I
didn’t realize how many Americans actually hate their own country until
I talked about Fidel Castro at Harvard Law School. I had no idea how
many Americans despise democracy and have no problem with tyranny – so
long as they’re in charge – until I talked about Castro in Manhattan.
And I had no clue how many Americans believed that sins committed in
the name of socialism weren’t sins at all until I talked about Castro
in Ithaca, New York.
Indeed, these early conversations about Castro – and his mass murdering
friend, Che Guevara – helped teach my younger self that there was
indeed a difference between “liberals” and the radical Left. Liberals
are people a lot like me. We broadly share many of the same goals,
including a shared interest in greater American prosperity and power.
We love this country. During the Cold War, we shared opposition to the
Soviet Union. Our policy disagreements are important, but we still
share a common bond.
There
was no political bond with the radicals I met in law school. They liked
Castro because he was a communist. They loved him for his opposition to
American power. They were completely indifferent to the suffering he
inflicted on dissidents. These people, after all, were likely American
spies and dupes, to be treated with all the contempt they deserved.
Radicals
exist in every political movement. What troubled me about the people I
talked to in Cambridge and New York wasn’t their existence but rather
their power. Ivy League professors can dominate their disciplines.
Young Harvard radicals often move on to jobs at the pinnacles of
American culture and politics. It’s hard to call someone fringe – or to
dismiss their views as inconsequential – when they occupy the most
coveted positions in the American academy. Indeed, their views were
often more welcome than those of orthodox Christians. People like me
were narrow-minded and bigoted. My socialist classmates, by contrast,
were exactly the “critical thinkers” many of my professors liked to
engage.
[CONT]
