The Washington Post reports that on June 19th, the 50th anniversary of the execution of the Rosenbergs will be commemorated in the following manner:
On the 50th anniversary of the execution Thursday, Seeger, Susan Sarandon, Harry Belafonte and other show business activists will appear at a benefit for the Rosenberg Fund for Children, which assists children of people imprisoned, attacked or fired for taking a public stand.It is important to note, however, that the Rosenbergs were not imprisoned for 'taking a public stand,' they were imprisoned and executed for providing nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union...
The Rosenbergs were arrested in 1950, accused of relaying to the Soviet Union secrets of the atomic bomb. They allegedly recruited Mrs. Rosenberg's brother, David Greenglass, who worked at the site of the first atom bomb test in New Mexico. Greenglass became a star witness against the Rosenbergs, testifying that he saw his sister transcribing his spy notes on a typewriter.Whether Greenglass lied about the typewriter or not is irrelevant. Court TV's CrimeLibrary.com sums it up nicely:The judge who passed sentence, Irving Kaufman, told the Rosenbergs their actions had led to the Korean War and all its casualties, and added: "Millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason." ...
A year and a half ago, Greenglass announced that he lied about the typewriter - and some other matters - to save himself and his wife.
It now seems clear that Julius Rosenberg was engaged in espionage. The CIA, in 1995, released "the Venona Cables," decoded Soviet documents that demonstrate Rosenberg's espionage activities. The Khrushchev memoirs mention Rosenberg's spying for Russia. Released KGB files provide further evidence. Finally, Rosenberg's Soviet contact, Alexander Feklisov, one of Klaus Fuchs' Soviet contacts, admitted that he had met with Julius Rosenberg as early as 1943, when, as with all American Communists recruited for espionage, Julius left the Party.There are apologists out there who argue that if the Rosenbergs weren't innocent, then the information they gave to the Soviet Union wasn't important enough to merit execution. How much damage is caused by the intelligence provided to foreign countries by traitors should not be the yardstick we use to determine punishment for espionage. Only the recipient of stolen intelligence is going to really know how valuable it is. Likewise, spies don't sell information only if they know that their clients are already getting it elsewhere. The intelligence provided by the Rosenbergs may not have been key to the Soviet Union developing the bomb, but that was the Rosenberg's intent. The Rosenbergs set out to betray their country, succeeded, were caught, and were rightfully punished.
The Left hates it when the Right is right.
They still defend the Rosenbergs.
Damn Commie spies.
"The Left hates it when the Right is right."...
...as opposed to the Right, which is forthright and magnanimous when proved wrong...not...
A.L.
Very, very few people are magnanimous when proved wrong. That requires people whose conditioning to what Jacob Bronowski called "The Habit of Truth" and its corresponding social values is stronger than their ego or other human instincts. Such individuals are to be cherished, regardless of their specific political positions.
Having said that, social movements do have identifiable pathologies and blind spots. That the Rosenbergs could still be defended and lionized after the revelations Celeste describes is so obviously pathological that it becomes dark farce.
As Mona Charen and others have noted in chilling detail, a free pass for Marxist totalitarians has been, and remains, a major blind spot of the Left. Post-modernist leftism (neomarxism) simply extended and legitimzed that framework in other contexts such as Islamists, Third World racists, etc.
So, to put it in more personal terms, the dynamic Blaster describes is indeed part of the "war on bad philosophy" you talk about.
When has the Left been right?
Heh.
Less flippant.
Actually, let us examine this objectively. After being proven wrong, does the Right really cling to old lies?
For example, Republicans opposed US entry into WWII. FDR was right - the US needed to enter into that war. Are there any Republicans today sitting around and moaning about how Hitler really wasn't a threat? Okay, Buchanan, but he isn't a Republican anymore, but he is still a crank.
Maybe Nixon. Are there any on the Right sitting around saying that Nixon really wasn't crooked?
I would also use civil rights for blacks in the US, but that it was Republicans, or the Right, that was most opposed to them is a myth.
The Left just can't let go. The Rosenbergs did give atomic secrets to the Soviets. Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy. There were Communists in the State Department.
And they still argue that these things were untrue even today.
And they use those lies to try to deligitimize actions today - i.e., calling the war on terror McCarthyism.
The right still has its own blind spots, and pockets of the right do continue to cling to some silly notions:
- Nixon actually is a good example. There are still people out there who try to justify his behavior with an 'everyone was doing it, he just got caught' defense. Apologists for Nixon, however, don't sink to the level of disrespect I have for apologists for Stalin.
- As we saw with Trent Lott, there are still folks in the Republican party who can't see why people get so upset over the issue of segregation. This doesn't detract from the fact that it was the democratic party that was so strongly opposed to the civil rights act, but groups on both end of the spectrum have some blind spots regarding their party's record on civil rights.
Again, however, nostalgia for segregation doesn't spike my outrage meter nearly as well as support for murdering dictators, or traitors.
Celeste, you point out a major difference between the Left and Right.
You note on Nixon there are still those who argue the "everybody does it" defense of Nixon.
Sure. But they don't try to say he wasn't crooked. And you surely won't gather 5,000 in a park to proclaim that.
If some prominent person of the right tried to make the case that Nixon wasn't crooked in the Watergate thing, he'd be laughed off of the national stage. Not cheered by adoring throngs.
And look what happened to Lott. He was criticized from the Right - and made to give up his leadership post. Note there has been no similar reaction to say, Senator Byrd and his use of the n-word, for example.
Seriously, the Left does hate it when the Right is right - hates it so much that it will deny the truth way past the point of deniability. The Right doesn't have similar attachments to being wrong.
Re: "Nixon actually is a good example. There are still people out there who try to justify his behavior with an 'everyone was doing it, he just got caught' defense."
How much difference is there between Nixon's dirty tricks and Clinton's? Clinton used DOJ to dig up dirt on political enemies. Clinton used shady/illegal tactics to raise campaign funds (Buddhist monastery, taking Chinese government money). Etc.
Nixon used / attempted to use DOJ and CIA to influence the independent counsel Watergate investigation. Nixon broke into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office to dig up dirt on him. Etc.
Obviously there is lots more; I don't have all the facts available for instant recall. I'm just not sure I get - now or back then - all the indignation about Nixon. He did some stupid/bad stuff, he got caught, he paid a price. He hardly invented the practice.
FRY THE SPY DAYand I'm throwing a party all day.
Hey, Julius and Ethel, have a great freakin' day!
Jeff -
There isn't much difference between Nixon and Clinton, which is why I have little respect for either. That there are folks out there who will defend one's behavior while condemning that of the other's is hypocrisy. It's alive and well in both parties. Its just that, to me, while both parties might have a pretty high tolerance for dishonest, petty criminals, the left has a much more dangerous blind spot for murdering dictators.
Jeff -
Actually, Clinton has less class than Nixon. Nixon never bad mouthed his successors, per tradition since Washington. Funny how our two most recent Dimocrat Presidents (BJ & Carter) have ignored this precedent.
On the Rosenbergs- the equivilant modern example would be if they had given the atomic bomb to Iraq. Actually, it was worse because the USSR was far more powerful and better able to make use of their espionage. It still amazes me that so many people give the Communists such a free pass.
Other blind spots of note: Fidel Castro, Any Chinese Leader, the Mullahs in Iran, Africa (the whole continent), Any Marxist Terrorist (not so much anymore, since the USSR went away), Yasser you-know-who, France (ELF, the Congo, the odd crack down on the Iranian opposition), Wacky Oil Conspiracy Theories (where's the Afghan pipeline, Mr. Vidal, Chomsky, et al? It's been almost two years! And, going back a bit, where's the pipeline through Albania? Inquiring minds want to know), FARC, UN peackeeping missions that don't include the US (ever hear of UNPROFOR?), farm subsidies, free trade (OUR tariffs), and I could go on. For equal time-
Bhopal (corporations can do bad things in the third world), Guatamala, overfishing, past US support for various bad governments (you know who you are), Nixon going to China (we legitimized the Communists), the failure to overthrow Saddam in 1991 (when we had 3 times as many troops over there), and why hasn't anyone gotten fired over 9/11? Kimmel got it over Pearl Harbor, and he had a better case.
As a Right Winger I try my hardest to check myself. I never like thinking that I am right when I am clearly wrong. I go out of my way to admit that I am wrong when proven wrong. I go so far as to let people know that I am open for being proven wrong.
I just went to Eastern Michigan University which is much more than 90% Left Wing. In all honesty, no matter which left wing college student or professor I talk to on any subject, I have yet to find a single left wing individual ever tell me that, "hey, I guess I'm wrong about that. Thanks for letting me realize it."
And yet I can count dozens of cases in which I openly admit to being wrong to a left winger. I don't know whether I am Unique or not. I feel though that it is my Right Wing Conservatism that guides me into analyzing whether I am right or wrong on everything I discuss with people. I wish I could meet a single Left Winger who could admit they were wrong on occasion.
Blimey
I bet you secretly also still believe in slavery and probably don't even like Abraham Lincoln. It's hard to fathom out how people's brain patterns can function like this.
Steve
Still love USA and most of its people as there are also similar tossers here in Britain as well.
When ever a few pundits, right or left, say something foolish, like "the Rosenbergs were innocent" or "Nixon was't that bad", there are always many equally foolish people who use that to claim how the entire left or entire right are wackos who hate this country and can't admit their wrong. Just because some bleeding heart socialist said something idiotic, it doesn't make the "left" wrong. The left aren't the vocal fools, they are about a third of the U.S. and the majority are average, not commie-pinkos and can admit when provrn wrong. I think people tend to treat all leftists as tree-hugging communists to avoid having to take their numerous good points seriously.