The news of David Horowitz’s passing at the age of 86 caught me off guard. Over the years, starting from one of my earliest articles in The American Prospect in the late 1990s, I had been quite critical of him. In fact, our interactions extended beyond the written word; we had a few personal run – ins. I stand firmly by everything I’ve written about him, but now doesn’t seem the right time to delve into the details. Those interested can explore our archives for the full story.
Horowitz holds a unique place in my professional memory. He was the first person, very early in my career, to confront me verbally in person. I don’t see myself as a victim in these encounters; his reactions were a direct response to the highly critical and dismissive content I’d published about him in that Prospect article. I mention these incidents because they marked my initial experience of a written feud spilling over into real – life confrontations. It seemed as though he actively sought out such clashes. The acidic and aggressive persona he displayed on television was, in fact, the same person off – camera.
I, on the other hand, approach such situations differently. As readers of this site are aware, I can be quite critical in my writing, sometimes in rather unflattering ways. But in person, I’m almost always friendly and polite, even when around those I’ve criticized or who’ve criticized me. This isn’t about trying to be friends, nor is there some grand theory behind it. It’s simply a matter of my character. I do have a confrontational side and a temper, and if pushed too far, it can surface quickly. But that’s not my default state; I’m not one to seek out drama. Horowitz, however, seemed to thrive on it. He was less of a traditional writer or thinker and more of a political performance artist, with his writing and thinking serving as part of his larger act.
In this sense, his true influence or legacy lies in the performative dimension that we now see so prominently in the Trump world. Whether Trump himself was directly influenced by Horowitz is debatable, but there’s no denying that this performative style has seeped into the fabric of Trump’s movement, adopted by many who have become part of it.
I was quite surprised to learn from the New York Times obituary that Horowitz had been a significant mentor to Stephen Miller, dating back to Miller’s high school days. While not entirely shocking, it was still a fascinating revelation. Often, when someone achieves political prominence, many people emerge claiming to have been their “mentors,” but the Times’ account makes this connection seem quite legitimate. It appears that Horowitz played a crucial role throughout Miller’s college years and even helped him secure his first major job as the press secretary for former Senator Jeff Sessions. This was a connection I had never heard of before, but looking back, it fits perfectly.
This brings me to a recently published piece by Josh Kovensky, which is truly a must – read. It details a lawsuit filed by the America First Legal Foundation, founded by Stephen Miller, against Chief Justice John Roberts. The lawsuit argues that the White House should be given control over the court system. Miller may have taken a leave from America First while working at the White House, but make no mistake, it’s his organization. And in a way, it also carries the 印记 of Horowitz. Strangely enough, Horowitz and I might actually find common ground in the view that this lawsuit serves as a fitting tribute to Horowitz’s role in American public life, a final act in the drama that he helped set in motion.
