Oswald's malign legacy?

Submitted by Leon Van Dyke (United States), Nov 22, 2007 at 09:02

Contrary to your seeming acceptance of James Piereson's analysis of Oswald and his assassination of JFK as the culprit in the American political divide, you might instead question the insidious influence of the Manhattan Institute, the Rand Institute and other Republican think tanks. such as the American Enterprise Institute. Unhappy with the drift of the American political power to the left since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, these groups, financially well endowed by the wealthiest of right-wingers, began a campaign of fear mongering of the left that reached its fortuitous (for the right) climax with the events in New York City of 9/11.

Since that day they have seized upon an advantage and gone about utilizing their politics of fear unceasingly referring, often hypocritcally, to terrorists, abortionists, gays and the wrath of god descending upon those who oppose them. In the process, the rich get rich and the poor get poorer, as evidenced by the systematic distribution of no-bid contracts, outsourcing of employment, subsidization of agricultural conglomerates, subsidization of the American oil industry, et.c, etc., etc. All this while reducing social welfare programs to token status and plummeting the stand of the American educational system to ever lower and lower ranking.

Mr. Piereson's newly published thesis is yet another example of the American extreme right wing attempting to deflect all blame for its outright "war" on leftist politics to as many silly potential antagonists as possible. That you give credence to such nonsense is further evidence of the exceptional and rather profound influence that these right-wing philosophical organizations have on journalism not only in America but throughout the world.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".