Has "The Left" Chosen sides?--or Not?

Columnist Michael Kelly believes the left has chosen sides in the war on terror:

"America has its flaws. But war involves choosing sides, and the American side -- which was, after all, the side of liberalism, of progressivism, of democracy, of freedom, of not chucking gays off rooftops and not stoning adulterers and not whipping women in the town square, and not gassing minority populations and not torturing advocates of free speech -- was surely preferable to the side of the 'Islamofascists....'

[Either some, like Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan, leave the left, or else they make the same argument "with great force and clarity." Examples include Michael Walzer, Jonathan Chait, and New York Observer columnist Ron Rosenbaum--all make the same point.]

"The debate is over. The left has hardened itself around the core value of a furious, permanent, reactionary opposition to the devil-state America, which stands as the paramount evil of the world and the paramount threat to the world, and whose aims must be thwarted even at the cost of supporting fascists and tyrants. Those who could not stomach this have left the left."

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/kelly.html


--Orson

 

Pim Fortuyn died for their sins.

 

What an odd article--every bit as odd as the remarkably similar articles I read ten years ago, which identified The Right with the radical patriot movement.

Yeah, some of my fellow liberals scare me--not necessarily because they're too liberal, but because they're too vicious and pessimistic. During the Afghanistan War, I abandoned one listserv in a very vocal (and justifiably hostile) way when its small group of ultraliberal regulars took a stance that was more anti-American than pro-peace. Christopher Hitchens' Salon.com article of yestermonth (which I can no longer find, but I trust you've read it), "How the Left Became Irrelevant," accurately describes the behavior of a small but vocal minority of liberals, just as Fred Phelps and his ilk sum up the behavior of a small but vocal minority of religious conservatives. Our mistake is to assume that unpleasant liberals are "too liberal" and unpleasant conservatives are "too conservative." That misdiagnoses the problem: What we're dealing here is a psychology issue, not a political issue.


Cheers,

 

Oh, and an addendum: "the left" did not hold anti-war rallies. Human beings held anti-war rallies. Some of them probably hold the beliefs your columnist attributes to "the left"; many of them probably do not. (The Society of Friends opposes the war in Iraq; is that because they're anti-American, or because they're Quakers? Pope John Paul II opposes the war in Iraq; is that because he's anti-American, or because he generally opposes killing people?) Nobody deserves to be dehumanized. If you ever catch me arguing that "the right" organized a rally, I sincerely hope you remember to call me on it.


Cheers,

 

The ultra-left (no Tom, I don't put you in that category) isn't pro-peace as much as they're anti-American. The most ironic thing is that the U.S. is one of the few places in the world where they're allowed to express their radical viewpoints without fear of persecution.


Bruce

 

Interesting and observant, Tom...

The reason that "The Right was identified with the radical patriot movement" was because President Bill Clinton implied as much in April or May of 1994.
("Hey, at the moment, it seemed like a good idea." Somehow I doubt if the former president has ever disavowed the thought--in fact, I believe he's said quite the opposite, somewhere...)

My "fellow liberals scare me...because they're too vicious and pessimistic." Fair enough, Tom; will we see Gary Hart run for Prez in '04? That's what I'm wondering about for the Dems--it seems like a good choice. He's critical, not vicious. (But "pessimistic?" I'm waiting to hear....)

"What we're dealing here is a psychology issue, not a political issue." It certainly seems to be psychology at work--but from where? Sudden powerlessness? The hysteria I hear often sounds more like wail of desperation from addicts than mere pols.

--Orson
P.S. It is bold and good to know that liberals live and opine from the American South--it's like leavening for the bread.

 

Good one!!

 

I believe that there is still some middle ground between "furious... opposition to the devil-state America" on one hand, and knee-jerk support for anything wrapped in a flag on the other.

It's entirely possible to ask whether a proposal might be pragmatically counterproductive or ethically unjustified, without thereby rejecting everything that America stands for. In fact, it's easy to imagine situations where exercising some independent judgement might be precisely the way to best defend America's values.

 

Re: Re: Has "The Left" Chosen sides?--or Not?

Yep Yep Yep. See, even us republicans search for logic.

Tony

 

Search for logic?

Question.

When is a Republican not a Republican?

Answer.

When he is a Democrat.

Bozzy.

 

Thanks, Orson; you're doing pretty well yourself...

Like all skilled politicians, Clinton (but wasn't it Hillary rather than Bill?) only reflected what other people had already said and tested (it's sort of like telling whether the pool's too cold by waiting for your friends to jump in first). S/He did have a point in that the patriot movement was very much a right-wing thing, but the implied link between the non-violent right-wing conspiracy movement with the paramilitary movement was more a symptom of lazy journalism than anything Clinton can claim credit for.

I'd like to see him back in politics, but I'm not holding my breath. Right now my money's on Lieberman, though Edwards would probably work, too. Gephardt is an Angry Shrill Partisan and, barring a Watergate-sized Bushism, has absolutely no chance at the presidency; I don't know why he's even running, unless he plans to provide comic relief. Same goes for Al Sharpton.

I think we're looking at a Left Bank mentality that has always been around in some form or another, and can be described as the liberal answer to the Radical Right. Just as the election of Clinton woke up the loonies on the right, the election of Bush (and his Republican Congress) has woken up the loonies on the left.

Politics can be a nasty drug, no question; it certainly brings out the schmuck in me and, judging by last year's campaign ads, I'm far from alone. But I really do see this as a universal problem with politics in general, not liberalism in particular, because angry and pessimistic liberals sound just like angry and pessimistic conservatives. Once we accept that the world's completely gone to hell and should be rebooted--regardless of why--we're making an argument for change so radical that it can't possibly reflect any meaningful ideology. There's a bizarre antisocial Dark Side of the Moon out there, and you can get there by traveling too far to the left or the right.

Thanks; nice to know there are conservatives to be found out there in the land of Naropa, too. I think ideological diversity is what keeps us honest, and the world would be a terrifying and dangerous place without it.


Cheers,

 

Re: Thanks, Orson; you're doing pretty well yourself...

 

Leftist recounts the ill-health of the Left

From blogger amygdala
http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/
"PLEASE STOP: I've now read my third leftist blog response which charged that the Bush Administration would use this terrible thing [the Columbia Shuttle disaster] as a reason to go to war.

You are a disgrace to leftism. Stop it. Just stop it.

I'd like to stand up as someone who is still more of the left than not, to say that I'm nauseated. But I can't blame anyone who looks at leftists who say these sort of things -- in the first few hours -- and is horrified. These people whose first thought is to leap to think about how it (allegedly) reflects badly on President Bush: fuck off and die. You have now topped by far all hysterical attacks on President Clinton. Which is an astounding accomplishment. Congratulations, assholes.

You are disgusting. You are scum. You are slime.

You are stupid, and your commentary worthless.

You will be the death of the left.

Have you no shame? At long, last, have you no shame?"

 

Quote "fuck off and die. You have now topped by far all hysterical attacks on President Clinton. Which is an astounding accomplishment. Congratulations, assholes "Unqoute

What a professional post !

 

Re: Re: Thanks, Orson; you're doing pretty well yourself...

 

Well, I'm impressed--and should have known better than to classify you as a rank-and-file conservative, given your posts on other topics.

I've traditionally described myself as a moderate left-winger, but it might be more useful and accurate to describe myself as a fiscal liberal and a social libertarian, with emphasis on the latter. I could have voted for Arlen Specter in '96--he was actually to the left of Clinton on social issues, I believe (and would never have signed the CDA or Defense of Marriage Act into law, for example)--but the Christian Coalition wouldn't even let him speak (so there went his candidacy, what little he had, because of course you have no chance in the Republican primaries if you don't pray alongside Pat Robertson).

I thought we were in grave trouble last year, but writing and assembling K-12 history textbooks (of all things) has given me a certain amount of faith in the democratic process, and I'm cautiously optimistic about where that process will take us in 2004. I wouldn't rule out seeing a second term from Bush, but he will have to emphasize his liberal humanitarian streak to get there (and if he proposes the planned increase in foreign aid next week, that will be a nice first step). That's what I do love about gridlock politics--the consolation prize is that if the other guy wins, he has to win by becoming more like my guy.

Yeah, it's pretty rough--kind of like being trapped in a refrigerator with ten gallons of sour milk. We got a little sunshine today, which helped, but I think pretty much all Southerners will be glad when spring comes. Hope it's nicer out there (or at least drier!).


Cheers,

 

Considering the level of Jew-hatred I heard in 2 years at a Quaker seminary, and considering the gang from a Friends meeting in a major Midwestern city patronizing a (not very good, by Detroit standards) Arab restaurant with Hezbollah posters to illustrate as they put it their support for "anti-Zionist resistance", and considering the contempt I heard expressed by many Quakers for what one called the "blood-soaked physicality" of Judaism, I would not care to speculate on all the sources of Quaker excuse-making about Iraq. I rather suspect that George Fox would have had some fairly trenchant things to say on the ideological captivity of many "weighty Friends", not to mention what Robert Barclay (who had little use for anybody's claim that the inner light excused the illuminated from intellectual or ethical responsibility) would have thought of it all. Is a hireling demonstrator really an improvement on the proverbial hireling priest? Beats me.

 

The Quaker objection to the war in Iraq is much less sinister than that; Quaker groups have historically opposed every war (including the American Revolution), and it would be newsworthy if they actually supported one.

I can't speak to the antisemitism issue, but I haven't seen anything like that from the Quakers I know.


Cheers,

 

Glad to hear it. Hope your sort of Quakers are the majori-- whoops, I mean the consensus.

 

Julie Burchill of The Gaurdian joins Christopher Hitchens...

Economist in Ireland, William Sjostrom, catches wind of this revelation:

"Julie Burchill used to write the 'I have everything American tantrum' column for the Times, and now writes it for the Guardian. For example, back in 2000, she claimed in the Guardian that the US has done more damage that Nazi Germany and fascist Japan thrown together. In short, she exemplified trendy left in Britain. Well, guess what folks? She has gone over with Hitchens. In today's Guardian, she says it is time to go to war."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,885771,00.html

Burchill writes:
"The new enemies of America, and of the west in general, believe that these countries promote too much autonomy, freedom and justice. They are the opposite of socialism even more than they are the opposite of capitalism. They are against light, love, life....
When you look back [at older anti-war arguments],... you can't help but be struck by the sheer befuddled babyishness of the pro-Saddam apologists[.]"

"If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise....
Military inaction, unless in the defence of one's own country, is the most extreme form of narcissism and nationalism[.]"


I am still quite divided over THIS war at THIS time--but I remain convinced that the best and most relevant arguments against a war on Iraq remain rarely heard!

--Orson