National Journal: US Left headed for the "political wilderness" over war issues

Jonathan Rauch, writing in The National Journal, notices what I’ve implied here in these threads about the Left—but what the perhaps center-left Tom Head denies—that it’s headed for the political wilderness over Iraq and the War on Terror. Rauch cites recent articles in The Nation, a Harvard Law School prof who is also a peace activist, and Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich in making the case.

In the post-Communist world the Left pinned its hopes on anti-corporatism and anti-globalism. Now it’s adding principled anti-Americanism, the opposing of all US use of force in the world as though any and all fights against local bullies by the American Rambo are inherently unjust and unjustifiable.

The consequence could well mean long-term isolation for the Left.

“How, then, should the world deal with vicious regimes that have horrible weapons? Neocons say America should always be free to act alone; neoleftists say it should never be free to act alone.

“Thus, again in The Nation, David Cortright, a founder of the Win Without War coalition, acknowledges the need for "an alternative vision, one that takes seriously the terrorism and proliferation threat but that provides a safer, less costly, and ultimately more successful strategy for countering these dangers." And that strategy is? "A global prohibition against all weapons of mass destruction," enforced by a hundredfold increase in the United Nations' weapons-inspection capability. If countries refused to cooperate, they could be hit with sanctions or even force.

“…The key… is that force should be used "only with the explicit authorization of the Security Council or regional security organizations. In no circumstance would the United States or any other nation have the right to mount a military invasion to overthrow another government for the ostensible purpose of achieving disarmament" (italics added).

“That makes it about as clear as it could be that the first priority is not to disarm rogues but to defang America. ***It also makes clear that the Left is on the brink of a historical and fateful, and possibly also fatal, choice. The Left's idealism and anti-Americanism blinded it to the realities of Soviet Communism and put it on the wrong side of the Cold War. Now the Left is poised to repeat its mistake, letting its egalitarianism and anti-Americanism put it on the wrong side of the fight against tyranny and terror.***

"….But the Left will pay a crippling price. ***If its new rallying cry is going to be "Contain America first!" the Left had better pack its bags for a long, long stay in the political wilderness, at least in America; and if it is going to make excuses for Saddam as it once made excuses for Stalin, it can kiss its moral relevance goodbye.*** One only wonders whether the Left still has time to back away from the cliff.”
[***Emphasis added***]

http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm

 

Orson, when you say the Left, who exactly are you referring to? (Some liberals supported both wars; others opposed them, but in a rational way; others opposed one but supported the other; and a small but vocal minority just went stark raving loony.)

I'll agree that there are some people on the extreme left whose views are already in the political wilderness (never mind going there; they've been there since 1975), but the same could be said of the extreme right. Fanatics on both sides of the aisle tend to sound more than a little flaky.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with the "center-left" label, though. That's a pretty good description of where I tend to stand on things. There are actually some Republicans I'll support--for example, I've voted for moderate Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in the past and will probably vote for Republican Lt. Governor Amy Tuck this November if the Mississippi Dems nominate Ronnie Shows to run against her--but my core values are basically those of a liberal centrist.


Cheers,

 

What I should have also mentioned: Dennis Kucinich is to the 2004 Democratic Primaries what Bob Dornan was to the 1996 Republican Primaries. Unless the other eight candidates all drop out and endorse him, his odds of getting nominated are slim to nil. Heck, man, look at his hair. Even at this early stage in the game, I'd be willing to bet small bills that Lieberman, Edwards, Dean, or Kerry will wind up getting the nomination. Right now, my money's on Lieberman, but Edwards can take the nomination (and the election) if he learns how to channel JFK vibes like Clinton did in '92.


Cheers,

 

In general labels are helpful for placing someone on a map but as Tom Head points out (I may be reading into it) people who are independent thinkers may be generally one way or another but not able to be held to a label in a complete way.

An example that comes to mind is Bill O'Reilly (O'Reilly Factor). I would say he is generally conservative but he also has very independent thinking on certain issues. For example, he thinks it is ridiculous for people to object to homosexual adoption of troubled children when there are too few homes for them. He believes the ideal home is heterosexual but that a good homosexual home is a good alterantive. I hope I am not putting words in his mouth. He ripped into someone who said better they (children) be in an insititution than in a homsexual home.

I am conservative in some ways and what would be considered liberal in others. I believe in tolerance and am highly annoyed and saddened by a trend among the so called left to become intolerant. John Stoessel or someone noticed this trend among left leaning university students who did not want to discuss ideas but to shut up those of the conservative sector they did not agree with. This is very sad. Latest example is Justice Thomas.

Incidentally, I saw Justice Thomas speaking to kids at a high school on CSPAN. Someone asked him about how he felt about his problems with certain African American leaders. He said he had no problem with them but that they seemed to have a problem with him. He told the young African American man that both he and Thomas have their own views as two different and diverse human beings. He then said imagine if I told you that you should not think the way you do and should think the way I do. That is what the African American leadership (Democratic) is doing to him.

What is sad is to see those of the liberal persuasion moving away from tolerance of view and arguing on intellectual merits to a whinning belligerent intolerance (especially on our campuses).

North

 

I agree on all points. Liberal bigotry is no better than conservative bigotry. Justice Thomas does tend to vote with Scalia, but this is probably because they share the same constitutional hermeneutic (intent originalism with conservative predilections). And Scalia may very well be taking Thomas under his wing, but there's no reason to read race into that--Scalia is the most successful conservative judicial originalist who has ever lived, and the much younger Thomas would have every reason to follow in his footsteps.

And I don't agree with Bill O'Reilly very often (though gay rights is one area where we are on more-or-less the same page), but I enjoy watching his show and consider him one of the good guys. He's entertaining and makes people think, and that's really all I can ask of a talk show host.


Cheers,