--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps I've misunderstood your argument, Gauatam, > but it seems to me > you are quite close to arguing a tautology: those on > the Left do not > criticize Leftist extremists, and those who don't > criticize Leftist > extremists are lumped into the Left. I have > certainly read and spoken to > a number of conservatives who do not criticize > Coulter and Falwell, so > the same argument could be made for "the Right".
Hi Erik. No, I don't think I'm arguing that. There are certainly _individual_ conservatives who don't support Coulter or Falwell, but on the whole they are persona non grata on the right. They have no constituency, no influence. Michael Moore - Coulter's best counterpart - is lionized, by contrast. My real question point, though, is to try and answer the question Michael Walzer posed in _Dissent_. http://www2.kenyon.edu/depts/religion/fac/Adler/Politics/Waltzer.htm Walzer is the editor of Dissent, one of the more influential magazines of the left. His question was "Can there be a decent left?" First, it's worth noting that someone like Walzer - a self-avowed member of the left - found it necessary to ask that question. The answer, the year and a half since September 11 has revealed, appears to be no. There can't be. Not that it isn't _possible_, but that it doesn't seem to be possible with the people who make up the modern left. This is a tragedy - it's not that what are generally recognized as leftist principles don't contribute something worthwhile to politics. They undeniably do. It's that today's left doesn't believe in them. The _only_ principle of today's left seems to be antagonism to the United States. > > As a sidenote, do you consider me part of "the > Left"? I do share a > number of positions with "the Left", being in favor > of a liberal > society, but I also think Chomsky is a kook when he > writes about > politics (I don't have an opinion on Pollitt, I > don't think I've ever > read anything by Pollitt). Just wondering. > > "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't think so, no. You seem to be something of a libertarian, so far as I can tell. I don't think you share many positions at all with "the Left", actually, because I see no signs that the left is committed to a liberal society in anything but rhetoric. When it actually comes down to it, what are PC and sensitivity training but thought policing enforced with whatever institutional power the Left can pirate? I would actually say that in the US - as opposed to Europe - being a classical liberal usually puts you on the right of the political spectrum. This is part of the classic conservative conundrum. There are two types of conservatives. There are those opposed to change in general, on general principles. And there are those opposed to the Left -that is, those opposed to specific types of change, but not opposed to change in general. Most conservatives have a foot in both camps, but they usually have a primary emphasis. I am (generally) a member of the second. In the US that means commitment to liberal ideals - the basic freedoms enshrined in the Constitution (political _and_ economic) and an embrace of equality of opportunity over that of results. So (for me, for example) being a conservative is perfectly consistent with a commitment to gay rights. Other conservatives, who oppose change on general and legitimate principles, are more opposed to them - not necessarily out of homophobia (although some are, of course) - but because they genuinely (and correctly, imo) feel that the preservation of old social mores is a vital role of conservatism in a society. Being a member of the left, since the Vietnam War at least, seems to me to be opposing the basic tenets of the American creed. Not always in rhetoric, but almost always in practice. Not because they are bad in and of themselves - although some members certainly seem to think so - but because they are American, and that by itself is enough to oppose them. It showed up before. If the left is about egalitarianism - which it claims to be - there was not a less egalitarian society in the world than the old USSR. But, as Walzer mentions (but sort of understates) most of the world's left ranged from being neutral between the US and the USSR to aggressively opposed to the US. We saw something similar in the buildup to Iraq - something that you and I both commented on. People who never cared about the people of Iraq in the least before the US moved against Saddam were willing to riot in the streets to prevent it from doing so, claiming that they were doing so on behalf of Iraqis. This didn't make sense, as we both saw. It wasn't about anything but opposition to the United States. That's all that's left. Walzer was hoping that his essay would trigger reform and self-examination. The very lack of response and change to it suggests, to me, that instead there isn't anything remaining to build upon. I can't close with anything better than Michael Walzer's words - he is, after all, a great and wise man _of the left_ - so what does it say that he writes these things? "And yet, the leftist critique--most clearly, I think, from the Vietnam years forward (from the time of 'Amerika,' Viet Cong flags, and breathless trips to the North)--has been stupid, overwrought, grossly inaccurate. It is the product of what Philip Roth, in his novel I Married a Communist, aptly described as 'the combination of embitterment and not thinking.' The left has lost its bearings." Walzer hoped that it would find them. So did I, when I read the essay. It was a false hope. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
