Whither the Left?

Politics International Politics
61

Chewycorns:

Let me clarify:

Right Left divide as I see it in the most recent conflict is that

Left: War is ALWAYS wrong. America has done bad things. Who are they to say that Iraq needs regime change. Bush needs regime change. Not in our name. No to war, not ever.

Right: These are not our problems, but when we see a security threat we will take it out. As long as we are there, we will try to clean up the place a bit to ensure we do not have to come back again.

Left: Socialism, we must help the poor, the unemployed, job training, women’s rights

Right: Can we make a profit? Do they protect property? What kind of rule of law is there?

So to my way of thinking, the Left socialist experiment has failed terribly. Where neoliberal practices are actually put into place the economies improve, rule of law improves and the people benefit far more than the short term handouts and protected jobs of socialism.

Please do not mention Argentina as an example of failed neoliberal policies. Argentina improved dramatically with privatization. The phones worked, the water and power shortages ended, the subway was rebuilt as were highways and ports and all manner of services improved. What failed was the corruption. The misallocation of funds from the privatization, the high debt that led to the default not to the privatization program itself.

This is what I mean.

62

GJ:

I take your points and you seem to take pride in speaking your mind and not bowing to authority.

My question is, however, is this morally consistent with your value system or just being a rebel without a cause?

I hear the Libertarians talk this way frequently and to me it is understandable that people do not want to get involved in conflicts that are not of their making, but where is the moral superiority from standing aside and raising oneself above it all?

That said, I again stress that foreign policy does not need to be uniform. One obsession of many Lefties on this forum is that for each and every case, an equal reaction, solution must be provided. Therefore if Iraq, why not Liberia and Congo. Let me stress than in all caps here. I believe that one can still weigh the risks against the benefits. To me, Liberia and Congo are hopeless. Involvement would be no guarantee of success. In Iraq there is a chance.

freddy

63

[quote=“Big Dunc”]Hi girls!

I assume that you are saying that this is acceptable then?[/quote]
Philosophically speaking, when, upon careful deliberation, the greatest good is done for the greatest number, then the end justifies the means, and it is acceptable. Lamentable, and of course every death is a tragedy for the family and friends of the deceased, but yes…acceptable.

What is remarkable is that so few civilians were killed during the invasion of Iraq. When, in history, has a whole country ever been taken over by another with so comparatively little bloodshed?

Yes, I know, that’s easy for me to say. But in the final analysis one cannot be Chamberlain, as then even more are either killed or sentenced to life imprisonment under tyranny. Better that women may have picnics and go to school and work and ride in the front seats of cars in the city of Kabul.

64

Amen to that Porcelain Princess:

All we have to do is look to North Korea and the agreement Carter and Clinton arranged: “peace in our time” and whoops no such thing and today the situation is far worse, much graver. I hope Carter and his smug moral vacuity are getting the proper credit he deserves. What a perfect case study of the dangerous do-gooder narcissism of so many on the left.

65

[quote=“fred smith”]Amen to that Porcelain Princess:

All we have to do is look to North Korea and the agreement Carter and Clinton arranged: “peace in our time” and whoops no such thing and today the situation is far worse, much graver. I hope Carter and his smug moral vacuity are getting the proper credit he deserves. What a perfect case study of the dangerous do-gooder narcissism of so many on the left.[/quote]

What you got against southern peanut farmers. “man, that’s just mean”

66

Kenny:

Carter is the Gao Xingjian of the Nobel Peace Prize. No one is sure what they did or why it was worthy of winning, but many felt that it was their time, their turn. Carter claims to mean well but leaves failure and disease and decimation and destruction in his trail. Reagan who was the great evil came along and everywhere peace, prosperity and rule of law increasingly follow. And Carter is such a NICE man too? I think that he is a eunuch. Amy that ugly brat must have been some kind of experiment.

Carter is Elliot in Rand’s the Fountainhead.

67

How the hell do you NOT turn it into a “left-right divide” when the Left’s idea of “reform” has been to nationalize industries and turn the entire country into their own personal cesspool? The Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Chavez in Venezuela, Mugabe in Zimbabwe. . . . Oh yes, and the worker’s paradise of Cuba.

The Right’s idea of reform, meanwhile, is to help countries build market economies through legal reforms that support business investment. Which actually works. . . .

Fred, as an ex-Libertarian, please let me inform you that the LP’s opposition to war is exactly as reflexive and nonsensical as “The Left’s”.

After Sept. 11th, the majority of the LP people I knew dismissed the idea of going after ObL by saying “all nineteen hijackers died in the attacks, so why are we invading Afghanistan?” They have zero concept of national security (open borders, anyone?), much less the need to go after terrorist leaders – the LP’s whole foreign policy is, “if we leave everyone else alone, they’ll leave us alone too.”

Same with Iraq – “Oh, Saddam Hussein has nothing to do with al Qaeda.” So, what about the payments he made to the Abu Sayyaf Islamic terrorist group in the Philippines, earmarked specifically for attacking American military personnel there? “Oh, that’s not al Qaeda.” So, al Qaeda is the only Islamic terrorist group on the planet that wants to kill Americans?? “Dude, no Libertarian would ever think the way you do. You’re not one of us.”

Nope, not any more. . . .

68

I definitely do not condone those regimes. I was talking about the left and right in international development. Many on the left and on the right see economic liberalization and integration into the world economy as vital. You are giving specific examples of far-left regimes. I am merely stating that most countries, regardless of whether they are left or right, these days don’t see capitalism as the enemy. AS Fukiyama suggests in his article “The End of History” these are old labels.

However, while we are on the topic. You wrote:

Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Chavez in Venezuela, Mugabe in Zimbabwe. . . . Oh yes, and the worker’s paradise of Cuba.

All of these regimes, past and present, I have no love for and would not shed a tear at their disintegration. But would the Sandinistas won popular support without the excesses of Somoza? Mugabe? Ian Smith and Rhodesia ring a bell? Castro? An idiot. But what a wasted opportunity. The U.S cut off relations and pushed him into the Soviet sphere in the 1950s. Furthermore, the harsh politics of the US government and Miami neo-fascist exiles only solidified his support on the island. I don’t mind the U.S shaking the “big stick” when it needs to and Bush should be commended for some constructive state building (Afghanistan as a recent example). But back to history. For every Chavez, Castro, or Mugabe there has been a Somoza, Diem, etc.- you get my point. The world is not so black and white, and in the past, U.S foreign policy has often viewed the world in such a way.

Government’s, ruling oligarchies, dictatorships subtle and overt, throughout history time and again create their own enemies. They need to manufacture enemies to indefinitely hoodwink the real enemy, the people they govern. Doesn’t matter if its the left or right. Enemies one day, bed mates the next. Capiche?

69

Let’s paraphrase your view of foreign policy: “For every [black], [black], or [black] there has been a [white], [white], etc. – you get my point.”

And yet in the next sentence, you argue that the U.S. foreign policy has viewed a multi-colored world in black and white.

Who views the world in black and white? You seem to think there’s a [black] for every [white], rather than that some dictators that are often compared to one another (such as Castro and Pinochet) may not have as much in common as your view supposes, and that the U.S. understood this well when it conducted its foreign policy.

It appears it is you and not the U.S. that views the world as black and white.

Oh, please. Can we cut the Chomsky-esque shit.

70

My rationalization…for every … there has been a … was based on the previous author’s rationale, not mine. And its not Chomsky - its Hegel.

TA for now,
Chewy

71

Exactly right Coldfront:

Pinochet and Castro are not equivalents. Pinochet has Chile at the top of the list in Latin America while Cuba… Better to compare Castro with someone like Papa Doc Duvalier who was just a gangster.

Then Diem in Vietnam? Well maybe if he had stayed there would be a Vietnam like Korea, like Taiwan, like Malaysia, like Singapore. There are dictators that lead countries to better futures. There are those who do not. Communism in general has failed repeatedly (actually every time) to deliver on the worker’s paradise while using some of the most brutal force against its people ever. I guess this is why Noam Chomsky is so eager to point to the faults of the US which while numerous do not pre-empt or exempt it from acting as a force of good in the much nastier world.

72

There’s a whole mythology behind the Cold War:

The U.S. pushed Stalin into the Cold War.

The U.S. pushed Ho Chi Minh into the Communists hands. (Why did you know that Uncle Ho read the U.S. Declaration of Independence during a post WW2 celebration? What a democrat!)

The U.S. pushed Castro into the Soviet’s hands.

All of these are Leftist lies that try to establish the U.S. as either some sort of foreign policy stumble-bumbler or worse. They rely on quoting men like Dean Acheson and other architects of U.S. foreign policy decisions out of context.

73

Well, if you’re talking about Hegel, or Kojeve, or Fukuyama, they were not concerned with lining up personalities, and naming them [black] and [white], but instead looked at history as the result of a battle of ideologies that ended in a clear winner.

Besides, Fukuyama’s vision of this explicitly says that the Reaganesque black and white moral vision of history was clearer than Kissinger’s grayer world.

74

since it was brought up in an earlier post, what do you armchair academics have to say regarding the reasons why Mugabe’s 20 year capaign of murder, rape, starvation, torture and oppression in Zimbabwe has been met with absolutely no action from the international community, specifically those who adopt the “protectors of global liberty, freedom and democracy” garb… or is that only when it’s convenient/profitable?.. :laughing:

75

Those Americans (the USA type) who believe that the US should only project power and use force when American interests are at stake have already answered this question.

The question now is why did those Americans (again, the USA type) who believe that American power should be projected and used only for humanitarian reasons oppose the use of force to crush Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.

Can you explain that?

76

A combination of two things. As sad as it is, most of the voting public in developed countries don’t care about Africa. Once when I was working in S’pore I overheard an editor say “1 death in the U.S” = 1000 deaths in Africa" in terms of newsworthiness. Most people don’t care about Zimbabwe and Mugabe – its that simple. There are no historical ties as there are with Liberia. SO that is why that country gets a little more press in the US.

Regarding Mugabe. There is a definite double standard. When he came into power many saw him as a savior and were glad that Rhodesia had been laid to the history books. He supported the ANC in SA and was seen as a progressive. Many in power in Africa still remember his support and are therefore willing to ignore this tyrants abuses.

Regarding the cold war post. The US was not responsible for the Cold War - numerous factors contributed to it…The Soviet Union had always been paranoid about its borders. After the civil war against the whites - this paranoia increased. Therefore, after WW2, and considering all the troops they lost, they wanted secure borders which meant the satellite countries of Eastern Europe. The US and its monolithic black and white view of the world at the time combined with its inherent misunderstanding of nationalism vs communism also contributed…Many Asia hands in the State Department knew this, but that rogue McCarthy purged many like John Stewart Service, John Patton Davies, and Owen Lattimore.etc…Had they been allowed to continue their services…

TA for Now Chewy

77

Communism was evil and expansionary. It got the death it deserved. American overreaction to the problem is overexaggerated. The only areas were perhaps in Central America and Africa but hey why let these areas go to Russia? See the post on France to understand the policies there. The only defenders of communism are the ones who never had to live under the system. This is why the biggest critics of American overreaction to communism never come from people in Russia, China or Eastern Europe but the West.

78

Nothing different would have happened.

It didn’t take an Asia hand to see the split in the Communist alliance. As early as the Kennedy administration, the U.S. government was exploring the possibility of reopening up diplomatic links with China.

The reason the U.S. did not go forward at that early date had nothing to do with a loss of expertise in the State Department. Instead, the reason was the U.S.-made mythology of the Communist alliance had created a monster, one that policy-makers had to pay heed to in public.

Needing to convince the American public after WW2 that great expenditure was necessary to combat Communism, U.S. policymakers at the time scared the hell out of it. This was necessary. As Acheson put it, it was a myth that was truer than truth. (Haha!) But having created that myth, they now needed to pay public obeisance to it. That meant that Communism was a monolith and that it was ever-expanding, and in fact there was enough truth to both claims to make them a basis for public rhetoric. But the situation changed and the U.S. eventually changed with it.

I do not use the word “myth” negatively. Myths about foreign policy are necessary in a democracy. Foreign policy is a complicated area for a great power and the public’s attention span is necessarily limited. Overgeneralizations are sometimes necessary. This happens even today. Bush’s comments on “peace-loving Muslims” as well as his “partnerships” with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were probably necessary, but the publicly-given reasons for them are definitely weak. Will this cause the U.S. trouble in the future? It’s possible.

79

On the other hand, what did the U.S. lose by not establishing diplomatic links with China early? Probably nothing. The thing that people don’t understand about Nixon’s opening to China was how little it ended up giving the U.S.

Nixon’s reasons for going to China were mainly twofold:

  1. Make an alliance with China against the Soviet Union, and

  2. Seek China’s help in Vietnam.

As to the first point, the U.S. victory over the Soviet Union was entirely diplomatic, unless you think a couple of listening posts in Inner Mongolia tipped the strategic balance. What’s more, the diplomatic victory didn’t last long since with first Vietnam and then Watergate and finally Carter, the Soviet Union made great strides during the 70s.

On the second point, the U.S. failed. China provided no meaningful help to the U.S. on Vietnam.

Frankly, Nixon’s trip to China has always been greatly exaggerated. In hindsight, it’s hard to see what the U.S. got out of it.

Of course, having diplomatic relations with the government of one billion people is important, but from the standpoint of strategic self-interest, it’s hard to find any significant U.S. gains from the opening.

80

Time for an update. This article was too good to pass by.

Link to article at Prospect Magazine

[quote]Two years of gibberish

September 2003

The garbled utterances of the left after 9/11 merely flattered the arguments of warmongers.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft

When the hijacked aircraft hit the World Trade Centre two years ago, more than just two buildings and 3,000 lives were lost: amid the rubble of ground zero, many illusions also smouldered. At the time, it seemed as though 11th September might prove to be a great event with small consequences, a horror without meaning or serious effects.

Two years on, it looks more like a small event with great consequences. To say “small” is not to minimise the outrage and the suffering: every death is a sorrow, and grief is not quantifiable. All the same, buildings are destroyed by fire every day, and thousands are killed in accidents. Three thousand dead is no more than the losses in London on one of the worst nights of the Blitz, and that itself was trivial compared to the great burnings in Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo. Three thousand Americans are killed in road accidents every month, not to mention the scores of thousands of Americans killed annually by guns, in murder or suicide.

But 11th September truly was different. The historian Tony Judt may well have been right when he wrote that, from his New York office window that morning, he had seen the 21st century begin. The political and military consequences of 11th September have already been drastic; not so much the direct effect of the campaign in Afghanistan as the indirect but far more important war in Iraq, of which the consequences are as yet unforseeable but certainly huge.

More than all that, 11th September was a day when consciousness changed. To look back at the responses which the murder evoked from the literary and political intelligentsia is to see something more than many clever and famous people making fools of themselves (enjoyable though that is). Here was a turning point. The mass murder in New York came just over four years after the death of Princess Diana. Writing here about that event, I said that the beatification of Diana by some alleged radicals demonstrated more vividly then anything since the fall of the Berlin wall the final bankruptcy of a large part of the progressive tradition 200 years after 1789. What was said and written after “9/11” might have been the formal declaration of that bankruptcy.

Any event as shocking as this was difficult to respond to perceptively or even sensibly. “Perhaps one of the most upsetting aspects of post-bombing America is the fatuousness of our response,” Thomas Laqueur wrote in the London Review of Books, little knowing how much truer his words would be made by his fellow contributors. Maybe there was nothing useful to say, but then writers and performers seldom follow the advice that if you can