Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, February 24, 2013

Senator Ted Cruz has responded to The New Yorker's report that he accused Harvard Law School of having had "twelve" Communists who "believed in the overthrow of the U.S. Government" on its faculty when he attended in the early nineties. Cruz doesn't deny that he said this; instead, through his spokesman, he says he was right: Harvard Law was full of Communists.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Doc_Sarvis

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

[Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier explained] She went on to explain that "the Harvard Law School faculty included numerous self-described proponents of ‘critical legal studies' -- a school of thought explicitly derived from Marxism -- and they far outnumbered Republicans." As my story noted, the Critical Legal Studies group consisted of left-leaning professors like Duncan Kennedy, who is a social democrat, not a Communist, and has never "believed in the overthrow of the U.S. Government."

Among those who have taken issue with Cruz's castigation of the Harvard Law School faculty are his former law professor, Charles Fried, who is a well-known Republican and former Solicitor General to Ronald Reagan. In his 2010 speech, Cruz had said there was only "one" Republican on the faculty, but his former professor, Fried, told The New Yorker there were at least four, including himself. A spokesman for Harvard Law School, Robb London, also described the school as "puzzled" by Cruz's allegations.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

Not surprisingly, "Cruz's spokesman called it 'curious' [woooooooo - mysterious!] that The New Yorker would cover Cruz's speech 'three years' after he gave it."

Really?

Well, there's this, of course:

...Cruz's hostile questioning of Obama's nominee for Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, and insinuations about Hagel's loyalties had provided a fresh context for looking more closely at the nature of the accusations he has leveled at political opponents. Observers like Senator Barbara Boxer wondered if they were seeing a revival of McCarthyism. Judging from Cruz's speech -- and, now, his defense of it -- it's a good question.

The paranoid style of American politics cake with bully powder baked in and icing supplied by Joe McCarthy: alive and well in today's GOP.

I'm wondering when, politically speaking, this jerk flames out.

#1 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-24 07:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

From Zack Beauchamp's "Ted Cruz Claims He Has A List Of Communists Who Have Infiltrated Harvard Law" (thinkprogress.org):

Cruz's Communist comments came in a speech to the Koch-supported group Americans for Prosperity unearthed by The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer. Mayer attended the speech, and wrote down the text of Cruz' McCarthyite allegations, which also linked President Obama to the so-called revolutionary Marxists at Harvard:

Cruz greeted the audience jovially, but soon launched an impassioned attack on President Obama, whom he described as "the most radical" President "ever to occupy the Oval Office." (I was covering the conference and kept the notes.)

He then went on to assert that Obama, who attended Harvard Law School four years ahead of him, "would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School." The reason, said Cruz, was that, "There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government."

Like McCarthy, Cruz doesn't name names, and that's no surprise. As Mayer notes, "Under the Smith Act, it is a crime to actively engage in any organization pursuing the overthrow of the U.S. government." So Cruz's allegation could potentially mean he's accusing a large chunk of the Harvard faculty of engaging in a federal felony.

It's also extremely unlikely that there were any truly revolutionary Marxists at Harvard. The intellectual cohort Mayer guesses he was pointing to are advocates of Critical Legal Studies (CLS), an intellectual movement with strong roots at Harvard Law. CLS scholars argue that law and legal texts are indeterminate; in greatly simplified terms, that the law can be interpreted in basically whatever fashion judges choose. Taking after a long tradition of leftist thought (including Marx himself), CLS advocates argue that the fact of legal indeterminacy means law ends up reflecting the will and the interests of the powerful (principally rich, white men) rather than neutral adjucations of the principles that are supposed to underpin the law. A more comprehensive introduction, from Harvard Law Professor Roberto Unger, can be found here.

It's true that this is an extremely left-wing analysis of the way that law works, but that doesn't mean they actually wanted the Soviets to win the Cold War by overthrowing the US government, as Cruz said. Indeed, as Mayer notes, perhaps the most famous CLS exponent at Harvard, Duncan Kennedy, identifies as a "social democrat," not a Communist and certainly not a revolutionary Soviet.

A majority of the Supreme Court's conservative bloc attended Harvard Law School. No Marxists (that ThinkProgress is aware of) from Harvard have ascended to the Supreme Court.
thinkprogress.org


In fairness to Cruz, I'm not sure he's said he actually has "a list." In this, on one level he's even worse than McCarthy: McCarthy claimed he had "a list," Cruz is just spewing it out of his blowhole.

But the Cruz/McCarthy match does hold up in one respect: neither is able to actually put the information where their mouth yaps.

#2 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-24 07:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

The New Yorker article referenced above is Jane Mayer's 'IS Senator Ted Cruz Our New McCarthy?" (www.newyorker.com).

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-24 07:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ted Cruz livin rent free in the skulls of liberals everywhere at least until they find their next shinny object.

#4 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-24 08:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ted Cruz, defecating on the heads of "conservatives" until they wake up, sober up, and shake it off by dealing with their well-deserved ostracism from the main arena of America's political scene.

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-24 08:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ted Cruz livin rent free in the skulls of liberals everywhere at least until they find their next shinny object.

#4 | Posted by paneocon at 2013

Well, nasty and dangerous people are sometimes able to do that. Let me guess? Cruz is simply another Far Right icon whose opinions, like those of Rush's, have nothing to do with what the Republican Party does or thinks?

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2013-02-24 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Cruz hasn't the cajones to name names, understanding that he'd be sued for his last penny. Being allegedly Hispanic (though I have a list of twelve names upon which he appears as Finnish), he knows what cajones are.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2013-02-24 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Teadiot Cruz Doubles Down on "Commie" Slur"

Grow up Doc. And please cease having r-bot write your headlines. Your headline diminishes your perceived intelligence. While being a jerk you hypocritically call Cruz a jerk. Being anti-communist has nothing to do with being paranoid and has everything to do with the failures of Communism, namely the millions of innocent deaths and a standard of living rivaling the poorest of the poor. Going backwards in time and embracing fatally failed ideals is not a move "Forward" even if it is 'Communism Lite'.

#8 | Posted by KBM at 2013-02-24 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Being anti-communist has nothing to do with being paranoid..."

Being paranoid has as much to do with being paranoid as being a shameless demagogue has to do with being a shameless demagogue. Which one do you think Cruz is, a paranoid or a shameless demagogue? Or is he a paranoid shameless demagogue?

#9 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-24 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Grow up Doc. And please cease having r-bot write your headline"

Did Michelle Malkin write that post for you? Or was it the "Gateway Pundit"?

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-24 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Grow up...
#8 | Posted by KBM

From you? A guy who can't follow even a one-trick pony thread, let alone one bearing on a complex issue? Too, too funny.

#11 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-24 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Cruz is werking hard for his 15 minutes of shame, er, fame.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-24 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just when you think the "right" can't get any stupider.

#13 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-02-24 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement