Via Tom Lee, I see that American for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist denied endorsing Lenin's tactics during an exchange with historian Rick Pearlstein on Diane Rehm's NPR show today (starts at 48:17 in the Real Audio or Windows Media clips):
PEARLSTEIN: Of course Grover Norquist wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. It's his life's work.
NORQUIST: No, I don't. Don't tell me my position, sir. I've written a book on the subject.
PEARLSTEIN: You said that you're a Leninist and these things are thirty-year projects. These things are on the record.
NORQUIST: We're not name-calling and I'm a Leninist? Hey, wait a minute, grow up. I'm not a Leninist. I'm an American, thank you. I fought Leninists all my life. And we crushed the Soviet Union, thank you.
PEARLSTEIN: Have you ever said you had Lenin as a hero?
NORQUIST: No.
PEARLSTEIN: He's lying.
I'm not sure if Norquist ever specifically described Lenin as a hero, but as I pointed out back in 2005, he reportedly had a portrait of Lenin in his house and frequently quoted Lenin's saying "Probe with bayonets, looking for weaknesses."
Similarly, when describing his movement-building plans to the New Yorker, Norquist used language referencing a Communist-style revolution:
[Norquist] talked about how to build a broad coalition. "If you want the votes of people who are good on guns, good on taxes, and good on faith issues, that is a very small intersection of voters," he said. "But if you say, Give me the votes of anybody who agrees with you on any of these issues, that's a much bigger section of the population." To illustrate what he meant, Norquist drew three intersecting circles over a piece of paper. In the first one he wrote "guns," in the second he wrote "taxes," in the third he wrote "faith." There was a small area where the circles intersected. "With that group, you can take over the country, starting with the airports and the radio stations," he said. "But with all of the three circles that's sixty percent of the population, and you can win politically."
What's interesting is that Norquist has previously endorsed the comparison. In 2001, a Washington Times column by the Heritage Foundation's Alvin Felzenberg stated that "Norquist took it as a compliment when Mr. [E.J.] Dionne called him the 'Lenin' of the right":
Their celebratory writings about the advance of 20th century liberalism from Wilson to Roosevelt to Truman to Johnson are just as ideologically laden as the utterings of Mr. Norquist and his compatriots. Conservative columnists have yet, though, to depict them - or those who put FDR on the dime and JFK on the half-dollar - as liberalism's "Lenins." (Mr. Norquist took it as a compliment when Mr. Dionne called him the "Lenin" of the right.)
Update 2/10 10:30 AM: Per the comments below, let me make clear that the point of this post is that Norquist frequently referenced Lenin's tactics, not that he himself is a Communist (obviously not). Similarly, the New Yorker quote above about "airports and radio stations" was provided as an example of a reference to Communist-style tactics. Again, he wasn't proposing a Communist revolution. I have updated the language of the post and the title to try to make these points more clear.
Brendan says Norquist described his movement-building plans "in the same terms as a Communist-style revolution." The quote Brendan provides describes pretty much anybody's movement-building plans, and could apply as easily to Obama's coalition as to Norquist's. Yet I'm guessing that if we were to say that Obama is a Leninist, Brendan would strongly object. And even if we were to say that Obama's movement-building plans were the same as a Communist-style revolution, wouldn't Brendan call foul?
But beyond that, let's be clear. Using Lenin's tactics doesn't make one a Leninist, which implies endorsement not only of Lenin's tactics but also his political philosophy. Being the Lenin of the right is far far different from being a Leninist. And quoting with approval one statement by Lenin does not make one a Leninist. Unless Pearlstein has better evidence than Brendan has adduced for Norquist having said he's a Leninist, it is Pearlstein who's the liar, not Norquist.
Posted by: Rob | February 09, 2010 at 06:00 PM
In the cited 2005 post, Brendan bolded the section where Norquist pointed out that the union of several sets of voters could be a majority, even though each set constituted a minority of voters. Norquist was describing a way to build a majority political coalition rather than make a revolution with the support of only a minority. This is the opposite of gaining power through revolution, as Lenin did.
Incidentally, Professor Pearlstein made some pretty wild accusations against Norquist without offering evidence that they were true. I guess Brendan's sympathy depends on whose ox is being gored.
Posted by: David | February 09, 2010 at 07:20 PM
Extremely weak post Brendan.
It seems beyond obvious to me that accepting being called "the Lenin of the Right" is not even close to being equivilent to being a "Leninist" i.e. agreeing with Lenin's philosophies. (Can you even be on the right and accept Lenin's philosophy i.e socialism/ communism?)
I have difficulty believing you would even think to equate them.
MartyB - very puzzling...
Posted by: MartyB | February 10, 2010 at 12:20 AM
The issue is whether Norquist repeatedly drew analogies between his tactics and Lenin's, not whether he's a Communist (obviously not). As far as David's point, the question of whether Norquist is trying to "get rid of Social Security and Medicare" depends on what you think of privatization (i.e. it's an ideological question).
PS Rob and David: You seem to be missing the analogy in the New Yorker quote ("With that group, you can take over the country, starting with the airports and the radio stations.")
Posted by: bnyhan | February 10, 2010 at 06:40 AM
Brendan, give me a break. Norquist was pointing out that the only way a group constituting a very small portion of the population can gain power is by violent revolution, whereas a more broadly based coalition can gain power at the polls. There is nothing--nothing!--in Norquist's history to suggest he's encouraging people to storm the airports and radio stations. On the contrary, he's clearly a proponent of building a coalition and accomplishing his goals through the democratic process.
Apparently "polemicist" is the new abbreviation of "political scientist."
Posted by: Rob | February 10, 2010 at 09:52 AM
Fair enough -- I didn't mean to imply he's saying people should storm the airports and radio stations (thought that was obvious). Will clarify above.
Posted by: bnyhan | February 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM
Thanks, Brendan, but permit me a quibble. Your new title is "Norquist denies admiration of Lenin's tactics." I haven't listened to the audio, but in the portion you quoted, Norquist denied that he is a Leninist and denied that he has Lenin as a hero. There's nothing in the quoted material about Lenin's tactics. Pearlstein doesn't accuse him of admiring Lenin's tactics, and Norquist doesn't deny it.
Other than that, your title is fine.
Posted by: Rob | February 10, 2010 at 10:49 AM
Brendan, you're half way there in noting that Norquist wasn't proposing a Communist revolution. My interpretation is that he was recommending against one. Although the bolded section is somewhat ambiguous, I think the word "but" means he was recommending his latter alternative rather than the former.
It's ridiculous spin to call a proposed change in the structure of Social Security or Medicare "getting rid of it." An analogy would be referring to Obama's proposed change in the structure of medical care as "getting rid of medical care." You can see how silly this usage would be.
What makes that spin particularly outrageous is that SS and Medicare are unsustainable as they stand (speaking as an actuary.) Massive changes are essential in order to maintain those programs.
Posted by: David | February 10, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Norquist isn't a Leninist, but he certainly IS a racist (he called Barack Obama a "tan John Kerry").
Posted by: daniel rotter | February 13, 2010 at 02:51 AM