11-06-2015, 02:32 PM
Bugliosi was a committed Democrat, and like a lot of Democrats (Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow leap to mind), highly invested in a particular world view that does not include crimes committed from within the National Security State. As Eric Norden wrote in 1966:
"At the upper-level of the Liberal Establishment there was a desperate effort, conscious and cynical, to cover up all traces of conspiracy and reassure the American people that all was still for the best in the best of all possible worlds…To even entertain the suspicion that elements of this most wondrous of all governments, whether in the intelligence networks or the political police, could band together to liquidate the presiding High Brahmin, and then coolly cover up their deeds, would shake the average liberal's neat and soothing assumptions about his world to their very roots. Such things could and do happen with depressing regularity in many other countries but never, never, of course, in America. Thus, those who challenged the Establishment's version of events were extremists' with one or another different axes to grind, perhaps paranoid and at the very least victims of a conspiratorial view of history.' History is not, of course, a succession of conspiracies; what liberals conveniently forgot was that there are conspiracies in history. The world, much less America, is not the tidy design of the League of Women Voters; it can happen here. But the blood of John Kennedy was a small price to pay for the preservation of liberal delusions."
"At the upper-level of the Liberal Establishment there was a desperate effort, conscious and cynical, to cover up all traces of conspiracy and reassure the American people that all was still for the best in the best of all possible worlds…To even entertain the suspicion that elements of this most wondrous of all governments, whether in the intelligence networks or the political police, could band together to liquidate the presiding High Brahmin, and then coolly cover up their deeds, would shake the average liberal's neat and soothing assumptions about his world to their very roots. Such things could and do happen with depressing regularity in many other countries but never, never, of course, in America. Thus, those who challenged the Establishment's version of events were extremists' with one or another different axes to grind, perhaps paranoid and at the very least victims of a conspiratorial view of history.' History is not, of course, a succession of conspiracies; what liberals conveniently forgot was that there are conspiracies in history. The world, much less America, is not the tidy design of the League of Women Voters; it can happen here. But the blood of John Kennedy was a small price to pay for the preservation of liberal delusions."