OK. Having the impersonal order is very good. The
healthiest thing is the thing Marx attacked: that
things are in the saddle and ride mankind. You don't
want people in control. It's just what the founders
said. You know we all get frustrated because of
the...we don't have one man-one vote, we have a
Senate that's undemocratic, one Senator can hold
up legislation, we've got a Supreme Court they've
got lifetime jobs they can fuck with anything, every
Leftist wants a parliament, they want the general
will to decide-that's the most dangerous thing you
HICKS: Now wait a minute. You're saying the Founders
deliberately didn't want the people to rule? Then
HOROWITZ: You've got to read this leftist liberal
whatever you want to call him, Richard Hofsteader,
wrote a book called the American Political Tradition...an
essay on the founders. They were very conservative.
But almost anything you read on the Founders will
tell you, they were very conservative. Their view
was democracy is what Churchill said, the true conservative
theme, "democracy is the worst possible system except
for all the rest.
HICKS: Yeah I've heard that....
HOROWITZ: A healthy distrust of public passion.
Hitler was fucking elected.
HICKS: Now actually wait a minute.
HOROWITZ: ...[or] When Josef Stalin died! Now think
of Stalin, every family in Russia had somebody that
disappeared at some point, and when he died, a thousand
people were trampled to death at his funeral, that's
how loved he was. People have their heads up their
assholes. I'm sorry, but this is what the Conservative
view is. OK, you have a healthy disrespect for the
HICKS: Then who rules? Is it just an aristocracy?
Wasn't this country founded on a breaking with the
aristocracy and this radical idea that we did not
need to be dominated by a Catholic Church that controlled
HOROWITZ: No no no, it's not an aristocracy. It's
a brilliant idea, that the people are sovereign,
but their sovereignty is mediated through institutions
that restrain or delay things that make it harder
to make radical changes, so that they have time
for their passions to cool and their reason to take
over. They have these terms, the passions and the
interests, in the 18th Century. ...The point is
this. When I look at poverty today, I personally
think that the Left has done an unbelievable damage
to poor people. I hold Frances Fox Piven responsible
for the destruction of the black family. Before
this stupid welfare system was put into place, 75%
of black kids had two parents, now in the inner
city, it's 20%. 80% of kids are born out of wedlock.
If you have a child that's brought up by a single
parent, female-headed household, it is 6 times more
likely to be poor, regardless of race. So, that's
why I'm a Republican, when the Republicans said
the system isn't working, because that's the way
they talk, "it's not working" and they're idiots
because that's the way they talk instead of it's
a fucking racism that's destroying poor people,
instead of talking that way they said, "it's inefficient,
it doesn't work,"...they were called Nazis for doing
it. That's the political battle in America today,
you have the Democratic Party which has set up incredible
HICKS: Hold on a second, how can you say the Democratic
Party is this leftist party when Bill Clinton did
the most extreme welfare reform?
HOROWITZ: Well he didn't. Bill Clinton has confused
a lot of people. That's exactly right. He was faced
with Dick Morris saying sign this bill or you're
going to lose the election. I learned this on the
left. There were people like you and me who really
believed what they were saying. And there were people
who didn't believe it or they considered themselves
so elevated that they didn't pay attention to it.
I mean we were very anti-elitist, so there should
be no leaders. But people like Tom Hayden made themselves
leaders even while people were preaching, "no leaders."
HICKS: But actually that wasn't what you were preaching,
because you guys were Marxist-Lenists, and Lenin
believed in the vanguard party, so....
HOROWITZ: No no I wasn't really into...I never joined
any of the Marxist sects for that reason.
HICKS: But hell, you met with the KGB.
HOROWITZ: I did, though I didn't know it.
HICKS: Well hold on a second. If someone could deconstruct
that moment, and say, you got an envelope. You knew
it was full of cash.
HOROWITZ: Yes sir.
HICKS: You took it home, opened it and
HOROWITZ: I was terrified!
HICKS: and counted it and...
HOROWITZ: I didn't count it and...if it was fifteen
THOUSAND dollars I would have been terrified!
HICKS: So your point was....
HOROWITZ: I believed Leninism caused a lot of damage,
I believe...analytically. I wrote a book called
Empire and Revolution, I thought that the Bolsheviks
understood the world. I thought the Marxism they
had was the correct interpretation, but in terms
of actual political parties, I was not a Leninist.
I had a lot of people trying to recruit me into
Leninist parties, including the Fourth International.
And it's because of the...I had read so deeply in
Deutscher and Trotskyist literature...to me that
was Trotsky's big failing, that he was a Leninist.
But um, anyway, that's very sectarian but sure...I
felt... Mao's ideas I felt...well it doesn't really
matter. There's always people in organizations who
are opportunists, who are socio...personally I think
he's a sociopath.
HICKS: You might be right.
HOROWITZ: And he took advantage of the moment. The
point is the Party, the Democratic Party, still
is, to this day, they consider a terrible sellout
what he did. But it doesn't matter, it really doesn't
matter when the Democratic Party speaks, it's always
about redistribution, of course from your point
of view, from the point of view of someone who is
a vanguard leftist, they're a bunch of hypocrites.
I understand that. But their model is still that.
"If we give poor people money, they'll be better
off." In FACT, we gave people money, we made them
HICKS: I'm definitely going to look at your data,
the things you said earlier about single parent
families, I want to look into that some more.
HOROWITZ: You need to take time out. You need to
familiarize yourself with what real conservative
arguments are. The leadership of the anti-affirmative
action movement, that leadership all comes from
the Left. When you read Thernstrom's book, America
Black and White, it will show you that the Thernstroms
are very much New Leftists, who, like myself, still
believe in what we were saying in 1963, who feel
that the movement has betrayed itself. But they
are also social scientists, their book is full of
the kind of data which gets people like me looking
at this from another vantage. Really their book
is about affirmative action, and it shows that Blacks
were moving up much faster before affirmative action,
which is counter-intuitive.