REDS

I vividly remember a huge fight I once got into in a Harvard dining room. The student who sat down opposite me was wearing a Mao-style red star beret. I told him I found it offensive to be sitting next to someone who thought that a symbol that had been used to dramatize the murder of millions should be proudly displayed as a fashion symbol. He accused me, natch, of being a McCarthyite. (No, it wasn’t Eric Alterman.) I asked him if he even knew what atrocities Mao had committed. Not as many as Reagan, he replied. These were the 1980s. I got up and left. These people, like the ones finding excuses for Saddam Hussein, are not within the realms of decent discourse. I’m reminded of this moment by James Lileks’ customary ability to put his finger on things. He gets it, if you’ll pardon the expression (but you won’t). Here’s my favorite bit:

Nowadays, if you point out that someone’s a Communist, you might well be accused of – dum dum DUMMMM – McCarthyism. The term has morphed from its original meaning. It no longer means falsely accusing someone of being a Communist. It now includes correctly identifying someone as a Communist, or ascribing a taint to someone because they don’t reject the Communists in their midst. (I’ll admit there’s a significant difference between the two.) But let’s leave this increasingly insupportable series of generalizations, and return to the point. Do reporters suppress the nature of ANSWER / ACTION because they don’t want to embarrass the movement? No. Do they secretly admire the ANSWER / ACTION / WWP positions on China, North Korea, and other dictatorships? Of course not. (Cuba is another story.) Are they inclined to wonder who’s behind the rallies? No. NeoNazis, Klansmen, Separatists, Militias, the Promise Keepers – these words make reporters’ antennae quiver. “Communist” does not.

Yep. Reporters are even worse. Fascists killed millions because they were evil. Communists killed millions because they were misguided. But what ideals! Just leave the table.