March 12, 2002
Many left intellectuals live in America like internal aliens, refusing to identify with their fellow citizens, regarding any hint of patriotic feeling as politically incorrect. That92s why they had such difficulty responding emotionally to the attacks of September 11 or joining in the expressions of solidarity that followed. Equally important, that92s why their participation in the policy debate after the attacks was so odd; their proposals (turn to the UN, collect evidence against bin Laden, and so on) seem to have been developed with no concern for effectiveness and no sense of urgency. They talked and wrote as if they could not imagine themselves responsible for the lives of their fellow-citizens. That was someone else92s business; the business of the left was…what? To oppose the authorities, whatever they did. The good result of this opposition was a spirited defense of civil liberties. But even this defense displayed a certain willful irresponsibility and ineffectiveness, because so many leftists rushed to the defense of civil liberties while refusing to acknowledge that the country faced real dangers—as if there was no need at all to balance security and freedom. Maybe the right balance will emerge spontaneously from the clash of rightwing authoritarianism and leftwing absolutism, but it would be better practice for the left to figure out the right balance for itself, on its own; the effort would suggest a responsible politics and a real desire to exercise power, some day. […]Almost as amazing: this is appearing in Dissent. (Via Junius). [12:13 AM]It is a common idea on the left that political responsibility is something like temperance, moderation, and cleanliness—good bourgeois values that are incompatible with radical politics or incisive social criticism. You have to be a little wild to be a radical. That isn92t a crazy idea, and alienated intellectuals may well have, more than anyone else, the anger necessary to begin the critical project and the lust for intellectual combat that sustains it. But they don’t necessarily get things right, and the angrier they are and the more they are locked into their combative posture, the more likely they are to get things wrong. What was necessary after September 11, and what is necessary now, is an engagement with our fellow citizens that recognizes the fellowship. We can be as critical as we like, but these are people whose fate we share; we are responsible for their safety as they are for ours, and our politics has to reflect that mutual responsibility. When they are attacked, so are we; and we should join willingly and constructively in debates about how to defend the country. Once again: we should act as if we won92t always be powerless.
Ray Davis's 115th Dream:aahttp://www.bellonatimes.com/ht-20010922.html#2001-09-27aaI hope Walzer's essay gets wide circulation, and that its suggestions receive as much attention as its criticisms -- though, given the carp per diem approach of pretty much all political discussion nowadays, that second hope doesn't burn so brightly.
Oh dear. This article made me think "Yes, but--" a lot. I agree with the general thrust, but the number of quibbles I have with particulars makes me wonder if I'm wrong about the thrust. Edited quotes:aa"Lefist opposition to the war faded also because of the enthusiasm with which so many Afghans greeted that success." I remember news reports of happy Grenadans being brandished as evidence that our invasion of that country was morally justified. That didn't make it morally justified.aa"The moral distinction between premeditated murder and accidental killing." Well, yes; but I can just hear the reply now: "If we weren't bombing Afghanistan, we wouldn't be accidentally killing anyone there." And it hides a legitimate concern over possibly wasteful and wanton tactics, even if the war aims are entirely justified. And if anybody on our side (including Northern Alliancers whom we don't control) does go overboard and commit a war crime, what then?aa"Little Englanders." Oh, it seems such a noble and civilized dispute now, but the rage directed against the "pro-Boers" (that's what they were called by their opponents, just like "pro-abortion" is used now) was titanic in its fury, much worse than anything Andrew Sullivan has said.aa"Their proposals (turn to the UN and so on) seem to have been developed with no concern for effectiveness." Such suggestions that I saw were developed with great concern for keeping international support. The Gulf War was fought basically by the US, but it was fought under the auspices of the UN. This helped its credibility. Why not the same this time? Or NATO, which was created for just that purpose?aa"So many leftists rushed to the defense of civil liberties while refusing to acknowledge that the country faced real dangers." Sorry, but every civil liberties tract post-9/11 I've read has emphasized that we're losing our liberties without any evidence that this will contribute to security. -Then- they go on to say that even if it did, it might not be worth it. "Those who exchange liberty for security deserve neither," etc etc. They may be wrong: but they are not ignoring the question.aa"Blaming America first." I think we can take it for granted by now that this charge is -always- a grotesque oversimplification.
aaWhat the article, and its reply, made me wonder is, do Liberals have only one issue they can talk about? Is the War "IT"? If so, where did this restriction come from? And, if so, where can I sign up to become a Liberal. What a wonderfully simple platform. Keeps one from having to think too broadly, simplifies election choices, cuts down on time wasted on extensive political debate. Lovely. Just lovely.
I don't know where you get that idea that "liberals have only one issue they can talk about"; it's certainly not present in the Walzer article. In fact, this entirely unsupported assertion, and the fantasia that you spin out of it, is absolutely symptomatic of the emptiness of a certain kind of attack rhetoric. aaMoving back to the previous post, I'm struck by an assertion that seems almost as unsupportable:aa
a"Blaming America first." I think we can take it for granted by now that this charge is -always- a grotesque oversimplification.aaaI think we can take it for granted that this claim is statistically highly unlikely. Accusing people of "blaming America first" is something of a cliche, but it would surprise me very much indeed if there were no cases where the facts didn't justify the assertion.aa
a"So many leftists rushed to the defense of civil liberties while refusing to acknowledge that the country faced real dangers." Sorry, but every civil liberties tract post-9/11 I've read has emphasized that we're losing our liberties without any evidence that this will contribute to security.aaaIn fact, in my experience, those who agree on this are evenly spread across the political spectrum. For instance, conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds, who has come in for quite a lot of abuse on Electrolite's comment threads in the last few days, has been an absolute stalwart on this point.aa
a-Then- they go on to say that even if it did, it might not be worth it. "Those who exchange liberty for security deserve neither," etc etc. They may be wrong: but they are not ignoring the question.aaaAs it happens I agree with the attitude exemplified by that quote, but I don't confuse attitude-copping with the detail-work of actually figuring out reasonable security policies. And that's what I take to be Walzer's point. There are certainly people on the left who think intelligently, and in detail, about security issues and practical implementations. Phil Agre springs to mind. But for Agre, a man who fundamentally likes the world of discovery and commerce and work, the realization that societies that empower individuals are more secure rather than less constitutes an invitation to examine the question in detail with an eye towards discovering how best to maximize the effect. For a lot of other leftists, that same realization amounts to nothing more than permission to check "security issues" off their To Do list.aa
a"Lefist opposition to the war faded also because of the enthusiasm with which so many Afghans greeted that success." I remember news reports of happy Grenadans being brandished as evidence that our invasion of that country was morally justified. That didn't make it morally justified.aaaI could lose quite a lot of this afternoon bemusedly counting the logical fallacies in this paragraph. Exactly what are we supposed to understand here? That the Grenadans weren't actually happy? That their existence was fabricated (or exaggerated) by the media? That this means we must suspect the happy Afghans in post-Taliban Kabul were similarly invented? aaThe trouble with this paragraph is that it works by constructing a chain of associations just strong enough to pull the next Kleenex up out of the box, but not strong enough to bear any weight. If I were to say "Wait a minute, I missed the part where the Granadans killed three thousand Americans," you might rightly say this was a response out of left field. But how is this invocation of Reagan's 1983 adventure much more relevant, except as a way of imputing something without actually having to defend anything? If you mean to say you don't believe the Afghan people were as happy to have the Taliban overthrown as we've been led to believe, then say so. Don't just wiggle your rhetorical eyebrows.
If you know of any case where "blaming America first" is an adequate summary of a critical attitude towards the US, please tell us. I don't believe it, and the phrase's use tells me something about the person who uses it. As a description it's pure cant, so I don't consider it unsupportable at all to greet it with the highest skepticism.aaLook, once upon a time any criticism of the US was liable to elicit the response, "They're just Commies." And some of them were Commies. But there was always more to it than that.aaYes, the civil liberties tracts I've read come from the right as well as the left. I would have appreciated more words by Walzer to the effect that there was responsible criticism on this line as well as the irresponsible criticism he saw.aaI have not seen any articles or polemics from people who appear to think that they're "checking security issues off their To Do list."aaI apologize for not explaining my intent in bringing up Grenada, because it is indeed tenuous. I thought bringing it up would be sufficient to note the point. As it isn't, I will say that I was not doubting the reports of happy Afghans. I might doubt them, but that's not the point. I used that phrasing only to ward off arguments as to whether the reports were correct. For purposes of US domestic reaction, it almost hardly matters if they're true or not, if people believe them.aaWhat I find curious and worth noting is that Walzer cites the happy Afghans as one of the reasons for falling opposition to the war. Is he implying that the happy Afghan phenomenon has caused anti-war folk to conclude the war is good? I don't know, but what I do know is that the happy Grenadan phenomenon was used to claim that that war was good. "See," the pro-war folk said, "they wanted us to come." Even if true (which I did doubt on that occasion, actually), that left aside the question of whether it was justified to invade in the first place. (I sometimes get the impression that if the US invaded the UK and deposed both Tony Blair and IDS, the cheers would be deafening. But it wouldn't be very democratic.) The wars are not otherwise comparable, except for this: the happy Grenadans didn't justify that invasion, so the happy Afghans don't justify this one. We need other reasons; fortunately we have them.aaThat's all. Not a major point. I brought it up only to show my discomfort with Walzer's manner of writing.
Quoting:a
aIf you know of any case where "blaming America first" is an adequate summary of a critical attitude towards the US, please tell us. I don't believe it, and the phrase's use tells me something about the person who uses it. As a description it's pure cant, so I don't consider it unsupportable at all to greet it with the highest skepticism.aaTo your credit, you've now retreated from the heights of the categorical assertion ("this charge is -always- a grotesque oversimplification") to arguing only for "the highest skepticism". Do you, in fact, know the difference?aaI called the phrase a cliche; you responded, hotly, that it's "pure cant." That it is, by and large. What I said, though, was that I doubt that every single instance of its use is "-always a grotesque oversimplification". I don't understand why you find this so outrageous, and I really don't understand how you think you're going to get anywhere trying to prove a negative. But enough dull logic-chopping. Instead, let me tell you how my colleagues in the Nigerian Ministry of Oil have managed to sequester certain funds, and we need the help of just one Westerner to get the money out of the country...a
aWhat I find curious and worth noting is that Walzer cites the happy Afghans as one of the reasons for falling opposition to the war. Is he implying that the happy Afghan phenomenon has caused anti-war folk to conclude the war is good?aaWhy, I nearly think he means to imply that very thing; only his writing conveys somewhat more nuance than is carried in such belittling phrases as "happy Afghan phenomenon" and "the war is good."a
a"See," the pro-war folk said, "they wanted us to come." Even if true (which I did doubt on that occasion, actually), that left aside the question of whether it was justified to invade in the first place. [...] The wars are not otherwise comparable, except for this: the happy Grenadans didn't justify that invasion, so the happy Afghans don't justify this one. We need other reasons; fortunately we have them.aaYes, there is that. But what you slightingly call the "happy Afghan phenomenon" isn't interesting because it magically and retroactively changes the US's reasons for waging war in Afghanistan. (The US is waging war in Afghanistan because until recently large parts of its territory have been used to wage war against the US.) Rather, the "phenomenon" is interesting because it discredits some of the arguments hitherto leveled against the US waging that war. Accusing unspecified parties of using the "phenomenon" to rewrite history is a nice piece of prestidigitation, but I still don't believe the quarter actually appeared supernaturally out of thin air.
I can't resist it.aaOK, her it comes...the NEW New Left.aabwa ha ha ha...!aaRemember: If we remain serious in our discourse, They Will Have Won. (Or something. The Humor Panzers roll on....)
I think Walzer's (and Patrick's and my) position is somewhat closer to being the New Old Left, actually. aaOf course, what we *really* need is the Right Label: The New Old Neoliberal Sensibly Libertarian Non-Socialistic Anti-Communist Radically Moderate Left. aaWould you like fries with that? aaIncidentally, in response to Simon Shoedecker I say that "blame America first" is cant, and it is indeed therefore often illegitimately used to dismiss all criticism of America, but it also, in my view, is all too often indeed a valid shorthand description of people who take such a view. These are not, you know, contradictions. aaAnother observation is that wars are never good. They are merely, we hope, better than the alternatives. Often we don't get a "good" choice. "Right" and "good" are not identical.
Wow. "Hotly." "Slightingly." "Belittling." "Accusing."aaI didn't intend any of those things (for instance, "happy Afghans" was intended as jocular shorthand, though perhaps it doesn't meet your high standards of jocularity). Not sure how to respond to someone who claims this piercing level of insight into my tone of typer.aaAlso not particularly interested in logic-chopping about the theoretical difference between categorical assertion and the highest probability. I'll note only that, since we're examining exact wordings that closely (I'm sorry, I didn't realize my casual remarks on a message board were going to be subjected to the level of scrutiny of a term paper in philosophy), that I didn't write that the charge always is a grotesque oversimplification (that's a partial quote out of context), but that we can take it for granted that it always is one.aaIn my word of hair-splitting, "taking something for granted" allows a minute possibility of being wrong. But so small it can for practical purposes be ignored. I'd call that a synonym of "highest skepticism," so I haven't changed my position at all.aaThe original point being that this phrase, "Blaming America first," is a well-known cheap shot. Those who have a serious, non-cheap assertion to make are well advised to avoid using the phraseology of well-known cheap shots.aaIt's not that Walzer is wrong; maybe he's right. I did begin by saying I agree with his general thrust; maybe that's been forgotten in the rush to denounce me. But I find some of the specifics of his article very odd, and not at all characteristic of a paragon of sharp, insightful thinking.
I definitely had the knee-jerk leftist reaction to the beginning of the war. Habits of a lifetime I guess. War for good reasons has occurred very rarely in my life; war for lousy reasons has been a much more frequent occurrence. aaMy left knee was also insufficiently weighed down by facts. Once I acquired some (e.g. the Taliban treatment of the Afghan people, especially women), my knee stopped jerking. In fact I now wish we'd made war on them when they destroyed the Buddhist statues - not their worst offense by a long shot, but The Last Straw. aaOf course, it probably would have been impossible to get the support we'd need for such an action. That's why I changed "we should have" to "I wish we'd" above. Patroklos had to die before everyone would just tremble before Akhilles' terrible visage, instead of trying to stop him. aaMaybe I'm naive, but I found the Afghan response to the - liberation, yes, I'll use that word! - of Kabul very reassuring to my remaining anti-imperialist unease. Men shaving, women going back to their jobs, everyone playing music and dancing: oh, good, I thought, this wasn't just more GOP propaganda, this really was supported by the people. (No, that wasn't the justification, as Patrick has pointed out. I was just uneasy despite all the information, the more because I don't trust the Dubya administration to tell me the sky is blue.)aaAnd I still think it's nice to have the flag back...it was a right-wing symbol when I was growing up, and there was no way to use it in its true meaning without signalling all sorts of things that are antithetical to my actual opinions and worldview. Which is what "politically incorrect" meant back before there was a prescribed set of PCnesses (I use the term for its sound)...now, of course, it's a rallying cry, and a shield some right-wing jackasses use to hide their racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-semitic claptrap.
I continue bemused at the assertion that the American flag was ever the exclusive property of the hard right. aaI marched in anti-Vietnam War protests. We carried flags. (And the VVAW guys carried lots of flags.) aaI know what people are getting at when they talk about this. (There's a very funny Sunday Doonesbury strip about it from a couple of months ago. "No can do, big guy; we've all gotten kind of attached to it now.") But it seems to me that claims that the flag was ever categorically "a right-wing symbol" are wide of the mark.aa(Oops, there I go with that tedious logic-chopping again. I know that finding himself in an argument -- on my blog! Who would have thought? -- will come as a shock to Christopher Hatton. I'll have to hope that he can forgive me.)
An argument? Heavens to Murgatroyd! And both of us such easygoing types, too.aaNo, my dear Alphonse, it is you who must forgive me--if you choose, of course. I meant that the flag was used as a symbol BY the right, and in such a shorthand kind of way ("I'm for The Flag" meant "I'm for nuking Hanoi" in colloquial usage in my Junior High) that it became difficult to embrace.aaDuring the flag-burning/first amendment flap of the--80s? 90s? the flag almost became a symbol of opposition to free speech, which was bizarre. Seeing guys wearing flag t-shirts with "Try burning this one" made me wish I had a flamethrower. A friend who was at some of those 60s rallies where they actually did burn flags told me, with some remorse, "We should have washed it. That was what we really meant."aaAnd I grew up in a college town. When the students blockaded the campus, my dad couldn't get to work (animal rights advocates would have rejoiced, but...). There were two kinds of people: the kind who wore peace signs and were against the war, and the kind who wore flags and were for it.aaAll of this was happening in my own mind, I now realize; the flag was probably never so clear-cut a symbol even in that social mileau. What I meant was that for me the flag was too tainted with right-wing messages for me to embrace it; "it was a right-wing symbol" was intended as a shorthand for all that. Didn't mean to imply it was universal, etc. I was unclear, mea culpa. (Much of this post is tongue in cheek, but I really feel I should have been clearer; the culpa really is mea.) aaJust two more things, and I'll recede back into the muttering crowd. aa(1) The swastika was a perfectly nice symbol, I think of the power of the sun, before the ever-accursed minions of Hitler put it on their flag ("gules, on a plate a fylfot per saltire sable"), ruining it forever for its legitimate use; the gods grant this may never happen to our flag. aa(2) I am, in fact, thrilled to have gotten into an argument, even one based on my klutzing an attempt to communicate; if communication is the art of eliciting responses, I've been remarkably artless lately...I'm mostly talking about work, and not about your blog. Sometime we'll have to have a real argument, where we really disagree. I look forward to it.aa...peasandcarrotspeasandcarrots...
I grew up in American college towns, too. My father taught at a bunch of different colleges when I was growing up. My folks were sympathetic with the antiwar movement. We always had magazines like Ramparts and I. F. Stone's Weekly around the house. We went to several antiwar demonstrations.aaAnd yet the antiwar left I remember was pretty conscious of the need to not let the other side stake out an exclusive claim to patriotic symbols. I still have, for instance, a big button that depicts the peace sign rendered in stars-and-stripes. There were always big American flags at the marches we went to. I keep saying this stuff, and people keep coming back with stuff about how "There were two kinds of people: the kind who wore peace signs and were against the war, and the kind who wore flags and were for it." This isn't the timeline I remember growing up in.
Oh, c'mon Patrick, cut me some slack here! I said the clear-cutness of the distinction was mostly in my own mind! I don't think it was true, only that it was my perception at the time. My perception was imperfect, then as now. And I said so.aaMy parents never, ever took me (or any of my 5 sibs) to an antiwar rally of any kind, so I didn't see that stuff. Doesn't mean it wasn't there, I agree. I'm trying to talk about why I was not comfortable using the flag before 9/11; you were, and that's because your experiences growing up were very different from mine. That your perception was more accurate than mine I do not deny. I was pretty wrapped up in my own concerns as a child; if I thought about the world at all, it was mostly to try to get the Space Aliens to come take me away from it!aaI'll give you plenty of legit reasons to castigate me, I promise (see my ill-considered comment about Texas, for example). I believe you about the flags, OK? Never said I didn't.
Sorry, I didn't mean to "castigate" you. What I was trying to get across was the weirdness of vividly remembering something that it often seems most other people don't. Is it just me? Have I, like Billy Pilgrim, come unstuck in time? Cue TZ sting.aaI believe you, too; didn't mean to imply that I didn't.
As you know Patrick, I said in another forum many of the things Christopher Hatton has said here about the whole flag thing. (He sounds like someone I'd enjoy knowing--lets get him to a con.) I would submit that experiencing this phenomenon in a college town is quite different than what I observed growing up in a smallish city in northeastern Oklahoma in the 50s and 60s. Of course, there really weren't that many of us liberals around that place.aaI'm working on my flag block. I bought, though I have yet to wear, a lapel pin that is a ribbon with the stars and stripes. It's just amazing how hard these childhood phobias are to root out.aaMKK
I don't think it would be too hard to get Christopher Hatton to a con, given that we first got to know him in NY fandom in the 1980s and most recently saw him at the Worldcon in Phildelphia. For all I know, he's (unlike us) at Lunacon right now.aaI take your point. I was being a little contrary with Chris because he, too, was talking about growing up in a "college town." But I believe everyone.
A childhood phobia! That's what I was trying to say! Thanks, MKK!aa(My convention before the MP was 12 years earlier. I am largely gafiated.)aaPatrick, Patrick, Patrick. That you of all people would sink to monosyllabifying my name. I'm wounded. I would never do that to you, and if someone else did, I'd comfort you: Pat, Pat, Pat! (Funny: I just realized that "Chris Hatton" and "Pat Hayden" have the same number of syllables...)aaNot that I'm exercised about it... :-)
You're welcome Christopher. Since you were at MilPhil as was I and as were Patrick and Teresa I am now incensed that they didn't introduce us.aaHmmph.aaMKK
Followup: I'm pointed out on my blog that _The Weekly Standard_ has now taken notice of Walzer's article. It has, of course, attracted much attention and comment all across the ideological spectrums, and the blogosphere.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
Comments on Step one, meet your neighbors: