The intellectual vacuity of David Horowitz’s approach to Islam

From October 2007, my observations of Horowitz’s talk at Columbia University for Isamo-Fascism Awareness Week.

In another entry posted that month, I sum up the meaning of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week:

Again, both the crazy left, and the somewhat less crazy Horowitz right, believe that Muslims are innocent victims, and must be rescued. The left wants to rescue them from America, Horowitz wants to rescue them from Islamo-fascism. But leftists and Horowitz agree that the principal object of our solicitude is Muslims. Horowitz is not seeking to protect us from Muslims, he’s seeking to protect Muslims from Islamo-fascists. And that is insane.

- end of initial entry -

John L. writes:

Mr. Horowitz’s vague, meandering talk sounds strikingly narcissistic.

In my graduate studies, I have noticed that EVERY single one of the professors at my institute from the Baby Boom generation have a vague, meandering teaching style. They don’t write syllabi, they don’t have any clear plan in individual lessons, and they meander from topic to topic. Regrettably frequently they talk about themselves or people they know.

Meanwhile, all the professors either older or younger talk exclusively about the object of the course, explain the theme and topics of the course at the beginning, have a definite plan for each lesson, and hardly ever talk about themselves.

It’s a very striking pattern.

LA replies:

I have no doubt that the pattern you describe exists. But Horowitz was born in January 1939, several years before the Baby Boom, which started in 1945. What you’re really talking about is not the Baby Boom, but the cohort born during World War II. They were the leaders of the Sixties generation. For example, Dylan, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, were all born between 1940 and around 1943 (Ringo Starr was the oldest of the group, born in July 1940, then John Lennon in October 1940). Even there, Horowitz is slightly older than that cohort, and indeed, he was not part of the Sixties Counterculture—he was serious, he married young and had a family, was not into drugs or even rock music, and so on.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 03, 2008 12:40 PM | Send