I'm not fully aprised of Helms biography, but there is little in Hitchens's column about Helms that is disgraceful. I am a reluctant Hitchens fan, but from time to time his moralizing wears on me. Also a trotskyite(ist?) critique of Helms admirably staunch anti-communism gets nowhere with me. Hitchens's cold war allegiance (or lack thereof) manages to sneak out occasionally despite his present neocon foreign policy leanings.
Perhaps Helms was a racist. I don't know. Perhaps he was a philistine when it came to art. (Very few Americans aren't through little fault of their own. And the "art" in the Hart building is horrific BTW.) However, opposing the MLK holiday is not obviously racist nor was it wrong. MLK has been whitewashed (forgive the word choice) much more than Helms has been. Supporting white Africans was certainly not politically correct, and perhaps Helms's motivations were impure. Again I don't know. However, the merits of these positions would seem to be vindicated by recent events in South Africa and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) as far as concern for Africa goes and as concerns America's interests.
The idea that segregation and bigotry were Helms's driving concerns seems simplistic at best, and is a convenient way to attempt to discredit his conservative positions.
