Horowitz critics' arguments fail

In the debate waged in this paper over the decision of the IDS to print David Horowitz's ad defending the anti-reparations argument, much has been made of the supposed historical inaccuracies and half-truths in the ad. \nHowever, these very criticisms have failed to provide factual counterarguments to the ad's assertions. Apparently Horowitz's detractors expected that we the readers would buy their hackneyed arguments based only on their claim of moral superiority. Well, I for one do not believe that these critics occupy the moral high ground over David Horowitz. In fact, I believe the opposite to be true.\nThe reparations camp has been so busy demonizing those who would dare disagree with them that they have been unable to engage in reasoned, dispassionate debate of the reparations issue. Were they to step back and calmly evaluate the benefits AND costs of reparations, they would see that the costs clearly overwhelm the benefits. To cut a check to every black family would seriously damage already tenuous race relations in this country. Those who claim otherwise can only be blinded by a tunnel vision typical of those fixated on an ideology. They readily profess the benefits but remain reticent when discussion turns to its evil twin -- costs.\nThe solution to achieving racial equality cannot be to tip the scales all at once when it comes at the cost of increased racial tension. A long-lasting equality will come only by enacting rules and policies that require us to look past race to the "content of our character." This evolutionary change, which is not accompanied by increased vitriol between the races, is that endorsed by Horowitz, and it is proponents of this view who should stake their claim to the moral high ground.