BTW, you are deluded if you think Stalinism did not besot the left-wing intellectual class in the West, including the U.S., in the 30s and 40s. The notion that there were only 20 such is literally as deranged as any of the "truth" claims of Bill Kristol.

Not most. That's a myth. Things were different back then. Letters took weeks to arrive, no TV, CNN, E-mail, YouTube. By the time most people understood what was going on, they became less enamored with Stalin. The fact remains, for better or worse, he was our ally in WWII and that was no small matter in defeating the Axis powers.

So public anger about Bush's neocon agenda is finally here? About time. Isn't it painfully clear that too many Americans have been wallowing in sentiment and self-absorbed hand-wringing for far too long after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 ?? Consider yourself part of the problem if you simply nodded your head in silent affirmation when somebody spouted off about their "grief" months and even years after the tragedy. That neighbor who planted 15 flags in their front lawn? You should have said 'What the hell?' instead of a thumbs-up. All that jingoistic crap lurking beneath the red-state psyche was gathering momentum for the likes of Cheney and Company, but you just didn't listen. You were tuned into some weepy reports on NPR about a janitor from Haiti who worked in the towers and wanted to become a tap dancer. Great. Next time, be ready to challenge anybody who wants to tell you how to keep America 'safe.' Challenge their yellow-ribbon stickered 10 mile-per-gallon SUV that sucks down middle eastern oil. Challenge the local TV station that repeats White House press releases word-for-word, like mine did. Another attack could happen. Next time, mourn for those we have lost, then move on and take a long, hard look at how you want your nation to respond. If you don't, someone watching Fox news will do it for you.

Mona:

There are no existing results of libertarianism. The closest was the Founding of this nation, and given that it allowed for chattel slavery and denied the vote to any but white males, it was severely compromised.

This wonderfully cherised myth--that the Founding Fathers were secret Libertarians, not Masons--is the sort of religious faith that makes libertarianism--like Commuinism--more of a religion than a political ideology.

Libertarians at no time dominated the GOP.

But they happily enabled it, spurred on by mutual hatred of liberalism. And they did so continually claiming that they were enhancing liberty, notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary. Every election that they helped the GOP win--and everything that followed from those elections--these are the existing results of libertarianism. You may wish they did not exist. So do we all. But they exist, nonetheless.

The insurmountable problem libertairainsm may well face is human nature: once people are in power they legislate to favor themselves and their friends, and suddenly lose an interest in limiting power. But government is and always will be the greatest threat to human liberty, because it holds a monopoly on force.

Your dogmatic, theological refusal to recognize the existence of positive liberty leads you to this conclusion.

At least you've recoginzed that libertarianism is a philosophy alien to human nature. That's a start.

Libertarians want people left alone to make their own decisions. That is often at odds with egalitarianism. I favor liberty over egalitarianism in most instances.

Hmmm... Liberty for me, but not for thee. I think that slaveholding bit at the nation's founding was quite as incompatible with libertarianism as you seem to believe.

BTW, you are deluded if you think Stalinism did not besot the left-wing intellectual class in the West, including the U.S., in the 30s and 40s.

Tons of people joined the CP. Tons of people left almost as quickly, based on their experience here in the good old US of A, Many were also appalled by Stalin's show trials. But many others believe the reports were mere propaganda--based primarily on (a) the long history of lies written about the Soviets, going back to 1917, and (b) the ongoing valorization of Mussolini--and, to a lesser extent, Hitler--that was going on in the same press at the time. They were, in short, mistaken, but for quite understandable reasons. These later people were arguably "Stalinists" in that they supported Stalin at the time according to their understanding and belief--but the vast majority were not "Stalinists" as you are using the term to mean--supporters of authoritarian rule. This can be seen by how the eventual revelations of Stalin's true nature in the 1950s lead to the virtual collapse of the CPUSA.

(Please note--I am not absolving these people of any and all moral responsibility. Not that their abstract support accomplished much. I am however, clarifying what it was that they were intentionally supporting.)

The notion that there were only 20 such is literally as deranged as any of the "truth" claims of Bill Kristol.

Yes, well, I'm not talking about folks in their splinter sectarian groups. I'm talking about folks who actually part of the electoral left. You know, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

You really should read Altemeyer on Left-Wing Authoritarianism. He couldn't find any. He called them "as rare as hen's teeth."

Not most. That's a myth. Things were different back then. Letters took weeks to arrive, no TV, CNN, E-mail, YouTube. By the time most people understood what was going on, they became less enamored with Stalin.

Many -- lots and lots. Lillian Hellman, Dalton Trumbo, Richard Wright, Malcolm Crowley (literary critic for TNR in the 30s), the list of Stalinists and/or apologists for him is very long, and replete with names revered by the left. Wright did eventually repent, but many never did. And the truth was well known and being propounded before 1956 -- they just would not believe it.

And I don't get what it is about the AHA vis-a-vis Klehr and Haynes you are pushing. Klehr and Haynes have written tons of peer-reviewed articles, and their books have been so influential that even very radical historians -- in the pages of The Nation, no less -- have engaged them in respectful debate and conceded they've proven much that had heretofore been denied.