A GOOD WAR

The Long Detour: The History and Future of the American Left (James Weinstein, 5.28.03, In These Times)

Today, the Soviet threat (and its identity with socialism) now appears to have been grossly exaggerated. Indeed, the Cold War itself can be seen as an historical hiatus--a ritually choreographed standoff that afforded the American ruling class with both protection from dissent and an organizing principle for its retrograde foreign and domestic policies, while it provided the Soviet Union with a rationale for the Communist Party?s unquestioned rule at home and in Eastern Europe. In short, this time of fear and conformity was a godsend for the rulers on both sides of the Iron Curtain. [...]

The difference between ritual Cold War tensions and the terrors of the new era--real and faux--is all too clear. Now we confront a true enemy, an unpredictable, amorphous, almost intangible seething mass of freelancers, many of them highly educated and civilized, others feral, but all acting out of rage against the new American Empire. These popular forces confront American-style capitalism spontaneously, through non-governmental groups that ignore national boundaries. And they operate with little institutional control. Unlike the old enemy, the new one mounts deadly terrorist attacks on symbols of American military and commercial power, is secretly and informally organized, and is widely dispersed. As such it offers few clear targets for political or military engagement.

This situation threatens the social stability that post-industrial capitalism requires to function smoothly. And it offers the opportunity for megalomaniacal right-wingers to promote their militarist policies and dreams of world domination--as the Bush administration?s actions show all too well. For all of democratic society, and especially for the left, this new (and certainly transitory) stage of history is costly and frightening. It is the price we pay for 50 years of political and intellectual stagnation, a time when the political dynamic of capitalism was sidetracked by the Cold War. As a lifelong socialist, and one-time Communist, the movement of history has always concerned me. And as a pathological optimist, I have always
viewed American history as tending inexorably, if fitfully, toward a more inclusive democracy. Like many Americans who experienced the 20th century, I see history moving forward, driven by the progressive interaction between capitalist and socialist principles.

Still, by equating opposition to corporate domination of public life with disloyalty, our country?s rulers disoriented the left, stifled public discussion of the most basic public policy issues, and transformed the left into a plethora of single-issue movements. This removed the progressive dialectic of opposing principles from our political culture and steadily narrowed the difference between the major parties. Without vigorous debate over alternative values and principles the left has receded from view, and our political system has been converted to one focused on personality, appearance, and the ability to raise money for trivial, brain-numbing television and radio commercials.

In short, it has become more and more difficult for working people, or associations who represent their interests, to participate meaningfully in national affairs. And as working people are excluded from this process, fewer and fewer bother to vote.

With differences between the major parties or their candidates disappearing, and with the left--and the socialist ideas that shaped it--absent from popular discourse, more and more citizens retreat into private life, ignorant of the impact of public policies on their lives.

This is an odd blend of the perceptive and the obtuse and several of its errors seem to be symptomatic of what Michael Walzer termed the "decent Left", but we might call the patriotic Left. The great mass of people are sufficiently disinterested in politics/philosophy that they can easily enough accept their nation and the conditions within it--more power to them. But those on the Left and those on the Right must almost always, except for those moments when the tide of history seems to running their way, be somewhat disgruntled about the extant situation. For these folks--and we'd certainly include ourselves among the latter--the question becomes, not will you stop working for change but: do you love your country even with all its flaws? This question is especially germane when the country is at war, when it is perfectly acceptable to oppose the war, but in nearly all instances inappropriate to view your country as evil just because you differ with your countrymen. In the past the Right has generally had an easier time answering this with a "yes", though, while it's best not to overestimate their number, the paleocons do seem to be having inordinate trouble getting to the affirmative these days. (One would merely note that Pat Buchanan, the best of their number, has had a particularly hard time keeping his inherent patriotism under wraps.) The Left on the other hand does, any time it opposes a war, have a tendency to judge the nation unworthy and to engage in a level of vituperation that poisons the political atmosphere. Kudos then to Mr. Weinstein for seemingly supporting a vigorous reaction to the current Islamicist terror threat, even if he may differ on some particulars.

However, were he to think things through a bit more carefully he might comprehend a bit better just how similar this war is to the prior one he reflexively condemns. He's absolutely right that the Soviet threat was absurdly exagerrated. The Cold War need never have been waged. Communism is unworkable under any circumstances and even had the Soviet Union pursued an expansionist policy after WWII it would have quickly overextended itself so thoroughly that internal pressures would have brought its speedy collapse--Europe would in fact most likely have been free much sooner had we allowed events to run their course. Appeasement would have been distasteful, but effective. This is why it was a mistake to fight the Cold War, but does not make our fighting of it "wrong". It, like WWI and WWII, was a noble folly, worth winning if not necessarily worth waging, and certainly not a reason to revile one's country.

Neither is the war on terror based on a "real" threat. Sure, some Americans would die in terrorist attacks if we ignored the terror axis entirely, but no more would die than would have died had we ignored kaiserism, nazism, communism, etc.. If you're willing to tolerate a periodic Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Holocaust, Gulag, 9-11, etc., there's really no one who threatens the viability of the American republic from abroad. It's nice of Mr. Walzer and Mr. Weinstein and some others to be on the country's side for once, after the decision has been made to pursue a war strategy, but it's dishonest to pretend that their support is a result of the cause this time being uniquely worthwhile. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 10, 2003 1:39 PM