Other Columns by Erik Rush
Erik Rush Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

'Red's' Reed Remembered
By Erik Rush
November 2, 2004

It wouldn't be completely honest to say that in 1981 I was dragged kicking and screaming to see Warren Beatty's ego-tripping, big-buck, altogether too lengthy megaflop "Reds", which was nevertheless highly-acclaimed and won three Oscars. I went with my girlfriend at the time; it was one of those things one does for someone they care about - but I really didn't want to go. It was an arduous but educational three hours, not including the intermission.

"Reds", like most epic films, was the story of a lot of things, meaning that it had many plot lines: It was the account of America's involvement in World War I, the early 20th century journalist John Reed (Beatty) and his tempestuous romantic involvement with fellow journalist Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton), and the Bolshevik Revolution as seen through the eyes of Reed and other foreign sympathizers of the Russian and European communists. It was also the story of a klatch of pathologically narcissistic New York intellectuals, each magnificently insecure but wholly self-assured with respect to their vision of how the world ought to be run; this bunch was sort of an early-1900s version of the cast of "Seinfeld" - and almost as funny.

Reed, according to the literature as well as the film, was one of those emotionally-immature idealists who believed that America's involvement in the war was self-serving and economically-driven, and who held the romanticized notion that the communists were noble and benevolent idealists, true advocates of "the people" who deserved to be in charge.

Let me know if any of this sounds familiar to you...

"Reds" chronicles Reed's zealous stateside activism, as well as his ultimate insinuation into the Bolsheviks' inner circle. Vanity propels him into their "struggle"; he's a journalist, remember, and there's more than an underlying suggestion that this Yankee's going to show them how to get things done - despite the fact that his working knowledge of politics, people and the culture he's dealing with seem to be markedly lacking.

Are you sure this doesn't sound familiar..?

The scene that made the biggest impression on me was the one in which Reed confronts Grigory Zinoviev (played by Jerzy Kosinski), a Russian revolutionary with whom Reed had been collaborating for quite some time. Zinoviev had apparently ordered one of Reed's articles edited to some degree - and Reed was enraged. Like a chagrined reporter having it out with his city editor, Reed informed Zinoviev: "You don't re-write what I've written!"

Zinoviev then informed Reed what millions of Russians were to learn over the next seventy-plus years: You don't matter. You only exist to serve the State. All you are, all you have, all your talents exist for the State - to do with as we see fit.

It was, as the film illustrates, a very rude awakening for Reed. It was also the culmination of a con, of course; "the State" was, and is in such systems, never more than whichever cabal has been capricious enough to find itself in power.

It occurs to me that the liberals of our day are very much like Reed, if that isn't obvious to the reader by now. The naïve arrogance and narcissism of "Reds'" Manhattan intellectuals were to me, as a native New Yorker, quite familiar.

I've stated before that one of the major pitfalls of our eroding society is the degeneration of our educational system; were it not for this, these historical anecdotes would be common knowledge amongst many more people. It is no great intellectual leap then, that the aforementioned degeneration has been by design, orchestrated by individuals who took their cues from people who were to the left of John Reed - indeed, some of whom who were card-carrying communists of Reed's day.

The cancer (of communist-socialist sympathy and internationalism) that had its genesis in Reed's time has metastasized into the sociopolitical insanity we see today: ideas which are manifestly self-destructive to our national identity and very survival have become mainstream; like addicts, their proponents drowsily deny that this is so. The enemy isn't the enemy, they're misunderstood, and the gangsters who would enslave us are portrayed as angelic, wise bastions of eternal justice. They'll usher in a glorious, new era of peace, understanding and plenty for all; having achieved their goals, their first priority will of course be to ensure that the common man is well taken care of.

And if it doesn't work out that way, they'll simply blame the capitalists

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.