[Previous entry: "WHAT BUSH KNEW, CONT'D"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "THE COULTER DOCTRINE"]
09/22/2002 Entry: "ISO: THE "DECENT LEFT""
ISO: THE "DECENT LEFT." So far the Democratic Party is out to lunch on the war. Among semi-plausible presidential contenders, only Howard Dean and John Kerry have been openly skeptical. Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Richard Gephardt, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Joe God Help Us Lieberman are either uncommitted or wrongly committed. Among politicians, the only bright light is the group of 27 or so members of the House of Representatives, led by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). Two of these are Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKinney. There is also the statement by historians.
Those who devote a non-trivial amount of time and effort to criticism of people like Noam Chomsky or Alexander Cockburn have some added responsibility, in my view, to contribute in greater measure to a critique of the coming war. So please let me know of any such activity, whether it's a published article, a petition, a newspaper advertisement, or what-have-you.
Those who specialize in intra-left criticism at this point in time are simply helping President Bush. It hardly matters how brilliant the content, in this sense. The sum total of one's activity bears on the integrity of particular contributions. There ought to be some kind of quota. You need to hammer Bush four times for the right to attack the latest excesses of the indecent left.
In the final analysis, the decent left (where 'decent' means meaningful in a political sense, not a moral one) will consist of those who contribute to stopping the new U.S. strategic doctrine of pre-emption, and nobody else.
Replies: 18 comments
Here's an anti-war petition I've just seen, which seems well-researched and argued.
http://www.petitiononline.com/iraq/petition.html
Posted by Phil Leggiere @ 09/22/2002 06:02 PM EST
Just wanted to add a couple of other items. One function of Blogs is to be an alternative op-ed forum. Another is to act as sort of collective print DJ's disseminating mixes of material.
In terms of developing a strong intellectual-philosophical critique of radical unilateral preemption, this article(mostly ignored to my limited knowledge) from the World Policy Journal's spring 02 issue is well worth kicking around the web. It's a very centrist piece (in the "realist" Morgenthau tradition of foreign policy thinking rather than pacifist or moralist-absolutist, hardly very radical in other words). Yet it's a strong historically minded attempt to put the neo-con's new doctrine in the context of U.S. foreign policy history,and a great dissection of its weaknesses.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj02-1/chace.html
Posted by Phil Leggiere @ 09/22/2002 08:31 PM EST
There's a demonstration in London on the 28th. And Blair's taken some heat today from one of his cabinet ministers. Schroeder won.
It's interesting though. I've only heard of one petition. I was getting 3 a day before the assault on Afghanistan. America is quiet. It's sad. I'm pinning what little hope I have more for foreign pressure. Still, I signed of course.
Posted by D. Ghirlandaio @ 09/22/2002 09:03 PM EST
Bob Byrd has been very critical. He's the last of a dying breed, namely, someone who believes that Congress is actually an independent branch of government.
Check Buzzflash for two articles about his position.
Posted by Paleo @ 09/23/2002 10:00 AM EST
Max writes: "Those who specialize in intra-left criticism at this point in time are simply helping President Bush."
There is an intra-left debate on this issue, in which Max and others here are regular participants. Those who disagree with Max have made it clear that they oppose Bush's proposed unilateral intervention in Iraq, and to fault them for not dwelling here on a point which is not being challenged in this debate borders on the preposterous. If it is OK for Max to post every day on why he thinks criticism of the fundamentalist left of the Chomskys, Saids and Cockburns is wrong, then why [in whomever's name one likes to invoke on this question] is it wrong for the people he regularly criticizes to make their case? Is everyone who disagrees with Max's stance supposed to unilaterally stop publishing their views on the burning issue of day, on the pain of facing Max's completely over-the-top accusations of being front people for G. W. Bush? [Note that there are no one has come even close to accusing Max of "helping" the likes of Saddam Hussein.] Is this how one conducts a principled debate on such issues?
Posted by Leo Casey @ 09/23/2002 10:48 AM EST
Anybody know much about this group? They seem to be geared up for some national organizing around both the congressional campaigns (including teach-ins/lobbying at Congressional offices next week) and natl. and regional demonstrations.
http://www.endthewar.org/frontps/congressionalcampaign.htm
Posted by Phil Leggiere @ 09/23/2002 10:58 AM EST
The principle in question is that Bush's foreign policy deserves more attention than Alexander Cockburn's. I think the balance I strike -- between discounting the attention to Chomsky et al and criticizing the President -- is the right one. What I see from Leo goes in the other direction. To that I take exception.
I am no more 'over the top' than Leo; less actually ("If it is OK for Max to post every day on why he thinks criticism of the fundamentalist left of the Chomskys, Saids and Cockburns is wrong . . . "). Note I used the phrase "helping Bush," translated by Leo as "front people for Bush." Leo has this habit of personalizing and magnifying the rhetorical heat of criticism. I used the phrase "left wing jingoism" to apply to a column Todd Gitlin wrote, and Leo said, since he agreed with Gitlin, that I had as much as called him a left-wing jingoist. I obviously can't know everything that Leo does. What I see is five parts attacks on Chomsky et al., six parts how the Democrats will do in upcoming elections, and one part criticism of the Bush foreign policy.
My hope is to goad Leo into directing more of his formidable rhetorical energy at the President, where I think it will do the most good.
to Phil: the coalition looks legit -- peace groups of the 'unwholesome' variety. Favorite participating member: "Ronald Reagan Home for the Criminally Insane."
Posted by Max @ 09/23/2002 11:02 AM EST
I don't mind the war drums. I think Saddam should go, but I don't want to be the one to take the risk - if the Bushies want climb out that limb, fine. Better them than me when it breaks.
There are plenty of good reasons to get rid of Saddam, but none for doing so right now. Israel, Al Queda, etc. are all more pressing, and going after Iraq will probably make solving the other problems more difficult. But again, that is Bush's problem - even if he succeeds, he will shoot himself in the foot. The action is unpopular abroad and will remain so, and will not do anything to bolster him at home. Politically, it sounds like a real loser for the neocons.
So I find myself, probably with a large segment of the Democratic leadership and the center-left commentariat, upset with the idiotic fashion in which Bush undertakes his venture, but not at all displeased that he is making the attempt.
Posted by Ethan @ 09/23/2002 11:27 AM EST
I don't want to cause Max more trouble with the likes of Leo Casey because I am just the sort of leftist he is calling for a truce with. I am Anti Zionist. I think a two state solution is racist. I think the idea of a 'Jewish' state is racist. I could go down a long list. But the important thing now is, as he says, the fight against the policies of the Bush administration and, secondarily, the Israeli state as run by it's current Prime Minister. [I think frankly that his policies are suicidal.] A friend of mine was back home in California visiting his family, and had a talk with one of his neighbors, who's retired CIA. The neighbor is scared. He thinks Bush is a 5 year old playing with fire. It bothers me as a left winger that the moderates in this country look to the right for confirmation on hard issues. But it bothers me that the left, or at least its public face, is 5 middle-aged lesbians chanting to the Earth Mother in front of the Washington Monument. There is no other country where socialism is left in the care of eccentrics. That being the case, if someone can get Brent Scowcroft's name on a petition, or get him to speak, do it.
Posted by D.Ghiacometti @ 09/23/2002 12:04 PM EST
On the contrary, it is the duty of the Left to critically support the President in the war on terrorism. Because of Saddam Hussein's dedication to acquiring WMD, we have no choice but to deprive him of WMD by any means necessary.
To attempt to herd the whole Left into your own ideological position is part of your "one big Left" mythology. It is also patronizing.
Posted by Andrew Hagen @ 09/23/2002 03:38 PM EST
The title of the blog (MaxSpeak, YouListen) tells you everything you need to know about its proprietor's interest in conducting a dialogue or even (gasp!) learning something.
Posted by Haruspex @ 09/24/2002 12:34 PM EST
Hey Haruspex, I'll stack up the extent of my dialogue with readers with any other blogger. If you had seen more blogs, you might know that. Cheers.
Posted by Max @ 09/24/2002 12:39 PM EST
I am quite interested to learn that you have any idea how many other blogs your readers read. That tinfoil cap really confers amazing powers, huh?
My comment was intended to pick up on the previous one regarding your tendency to try to herd others of the left to your view of what the leftist agenda should be. My own view is that the current debates among leftist commentators about the appropriate (leftist) stance on the war are actually healthy, because they are exposing some long-standing sacred cows to a scrutiny from which they have been too long exempt. In case you hadn't noticed, the right really is making the running on the war issues, and the left is looking embarassingly bereft of sensible ideas on how to deal with them. The left's arguments will be refined, improved and, ultimately, strengthened as a result of a process of internal examination and renewal. Your attempts to brand others with the charge of right deviationism can only hinder this (necessary) process.
Posted by Haruspex @ 09/24/2002 01:22 PM EST
It's always helpful to bring out the old Bolshevik terms of abuse and pretend that someone else is using them.
I think Max is trying to get people to unite around the issue of stopping the war in Iraq. Obviously someone who thinks the war might be a good idea should argue that case. Kind of an obvious point, I would think.
Max is also trying to get people to argue the merits of the case and not stoop to ad hominem arguments. That's probably a lost cause, but it's always worth a try on almost any issue. Something I have to remind myself to do when I get in an argument.
Posted by Donald Johnson @ 09/24/2002 04:09 PM EST
I don't get what's wrong with what's being described as "herding" here. What's wrong with trying to persuade someone to agree or to act?
It reminds me of my ex-partner at the newspaper who said that making endorsements in elections was telling people how to think. That argument always struck me as condescending at best and a cowardly way of avoiding taking sides at worst.
Posted by adamsj @ 09/24/2002 08:09 PM EST
Andrew wrote:
Because of Saddam Hussein's dedication to acquiring WMD, we have no choice but to deprive him of WMD by any means necessary.
--Andrew, where would you place this guy on the 'far left'?
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_1430544,00.html
or these far leftists?
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_1430552,00.html
Posted by steve philion @ 09/24/2002 08:40 PM EST
In response to adamsj, I think what Max is attempting to do in his original post goes beyond trying to persuade people for or against a particular point of view. In the third paragraph, especially, he seems to be prescribing what is and is not an appropriate way of participating in the debate. Prescribing some groundrule of proportionate targeting (as Max does in his reply to Leo Casey) is presumptuous in the extreme.
In response to Donald Johnson, I used the term "right deviationism" because sometimes historical comparisons are instructive. One need not limit oneself to Bolshevik examples, either. Here's quick quiz: When Max writes in his post that some contributors to the leftist debate are "simply helping Bush", what right-wing term of abuse is he aping? (Hint: replace "simply" with "objectively" and see if that rings a bell).
Posted by Haruspex @ 09/25/2002 03:53 AM EST
I seem to recall self-criticism as a leftist concept. Perhaps I am mistaken.
I also seem to recall the idea that one's ideas are improved by being faced with the need to respond to challenge criticism. Something about "dialecticalism."
I also seem to recall "intellectual honesty," and it doesn't call for not publically criticising errors, or expressing doubts, out of fear of hurting a Larger Cause.
I now ritually invoke George Orwell, and since he's dead, he must be on my side.
Posted by Gary Farber @ 09/26/2002 01:21 AM EST