Joho the Blog
|
|
|
September 16, 2006
Tony Judt in the London Review of Books excoriates American liberals for acquiescing in Bush's foreign policy. Some of it will be familiar to Americans. And he ignores liberals who have been against the Iraq war from the beginning, focusing on traditional liberals who supported it. Plus, the article suffers (imo) from the predictable, one-sided criticism of Israel and a lack of any suggestion of what contemporary liberalism consists of beyond fighting Bushism. Nevertheless, there's lots in it that I found illuminating, including:
And I think Judt is right in his fundamental observation that we don't have the set of outspoken, respected, liberal thinkers and politicians that we had during the Vietnam war or during the cold-hearted Reagan years. To a large degree, I think this is because we haven't gotten past the anger stage of grieving for the death of our childhood on 9/11. We're still not willing to hear that terrorism is not an enemy that can be defeated (because it's a tactic), that we are never going to be as safe as we once imagined ourselves to be, that the world shrugs off simple answers, that working to connect the world will make us safer than our power can (they brought down the World Trade Center with boxcutters, after all), that the best way to foil terrorists is to shut up about what you're doing, that crime is a more apt metaphor than war for the struggle we're in, that peace makes us safer than war and peace requires connection and fairness. If these are things that cannot be heard, then the speakers—and there are plenty of them around—have to be marginalized for psychological if not political reasons. [Tags: liberalism tony_judt politics terrorism] Posted
by D. Weinberger at September 16, 2006 12:24 PM
|
Comments
What do you think of the fact that a surprising amount of muckraking has decamped from newspapers and set up shop in magazines?
Doesn't it strike you as odd that Abu Ghraib broke in the New Yorker, and that serious pieces on Iraq are coming out of a book review periodical?
What's happening to newspapers? Weird.
Posted by: Lisa Williams | September 17, 2006 12:52 AM
Lisa: In fact, you touched on what I was about to say. In the United States, some of the structures which support Liberalism in public debate have been systematically dismantled or crippled.
Magazines and book review periodicals are some of the few remaining areas which will give serious intellectual Liberalism a platform.
By the way, one thing I keep saying is that arguably the bogosphere makes this *worse* - that's *worse* - not better (I understand this is not a popular view in some quarters).
David, a problem with your analysis is that it ignores the media gatekeeping system in favor of a nonthreatening psychological theory. It doesn't help much to be brave if (virtually) nobody will hear it.
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | September 17, 2006 01:44 AM
I found that Tony Judt piece disappointingly shallow - a few times he relies on smear and insinuation to make his point. But I agree with his basic argument.
we are never going to be as safe as we once imagined ourselves to be
Yes. I think the American myth of invulnerability is really important, particularly now that it's been punctured. (It's also really hard for a European to understand or empathise with.)
Posted by: Phil | September 18, 2006 06:49 AM
I agree that Judt deserves some criticism for ignoring the existence of an actual left in America that has opposed our Middle Eastern adventures from the get-go. But I'm glad the moderate left in America is getting criticized for their cowardice and hypocrisy -- I'm more eager for them to develop a sense of shame than for the efforts of actual leftists to be recognized. (Or at least I've gotten used to being treated as thought people like me don't exist.)
What bothers me more about Judt's article is his assumption of blamelessness as a Brit. The primary example he gives of the turncoat, neo-con left is Christopher Hitchens (a Brit), and Tony Blair's active participation in Bush's fraud hardly merits a mention. Yes, the American left is in sorry shape... but what have the Brits stood up for lately? Judt's position is far too comfortable: his country's economic elite benefits as much as America's from the neocons' imperial strategy, and his elected leader is just as enthusiastically involved as ours.
Posted by: Matt Norwood | September 18, 2006 12:35 PM
What bothers me more about Judt's article is his assumption of blamelessness as a Brit.
I didn't see that - I just thought the (pretty ghastly) state of the British Left wasn't his topic. (Indeed, my discomfort with the article stemmed from the feeling that Judt was getting drawn into fighting some essentially American battles - 'old liberal' vs 'new left', Walzer vs Zinn, Cockburn vs the conspiracists, Chomsky vs all comers - rather than reviewing them with a bit of transatlantic distance.)
Or should any non-American critic of the American scene open with a kind of national mea culpa? Wouldn't that get rather boring after a while?
Posted by: Phil | September 19, 2006 05:48 AM