home > archive > 2004 > this article
Leftism and missing history
By Bruce Walker
Leftism is one grand, evolving lie. Leftist use all the tricks which Aristotle warned against - attacking premises by attacking the proponent; flattering particular groups; relying upon official "truth" as proof; and drawing false conclusions - and by these tricks, Leftists can support any particular branch of the Leftist lie for awhile. Leftist lies, masked as truth, are not immune to the crucible of human experience, but Leftist "history" is routinely filled with oceans of trivia and no inconvenient facts.
Consider "Cuba." Most "histories" of Cuba go something like this: a wicked man named Batista ruled over Cuba as a Yankee stooge; a brave leader named Castro drove Batista out of Cuba; Castro brought in social programs, redistributed wealth, and ended tyranny.
It is very easy to expose these lies: ordinary citizens of paradise do not risk their lives to leave it; the maxim "one cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs" is lame, but particularly when forty after the omelet making began, Castro is still breaking eggs; and so on.
But more important is what is never said. Fidel Castro was not a peasant, but a scion of an affluent lawyer. He did not grow up as a communist or a devotee or Marxism, but rather as a committed supporter of Fascism and an ardent admirer of Nazism.
The books he lugged around as an impressible young man were not editions of Das Kapital or The Communist Manifesto, but rather copies of Mein Kampf. His heroes, like the heroes of Evita Peron, were not Stalin and Lenin, but Hitler and Mussolini. No one denies these facts. They are just too inconvenient to every mention.
What of Batista? He was a radical socialist who legalized the communist party in Cuba. Batista appointed members of the Communist Party to his cabinet. It was Batista who began the much heralded social welfare programs and economic leveling in Cuba. During most of Castro's guerilla war against Castro, the Communist Party of Cuba supported Batista, not Castro.
Batista also did something Castro did not. Batista won free elections. He also lost free elections, and gave up power after losing, but he was genuinely popular among the poor of Cuba. Did this make Batista a good man or good leader? No, of course not! But the fact that Batista was less malign than Castro in virtually every way is a critical fact of history simply ignored.
If you doubt this, try to find a book on the history of Cuba. Better yet, try to find a biography of Batista. The Leftist-approved "History of Cuba" simply pretends that the decades of electoral victory, electoral loss, and return to power of Batista nothing happened. There is no history.
Consider the civil rights movement. The Republican Party was founded expressly because no other political party would stand up against slavery. Leftists eagerly note that Abraham Lincoln did not call for the abolition of slavery and said that preserving the Union was more important than ending slavery. This, Leftists would have you believe, represented mainstream Republican thought. It did not.
The first Republican presidential nominee was John Fremont, the famous explorer and Governor of California. Unlike Lincoln, but like every other major Republican, Fremont openly hated slavery. Lincoln was nominated in 1860 in spite of the reservations of many Republicans that he was soft on slavery; he was nominated because he could win.
The leadership of the Republican Party in Congress more passionately opposed slavery and the inequality of black Americans than Lincoln. How strong did Republicans feel about the natural rights of black people? Thaddeus Stevens, routinely mocked as a "radical Republican" under Lincoln and Johnson, was buried - at his specific request - in a segregated black cemetery.
The Left - in America a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat National Committee - does not wish people to know the real Fremont or Stevens. They also simply pretend that "nothing happened" between 1864 and 1964 in the crusade to grant equality to black people.
What did happen? Republicans passed three constitutional amendments - the most devoted to a single issue in American history - to protect the rights of black people, and passed the very federal civil rights law used most often in civil rights cases today.
Republicans elected blacks to Congress as congressmen and senators. Blacks voted as delegates to every Republican conventions and these conventions consistently passed resolutions condemning the Ku Klux Klan, lynching and denying black people the right to vote. That is the tip of a very big iceberg.
Try to find, in the history of the civil rights movement in America, the positions of the two political parties between 1864 and 1964. Amazingly, a whole century of major differences between Republicans and Democrats simply has vanished from textbooks and PBS documentaries.
This list of abolished history is long. What was the economic policy of the Nazis? Good luck trying to find out much about that. What horrors have federal courts committed against the American Republic in the first century of this Republic? None, according to Leftists. Missing history, much more than outright lies, hides the enormous intellectual and moral crime of Leftism.
Bruce Walker is a senior writer with Enter Stage Right. He is also a frequent
contributor to The Pragmatist and The Common Conservative.
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
© 1996-2013, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.