's (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas."

Burke opens the debate by criticizing DiscoverTheNetwork (DtN from here on) for its failure to precisely define what constitutes a "link" between two entities. The best explication of what DtN views as a link is found here. It's a rather broad definition, one whose implementation seems to involve scouring membership lists and coalitions for connections, however minimal, between "respectable" figures to those deemed beyond the pale. In Burke's words, "you could connect Lynne Stewart to Mayor Bloomberg or Noam Chomsky to Milton Friedman using the idea of linkage operating within the project." This is a legitimate critique. Figuring out the precise connections between groups and individuals and their significance is hard work. You need to justify how you're going to look for linkages and stick to those methods.

Horowitz responds by mischaracterizing Burke's take on DtN. "In Professor Burke’s view – respectfully rephrased -- DiscoverTheNetwork identifies networks but doesn’t explain why anyone who shares the assumptions and prejudices of the left should take them seriously." What? That's more than rephrasing... that's completely changing what Burke had to say. The rest of the discussion (largely dominated by Horowitz) proceeds along similar lines - Burke raises an insightful critique, Horowitz dismisses it out of hand and goes on to talk about how ignorant Burke is. It's all rather frustrating.

But this sort of thing is par for the course with David Horowitz. He claims he's interested in intellectual debate, but when faced with challenges to his arguments, he resorts to insults, non-sequiturs, and mischaracterizations. And that's on a good day.

Michael Bérubé also recently participated in a discussion with Horowitz. Except, when it came time to post the transcript on FrontPageMag, Bérubé's contributions were truncated. Yes, folks, this is the sort of thing Horowitz and his colleagues resort to. Throw out half your opponent's arguments then gloat over winning the debate. Does this sound like someone interested in genuine discussion?

Then there was the time that Horowitz spoke at Swarthmore and claimed that Howard Zinn was required reading in Swat's history department. No. This is just plain false. I'd know, being a history major at Swat and all. Zinn didn't appear on the syllabi of any of the classes I took. So in addition to all those other faults, David Horowitz just makes shit up.

So I've decided he's just not worth my time anymore. Yes, I know, we're supposed to consider the validity of a given argument on its own merits. But Horowitz has clearly demonstrated that his arguments are a waste of time. I'm going to do my best to ignore him entirely from here on out. For your own sake, you should, too.