Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes!Neo-neocon
takes a look at
Radical Son by David Horowitz and identifies an earlier turning point than is generally attributed.
As I have commented in the past, I was a radical leftist during my high school and college years. But one of the reasons I am not any longer, is because I have a pretty good memory for the arguments of my youth, and who turned out to be right or wrong.
For instance, after the
famous John Kerry speech in 1971 to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, there was this exchange:
Mr. Kerry: Well, I think if we were to replace the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime and offer these men sanctuary somewhere, which I think this Government has an obligation to do since we created that government and supported it all along. I think there would not be any problems. The number two man at the Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could survive if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think clearly we do have to face his question. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country-
Senator Aiken: I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam after the French lost at Dienbienphu. Of course, Senator Aiken was quite a bit
closer to the mark than John Kerry was.
If you do this, keep track of arguments over time and figure out who was wrong and who was right, more often than not you'll see that the liberal was wrong and the conservative was right.
