What distinguishes the paranoid style is not, then, the absence of verifiable facts ... but rather the curious leap in imagination that is always made at some critical point ...What is missing is not veracious information ... but sensible judgment. The plausibility the paranoid style has for those who find it plausible lies, in good measure, in this appearance of the most careful, conscientious, and seemingly coherent application to detail, the laborious accumulation of what can be taken as convincing evidence for the most fantastic conclusions, the careful preparation for the big leap from the undeniable to the unbelievable. (Richard Hofstadter, "The paranoid style in American politics," 1964)

In his Communist days, David Horowitz had the satisfaction of knowing that the entire country around him was built upon a universal conspiracy of bourgeois ideology. Since he joined the conservative movement twenty-odd years ago, he hasn't had the same sense of fulfillment -- here in America, our politics are not divided into grand armies of organized cults. Perhaps someone disagrees with his views on Iraq, but supports his position on abortion. Where's the joy in fighting your enemies if they cannot be felled in a single ad-hominem blow?

What he has had, at least, is plenty of money from conservative foundations and plenty of credence given to his views -- as if his conversion from Stalinism to Reaganism is a mark of credibility. And he has used these resources well, making an industry out of himself and putting forward his political philosophy: not that this or that policy is right or wrong, but that there is a conspiracy out there working to undermine America.

He has two main conspiracy projects. One is comical: "DiscoverTheNetwork," a web site which "identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left's (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas."

The most prominent feature of this site is a table of headshots of "the left," which you will find such characters as Mohammed Atta, Bill Clinton, George Clooney, Fidel Castro, John Edwards, Jim Wallis, Louis Farrakhan, Daniel Okrent, Phil Donahue, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and on and on, arrayed in seeming order. Basically anyone who is a liberal, a Democrat, on the left, a terrorist (!), or at any time was associated with civil rights, or anyone who otherwise shares the distinction of falling under the penetrating gaze of Mr. Horowitz. The headings of the table indicate the scope of his work: Totalitarian Radicals, Anti-American Radicals, Leftists, Moderate Leftists, Affective Leftists. Thus you can see the slippery slope between Katie Couric and Al-Zarqawi. We must stay vigilent.

To a site like PoliAnna, putting up an unflattering picture of an overweight wingnut is simply an act of mockery; but make no mistake, when "DiscoverTheNetwork" publishes a picture of Ted Kennedy with his shirt off, he is not sinking to our level. Rather, this is a serious intellectual endeavor, "the product of years of work and decades of experience" in leftology.

Here is Horowitz's defense of his paranoid picture-grid:

It is an enticement not a thesis. It does not suggest any connections between these individuals, except in the sense that they all belong in a database about the left.  Would Trotsky and Stalin belong in a database on Communism? Yet Stalin denounced Trotsky as an “enemy of the people” and put an ice pick in his head. Within the political left ­ as in the right -- there can be differences that are both deep and that final. To exclude either Trotsky or Stalin from a database of Communists let alone leftists, would preclude creating a comprehensive database of Communism or the left and ultimately reduce it to the description of one faction. To include anything else, in the minds of these critics, would be "guilt by association."  ("In denial: the left reacts to DiscoverTheNetwork," 2/22/05)

"An enticement not a thesis." This is disingenuous. His project is to gather what appears to be a mountain of evidence, and offer the conclusion: There you have it -- the conspiracy of "the left." Of course there is no "thesis," because this kind of paranoia is irrational. But this "enticement" is the point. It appears that he really believes that if he lines up all of his "enemies" against the wall, he will convince his new conservative friends that he has "discovered the network," a pattern of "anti-American" activity so devilishly elaborate as to defy common sense. "The fundamental utility of DiscoverTheNetwork.org is that it shows the left is a network that is vast in scope, and that this network influences American policy at every level, with troubling consequences for us all."

Of course, this whole charade is, on its face, stupid. (See also "Discover The Nutwork.") There is, however, another conspiracy project Horowitz has spent years advancing, and that is his war against universities. This is the grassroots of McCarthyesque, as young conservatives sign up enthusiastically to denounce their anti-American professorate and proclaim themselves victims of countless crimes against their sensitive way of life.

Our readers who are in or have recently been through college are no doubt familiar with the type of student who makes academic study into an exercise of political activism. Ample funding (on the order of $20 million a year) is available to those young rebels who are willing to rebel against the very notion of rebellion itself, and who fancy themselves part of a counterculture of traditional culture. They have raised the ante. In one recent incident at Santa Rosa Junior College in California, an anonymous group posted red stars on the doors of ten professors, along with a bill accusing the professors of teaching communism with "the intent to indoctrinate." This group was, of course, the campus Republicans, who had found themselves forced to learn and think about historical figures of global influence in the course of their studies.

Mr. Horowitz's group, "Students for Academic Freedom," seeks to catalog such incidents of "liberal bias." Their site has a large database (Mr. Horowitz's special medium) of anonymous allegations, ranging from "singled out" to "controversial material" to "biased grading." Are these allegations true? Do they represent a conspiracy of liberal academics to indoctrinate students with their liberal liberalism?

We have no way of knowing. It is not Mr. Horowitz's intent to establish empirical evidence; it is sufficient for his purposes merely to solicit anonymous complaints from disgruntled students. Take one of Horowitz's favorite tropes: that a student was forced to write an essay to "explain why George Bush is a war criminal," that she instead wrote about Saddam Hussein, and that she received an F.

As it turns out, that's not what happened. That wasn't the question at all, the question was optional, and she didn't fail. And the professor? Registered Republican. Liberal indoctrination, indeed. Horowitz quickly issued a non-correction, in which he admits (1) he had no idea what the facts were to begin with, and (2) he still doesn't know what the facts were, but:

So while we apologize for not having fully checked and corrected this story, we conclude that our complaint about the exam was justified. What happened in Professor Dunkley’s class at the University of Northern Colorado is not education, it is indoctrination. And that violates the academic freedom of the students who were subjected to it. ("Correction: Some of our facts were wrong but our point was right," 3/15/05)

Is any more proof is necessary that Horowitz is willing to simply make stuff up to advance his faux-thesis?

In a thriving university, there is a lively exchange of knowledge, and students are exposed to a wide variety of arguments and taught to analyze and argue for themselves. They are taught that mere assertions are not enough, nor feelings, but that evidence and logic prevails. But in the Horowitz School, insinuation, allegation, and paranoia are the key criteria. This may not be useful for those seeking the truth, but it's certainly an effective political weapon. (And a useful tool for grade-grubbing.) Professors everywhere, beware!

Why does anyone give credence to this knave [David Brock of Media Matters]? The answer is politics. When I first became a conservative I introduced myself to Norman Podhoretz the editor of Commentary Magazine. Podhoretz said to me: "When you were a leftist, David, they let you get away with everything. Now that you're a conservative, they won't let you get away with anything." Truer words were never said. (David Horowitz, "A new Brock slander goes round the web," Front Page Blog, 3/14/05)

Mr. Horowitz has had enormous success in his quest to promote himself and his conspiracy theories -- the kind of success he was denied when he styled himself a marginal Stalinist. Today, in his fertile and profitable imagination, the "network" of "leftists" keeps working to undermine both America and Horowitz.

And his Horowitz Youth march on, making our country more stupid and scared than ever.