« Moonbattery Corrodes D-Day Museum | Main | Mother Moonbat Threatens Feinstein »

January 28, 2006

The Left's Rosenberg Fetish Still Lives

Posted by Dave Blount at January 28, 2006 5:11 PM

The Left's half-concealed sympathy for psychopaths who would like to kill us — currently highlighted by the War on Terror — isn't actually new. Nor is its dogged insistence on living in some alternate reality where the only real threat to America is America itself. Liberal elitists' fetish for the Rosenbergs is a case in point. Demonstrating a third characteristic of the Left — its refusal to live in the present — a piece in the Wall Street Journal reveals that the Rosenberg fetish is still alive.

A quick refresher on settled history: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were justly executed for espionage in 1953 after helping Stalin's Soviet Union develop nuclear weapons by stealing American secrets. It is no thanks to the Rosenbergs that these weapons weren't used to kill us by the millions. Hell's hottest fires are richly deserved by these profoundly evil communist spies.

Naturally their execution made them martyrs to moonbats. For years the Left pretended the Rosenbergs were innocent. By now everyone knows better. For example, Khrushchev's memoirs make note that the Rosenbergs "vastly aided" Soviet development of weapons of mass death. Their guilt was corroborated by the 1995 declassification of the Venona documents, as well as by NSA intercepts in the 1940s (no wonder the NY Times doesn't want the NSA doing its job).

The WSJ piece reports on a forum sponsored by Fordham Law School, which convened in Manhattan to discuss the "artistic influence" of the Rosenbergs. The invitation referred to the Rosenbergs as "the accused" — as if there were some question of their guilt even now.

Heavy hitters at the event were novelist E.L. Doctorow and playwright Tony Kushner, both of whom have created fictional works expressing sympathy for the Rosenbergs. The forum was "arcane and self-serious" as the participants bloviated about the nature of "historical art," which was defined as "an aesthetic system of opinions."

Apparently liberal intellectuals still won't admit that Stalin was a threat to us, any more than they will admit that Saddam was a threat.

"We knew that the Russians were no threat, but we wanted to persuade Americans to be afraid," Doctorow intoned, in denunciation of those who did not want our nuclear weapons technology going to a genocidal dictator clearly hostile to our civilization.

The connection to the current War on the War on Terror by this same class of useful idiots is so obvious, even Kushner could see it:

Our failure to come to terms with a brutal past, our failure to open up the coffins and let the ghosts out, has led to our current, horrendous situation.

By "brutal past," he was apparently referring to our execution of the Rosenbergs, not the tens of millions Stalin killed. The "horrendous situation" presumably refers to the War on Terror.

Of course, the audience ate it up:

As the artists [Doctorow and Kushner] turned the Rosenbergs' treason into dissent and then into patriotism, the audience was enthusiastically in tune. Present were the Rosenbergs' children, Robert and Michael Meeropol, who continue to contest their parents' Soviet entanglement, and the former editor of the Nation, Victor Navasky. When it came time to ask questions, the moderator warned off any "Cold War warriors" from asking "disrespectful" questions, like, presumably, how these authors could defend an ideology that took millions of lives. No one did.

No doubt a generation from now, if Manhattan hasn't been nuked by then, elitist morons will gather there at snooty forums to discuss the martyred Saddam Hussein's noble contributions to "historical art."

Enjoy the flames you two.