Can There Be a Decent Left?
Editor's Salon
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE SPRING 2002 ISSUE OF DISSENT MAGAZINE.
<a href="http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wwwboard/wwwboard.shtml"; target="_blank">Can There Be a Decent Left?</a>
Michael Walzer
[quote]Leftist opposition to the war in Afghanistan faded in November and December of last year, not only because of the success of the war but also because of the enthusiasm with which so many Afghanis greeted that success. The pictures of women showing their smiling faces to the world, of men shaving their beards, of girls in school, of boys playing soccer in shorts: all this was no doubt a slap in the face to leftist theories of American imperialism, but also politically disarming. There was (and is) still a lot to worry about: refugees, hunger, minimal law and order. But it was suddenly clear, even to many opponents of the war, that the Taliban regime had been the biggest obstacle to any serious effort to address the looming humanitarian crisis, and it was the American war that removed the obstacle. It looked (almost) like a war of liberation, a humanitarian intervention.
But the war was primarily neither of these things; it was a preventive war, designed to make it impossible to train terrorists in Afghanistan and to plan and organize attacks like that of September 11. And that war was never really accepted, in wide sections of the left, as either just or necessary. Recall the standard arguments against it: that we should have turned to the UN, that we had to prove the guilt of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and then organize international trials, and that the war, if it was fought at all, had to be fought without endangering civilians. The last point was intended to make fighting impossible. I haven't come across any arguments that seriously tried to describe how this (or any) war could be fought without putting civilians at risk, or to ask what degree of risk might be permissible, or to specify the risks that American soldiers should accept in order to reduce the risk of civilian deaths. All these were legitimate issues in Afghanistan, as they were in the Kosovo and Gulf wars. But among last fall's antiwar demonstrators, "Stop the bombing" wasn't a slogan that summarized a coherent view of the bombing - or of the alternatives to it. The truth is that most leftists were not committed to having a coherent view about things like that; they were committed to opposing the war, and they were prepared to oppose it without regard to its causes or character and without any visible concern about preventing future terrorist attacks....<hr></blockquote>
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE SPRING 2002 ISSUE OF DISSENT MAGAZINE.
<a href="http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wwwboard/wwwboard.shtml"; target="_blank">Can There Be a Decent Left?</a>
Michael Walzer
[quote]Leftist opposition to the war in Afghanistan faded in November and December of last year, not only because of the success of the war but also because of the enthusiasm with which so many Afghanis greeted that success. The pictures of women showing their smiling faces to the world, of men shaving their beards, of girls in school, of boys playing soccer in shorts: all this was no doubt a slap in the face to leftist theories of American imperialism, but also politically disarming. There was (and is) still a lot to worry about: refugees, hunger, minimal law and order. But it was suddenly clear, even to many opponents of the war, that the Taliban regime had been the biggest obstacle to any serious effort to address the looming humanitarian crisis, and it was the American war that removed the obstacle. It looked (almost) like a war of liberation, a humanitarian intervention.
But the war was primarily neither of these things; it was a preventive war, designed to make it impossible to train terrorists in Afghanistan and to plan and organize attacks like that of September 11. And that war was never really accepted, in wide sections of the left, as either just or necessary. Recall the standard arguments against it: that we should have turned to the UN, that we had to prove the guilt of al-Qaeda and the Taliban and then organize international trials, and that the war, if it was fought at all, had to be fought without endangering civilians. The last point was intended to make fighting impossible. I haven't come across any arguments that seriously tried to describe how this (or any) war could be fought without putting civilians at risk, or to ask what degree of risk might be permissible, or to specify the risks that American soldiers should accept in order to reduce the risk of civilian deaths. All these were legitimate issues in Afghanistan, as they were in the Kosovo and Gulf wars. But among last fall's antiwar demonstrators, "Stop the bombing" wasn't a slogan that summarized a coherent view of the bombing - or of the alternatives to it. The truth is that most leftists were not committed to having a coherent view about things like that; they were committed to opposing the war, and they were prepared to oppose it without regard to its causes or character and without any visible concern about preventing future terrorist attacks....<hr></blockquote>
Comments
Either being against this war is not really characteristic of The Left, or the way The Left is defined here is to make them so extreme and obscure as to almost not even exist.
And where's the evidence that The Left changed their minds? I'd bet that the Leftists who felt strongly enough about it to be against the war still are against it - I'm sure Noam still is.
Uh oh, I sense several "Can there be a decent <insert label here>" threads coming on.
<strong>
Uh oh, I sense several "Can there be a decent <insert label here>" threads coming on.
What can I say? I'm a trend setter.
I consider myself overall somewhat left of center. I tend to be rather Liberal on social issues, but quite Conservative on fiscal issues I believe we (via the government) have an obligation to do what we can to help those in our society least able to help themselves. However, the solutions must be ones that will genuinely help them, and must be cost-effective. It is much more cost-effective, for example, to fix the social problems in the inner cities and elsewhere which breed criminals than to wait until the kids are totally screwed up and just build more prisons to lock them away.
Liberals have erred in the past by assuming the only difference between poor people and rich people is money - so if you give poor people money, their problems will be solved. We all know the result of that. Of course, there is never any "magic bullet" that will solve a major societal problem with one stroke - Left and Right have both been guilty repeatedly of proposing simplistic solutions to complex problems.
There were many valid reasons for opposing the war in/on Afghanistan. I respect the people who had the strength and courage to stand up for their opinions against overwhelming opposition. I reluctantly supported it myself because it seemed like the least evil thing that could be done in the situation.
War is never something we should rush into. Voices of opposition, however shrill or even absurd, at least make us stop and think a moment before we run off to go kill a bunch of people. One of the most un-American things to come out of the 9/11 tragedies was the attempt to silence (via job or physical intimidation) those who in good conscience declared their opposition to the war in Afghanistan. Telling people they have no right to express their opinions is an attack on the very foundation of our Constitution.
[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
<strong>This is a glaring example of the "Straw Man" argument...
There were many valid reasons for opposing the war in/on Afghanistan...</strong><hr></blockquote>
A "Straw Man"? Really? So where do these "many valid reasons" come from?
[quote]<strong>I respect the people who had the strength and courage to stand up for their opinions against overwhelming opposition...</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Strength and courage" aren't the words that immediately spring to mind.
[quote]<strong>War is never something we should rush into. </strong><hr></blockquote>
We didn't.
[quote]<strong>Voices of opposition, however shrill or even absurd, at least make us stop and think a moment before we run off to go kill a bunch of people. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The shrill and absurd ones don't. They are too easy to dismiss and tend to discredit their side of the debate.
"I detest what you have to say - but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
roger_ramjet:
"I detest what you have to say - but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire<hr></blockquote>
We didn't.
How many days were there between when the planes hit and when Bush was speaking of "bringing justice to the evil doers and the evil doers to the justice" (I LOVE that quote
"Strength and courage" aren't the words that immediately spring to mind.
No, its hard to think of your opposition as strong and curageous eh? Much easier to belittle them as knee jearkers and extremists. The trick is not to, becasue if you do you are just as bad as them.
So where do these "many valid reasons" come from?
Have you even been reading the boards? There are MANY valid reasons there, and more pointed out by others through out the media.
And where's the evidence that The Left changed their minds?
EXACTLY. The left didnt change their minds, they just shut up because they knew that it would be futile.
<strong>TJM, your exactly the type of person we need more of on this board
</strong><hr></blockquote>
well, gawrsh - 'tain't nuttin... <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
There are two things that frighten me most about this response to dissent about the Afghanistan war:
1) This is exactly the kind of public attitude encouraged by the Nazis back in the '20s and '30s that led to Hitler gaining power. Not that I'm accusing the anti-dissent crowd of being Nazis, but the desire to suppress all dissenting viewpoints is on the road to fascism. The key to a successful democracy is not that simply "majority rules", but simultaneous protection of the rights of the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.
2) The anti-dissent crowd doesn't seem to understand this (or worse, perhaps, doesn't care).
So where do these "many valid reasons" come from?
Have you even been reading the boards? There are MANY valid reasons there, and more pointed out by others through out the media.<hr></blockquote>
TJM described Mr. Walzer's argument as a "Straw Man". (BRussell is of the opinion that the opposition amounts to nothing more than Noam Chomsky and a couple of people interviewed at anti-globalization rallies.) I don't see a nickel's difference between what's in the article and what's been on these boards. In other words, TJM's description is nonsense. And I notice you didn't take the time to recount even one of the "MANY valid reasons." That may have something to do with why I don't think of the opposition as "strong and courageous."
<strong>
There are two things that frighten me most about this response to dissent about the Afghanistan war:
1) This is exactly the kind of public attitude encouraged by the Nazis back in the '20s and '30s that led to Hitler gaining power. Not that I'm accusing the anti-dissent crowd of being Nazis, but the desire to suppress all dissenting viewpoints is on the road to fascism. The key to a successful democracy is not that simply "majority rules", but simultaneous protection of the rights of the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.
2) The anti-dissent crowd doesn't seem to understand this (or worse, perhaps, doesn't care).</strong><hr></blockquote>
What was that you wrote earlier about shrill and absurd? And toolboi, you might want to explain to TJM the importance of seeing one's opposition as "strong and courageous."
<strong>
What was that you wrote earlier about shrill and absurd? And toolboi, you might want to explain to TJM the importance of seeing one's opposition as "strong and courageous."</strong><hr></blockquote>
You seem to be going out of your way to be quite belligerent. I suspect that there is nothing I could say that would matter a fig to you. I really don't see how debating with you is going to be worth my while - I have better things to do than to be your punching bag.
[ 03-15-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
I for one thought we should have done something about Afghanistan long before September 11th. Why, because of the horrible human rights violations of the Taliban. I also think we should be doing everything we can to ensure a democratic government with a sound constitution runs the country. Additionally I'd like to see us do everything we can to help build up their infrastructure, ie schools, hospitals, farm equipment.
<strong>
You seem to be going out of your way to be quite belligerent... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. You're the one who sees on the other side of the debate "exactly the kind of public attitude encouraged by the Nazis back in the '20s and '30s that led to Hitler gaining power." But of course, I'm the one who is going out of my way to be belligerent. That's a pretty good working definition of the word "hubris."
Because if you do, you are one serious asshole to be around.
(I can see it now: "I'm a serious asshole... because I'm right?"
I'm referring to your posts and this thread in general, not the one above.
And AFA your above post, which responds to a post with valid points you choose to evade, what's the point of arguing with you? Or is that the idea? Drive everyone away, so that roger_ramjet can have the last word in?
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>
<strong>Roger, are you this obnoxious to everyone around you in real life, or just online forums? Do you 'let go' when you come here, or do you seriously act this way in your day to day doings?
Because if you do, you are one serious asshole to be around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This thread posed the question, "Can there be a decent left?" By your response the answer seems to be, "No."
<strong>
And AFA your above post, which responds to a post with valid points you choose to evade...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What valid points? What evasion? My post responds to a post in which TJM complains about my belligerence. That's all he did in that post. I'm supposed to respond to something he didn't write?