Thanks for the Ed Herman llink. Stone's list I think attests to the shamefulness of Gitlin and Ackerman's letter since compared to the latter, Stone's list (uninspiring as it may be, and I agree with you) appears positively radical.

Nemo:

Thanks for the heads-up about the Leiter ("Why I Am Not a Liberal," October 29).

My goodness!  There is no principled reason why even a conservative (i.e., according to my understanding of the term--not the understanding of so-called "conservatives") couldn't oppose "criminal wars of aggression against defenseless nations when they aren't in America's interests." 

(To oversimplify: Liberalism is the belief that human problems (except those that are existential in nature or the result from the human condition) are solvable via human agency.  A true conservative position, on the other hand, is the belief that there are fundamental human problems that will forever remain beyond the reach of human understanding and the capacity to solve--the accompanying fear being that attempts to solve them lead to other unintended problems, like the proverbial snowball tumbling downhill, or the single grain of sand the displacement of which topples the whole dune.  Both of these are honorable positions, of course.  The latter being far too modest for my taste.  Also, both are routinely distorted beyond the point at which they are no longer recognizable.)

Anyway.  You will notice that Leiter also cited the University of Chicago's Geoffrey Stone, who, for the sake of discussion, recently published his own provisional list of "liberal principles" ("What it means to be a liberal," Chicago Tribune, October 10).  Personally, I found Stone's list uninspiring.  For example, there is no reason why a person with a conservative bent (see my definition) couldn't affirm every single one of the principles that Stone falsely attributes to what he calls "liberal."  But they sure do sound a hell of a lot better than Ackerman and Gitlin's defense of American state violence and Israel's "right to exist."

For a much more resounding rejection of Ackerman and Gitlin, see "The Liberals Answer Tony Judt's 'Useful Idiots' Charge," Edward S. Herman, ZNet, October 23, 2006.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Philosopher Brian Leiter's comments about this are particularly apt, I think.

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2006/10/why_i_am_not_a_.html

I think we have a new protector of the homosexuals and the prostitutes..

Yes indeed Victor Bwong is proposing we focus on the bad, bad NK govenment and not voice opposition to the saintly US. This overlooks the whole fact that the only reason that people like Kim Jong Il, and for that matter the corrupt Iranian government, are still in power is because of the constant threats by the US. IF the US would stop its rhetoric and threats the boogieman that KJ IL uses to blame all of the domestic problems of his regime on would be gone. His ability to legitimate a huge military state would fall away and expose him to the will of the people. It is the bellicose and hypocritical rhetoric of the US that enables the totalitarian regimes of the globe to persist. This is the larger picture that Bwong and others overlook when they claim that the left should focus on the bad guys and leave the US alone, that if we rain in and hold the US acoutable to its own rhetoric than NK and Iran would solve their own problems.

bwong wrote:

We cannot go back in time to prevent the U.S from having those nukes, but we can still prevent a very unstable regime such as NK developing its (We should also pressure the U.S., Russia and China into disarmament, but that is a different topic)

Let me get this straight, bwong. Because the US already has 10,000 nukes, we should just let that pass? On the other hand, we should prevent others from acquiring these weapons even though the US has a God-given right to them (or at least the right that possession confers upon the possessor). To use a similar vernacular to yourself, if I have two neighbors, one with a huge weapons cache in his backyard, and the other with a couple of grenades and maybe a rifle, and if I have only limited time and resources to fight either, which do you suppose I should concentrate my resources upon? And by the way, just how is NK "unstable". Certainly they won't be pushed around by anyone. Certainly they have their own mind. But on the other hand, just how many countries have they invaded? How many times have they interfered with the internal politics of another country? How many times have they demanded trade sanctions resulting in the deaths of untold numbers of civilians? Speaking of civilians, how many times have they bombed the shit of a country, caring nothing for the civilian targets they hit nor the huge cost of replacing a country's entire infrastructure? How many cluster bombs to be picked up by innocent children, phosphorus shells that burn the skin off whole families, and land mines have they left in their wake? How many times have they used weapons with depleted uranium, knowingly filling the air with poisonous dust? Where are they on the global list of arms dealers? In how many countries have they built permanent military bases? How many countries have they threatened and extorted? How many governments have they tried to overthrow, either through black ops or other more direct means? How many leaders have they tried to assassinate? How many national economies have they tried to make subservient by drawing them into huge debts that they can never repay and unfair trade practices? How much of the world's valuable and limited energy do they use? How much are they responsible for poor environmental practices? How many atomic weapons have they actually used in warfare? I'm a little confused here, bwong. Where should I use my time? Who should I be fighting? Little NK, or perhaps a bigger fish?

Bwong- you never wanted to talk about NK's nuclear ambitions, you wanted to talk about US bashing on left wing blogs. You brought the NK nukes issue in to make a point, one that to me dosn't make any sense. If you want to talk about rouge states with nukes in an empirical manner logic would persuade one to start with the nation with the largest arsenal, with the biggest military buget, with bases in 140 foreign nations, with a record of breaching international law by invading sovereign nations, the only nation to ever use a nuclear weapon, etc... you get my point. As per your previous question on what should be done now in Iraq, what would you suggest? It appears to me that the US troops are making the situation worse. Take the recent attempt to stabilize Bagdad by consolidating US troop presence. It has lead to an increase in violence. While the areas that the troops were removed from have seen decreases in violence. Sure the outcome of a withdrawl will not be a stable democracy, but that was never really a possibility from the begining. I think reparations for the next 50 years or so would also help. Personally, I believe the lack of sucess on the left is the result of the perponderance of 'anarchism' and other 'anti-power' ideologies. The deconstruction and critique of power is needed, but must be associated with a rearticulation of a new ideal, otherwise a power vacume emerges that only gets filled by fundamentalism and other cultural power forms. Anyway, that is my recent thinking on power and the left.

You wrote: Bwong, I don't believe anything the MS media says. Even if I research it, the facts are usually tilted. So in other words you don't believe what you hear about NK because you assume the mainstream media lies. Fair enough, very scientific. That is not my arguement, but nice try. In the same guise the US has no legitimate reason, including defence to have over 10,000 nuclear war heads. Well I don't think the U.S should have those warheads either. But I don't see how that validates NK's attempt to build its. We cannot go back in time to prevent the U.S from having those nukes, but we can still prevent a very unstable regime such as NK developing its (We should also pressure the U.S., Russia and China into disarmament, but that is a different topic) My basic point is that any nation with 10,000 nuclear war heads, that pulled out of the Nuclear non-prolif treaty,has no right to tell anyone not to get one. It has no right to threaten anyone with their nuclear weapons and especially not to threaten with nukes over nukes. Why the US is the lead attack dog against what is a domestic political decision, with a regional and global impacts. And why not the same outrage over Pakistan and Indian weapons? Let me see if I get your point. Suppose you tell your class (I believe you are some kind of professor) that 2+2 = 5. A student, say me, raised his hand and said, "Professor brad, 2+2 =4!". You then spend the rest of the lecture telling me that since I failed math I had no business criticizing your math skill.You then told me you were not the only professor messing up simple math, so did professor Peterson next door, why didn't I go embarass him. It could be true that I did fail math and I didn't show up profesor Peterson because I dislike you more. But still, 2+2=4! This is the problem in general, it seems that on znet (and other radical left forums) you cannot talk about anything without turning it into an U.S bash fest. So say if we talk about NK's nuke, the discussion soon changes to whether the U.S. has the right to condemn it rather than whether NK actually should be allowed to have the nuke. Then you will have people arguing that NK actually should have the nuke because the U.S says it shouldn't. This is the pattern of typical "leftist" discourse here on znet. You can see why most Americans basically write off the radical left as irrelevant.

Bwong, I don't believe anything the MS media says. Even if I research it, the facts are usually tilted. NK has no legitimate reason, including defence, to have a nuke. That is not my arguement, but nice try. In the same guise the US has no legitimate reason, including defence to have over 10,000 nuclear war heads. No I don't think there is any moral ground for NK to threaten its neighbors as means of self defence. Again, applying the same logic, the US doesn't have the right to threaten most countries against polices deemed not in the US' interests with the threat of nuclear weapons. My basic point is that any nation with 10,000 nuclear war heads, that pulled out of the Nuclear non-prolif treaty,has no right to tell anyone not to get one. It has no right to threaten anyone with their nuclear weapons and especially not to threaten with nukes over nukes. Why the US is the lead attack dog against what is a domestic political decision, with a regional and global impacts. And why not the same outrage over Pakistan and Indian weapons?

Friends:

For a commentary by a Cruise-Missile Liberal that both the New Yorker and Truthout happen to be currently hawking.

The depth of its insight can be summed up by these two sentences (par. 9): "The President's Iraq war is lost.  Plan A--a unified and democratic Iraq that will be a model in the region--is no longer achievable." 

Their author wasn't kidding, either.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

What do you mean by "liberalism in action"? The allegded deliberate bombing of AJ or the belief that it should be treated as a serious matter? "Illiberal" regimes bomb all sorts of targets at war without apology or the need to make the bombings look like accidents. I don't know if Gitlin actually thinks it was a good idea to bomb AJ, if you think he does please provide a link. Thanks and have a nice day.

Hi, MTbrad, You wrote: The very thing that the left is argueing is not that the US is evil, but that its is the same as others yet claims that its is the god chosen deliverer of freedom. You and I must be reading different versions of Znet. Lately all I see are hyperboles about how the U.S. being the repository of all that is wrong and evil, the "dark empire" etc etc.I wouldn't have a problem if people are just pointing out U.S. hypocrisies, I do that all the time(and also to Canada, my own country) The U.S. is again not alone in wrapping itself in high principles while persuing selfish ends. If you have experienced life outside the U.S. you should know that this is a universial phenomenon. But at least in the U.S. enough people think those principles matter and accusations of hypocrisy means something. Nobody would accuse China, for example, of hypocrisy. Not that it is not hypocritical, but most sane people know it is pointless to raise the issue. I think zneters need to keep that in mind. If Zneters truly believe America is nothing but self serving elite and predatory foreign policies, that all its self professed principles are just propaganda which stands for nothing, then why do they at the same time insist on judging it according to those standard? I am sorry, I can't follow the logic here. That being said what gives the US more of a right to have a nuke (or 10,000) and NC none? You are watching too much MS media if you think that North Korea is an absolute evil nation. Interesting comment. First of all how do you know North Korea is not like what they tell you in mainstream news? Have you been there? Or is it just an assumption that everything coming out of the mainstrream is fabricated by CIA's order? Well to tell you the truth I seldom watch American mainstream news. I seldom watch TV, peroid. But I do know people who have been to North Korea and have seen it first hand. I know some Chinese people who have access to the "hermit kingdom" on official capacity. China being the sole benifactor to NK, they could go wherever they pleased. All I can tell you is that the country is like a giantic Gulag and a cult compound. Saddam's Iraq didn't even compare. During WWII many Korean women were kidnapped by the Japanese as "comfort women" or military prostitues. This was a major atrocity and grave injustice. I don't know if it is shown in American mainstream news, but according to my informants North Korea has its own system of comfort women. The state selects young women to work in brothels on the Chinese side of the border to earn money for the cash strapped regime,--probably some of the proceeds go towards building their bomb. Clients are Chinese,Japanese as well as some South Koreans. Now please tell me what legitimate reason does a regime like NK have for the nuke? "self defense"? Defending whom against who? "Self defense" just means securing the illegitimate regime's hold on power at the expense of its starving people. NK may have the right to "self defense" based on the narrow legalism of international law, but morally it is rather dubious. Moreover,since NK nuke likely cannot hit the U.S. anyway,--their missile test was a failure by a long shot,-- in what way does NK's nuke enhance its "security" against possible "U.S. aggression"? The only way I can think of is by holding its neighbours such as Japan and the South hostages.Since Zneters like to talk about moral principles, do you see anything morally wrong with this kind of "self defense" stragtegy? To put it bluntly, if you hit me, I am going downstair to rape my roomate.

Bwong- You make some good points but fall into the same critical attack mode that you claim to be against. The notion that all that znet blogs do is complain is a valid one. It is one that I have long though about the new left, or the left that is afraid to articulate a postition that requires a plan to take power. I don't understand your sectarian quip though, it is one thing to make a valid point that you can back up and another to attack the messenger. Your notion of the US being the same as others in its elite ruled, some good/some evil balance, is completely wrong. The very thing that the left is argueing is not that the US is evil, but that its is the same as others yet claims that its is the god chosen deliverer of freedom. It is the very notion of US greatness that the left keeps at least slightly at bay. If the America bashing were to stop on the left, the world would become a much worse place really fast. I think most leftists would argue that no country should have nukes. That being said what gives the US more of a right to have a nuke (or 10,000) and NC none? You are watching too much MS media if you think that North Korea is an absolute evil nation. The sword cuts both ways indeed.

David, I don't really get what you are blustering about except perhaps more hot air. The point is I never read any constructive idea coming from your corner, only venoms. Now how is that a way to build any movement? Take for example, what should be done in Iraq NOW? I don't hear any constructive input from you, except going on and on about how illegal and unjust the invasion was. Yes, we all agree, at least I do and I am not saying that just because things don't go well. It was wrong in principle. But what should the U.S do now that the invasion has happened and it is there? Pull out and let the place explode in a full fledge civil war? Pull out hoping that everything will be fine just because the occupation has ended? Don't pull out and sink deeper and deeper into the quick sand? Stay for the security of the Iraqis but also pay for the damage?... I don't have an easy answer and I think honest people can legitimately arrive at different conclusions. Yearwood's definition of rougue state is predicated on narrow legalism. The U.S. is certainly self serving and hypocritical when it comes to international law, no big news there.Any powerful state would do the same if it can get away. But to somehow imply there is a moral equivalence between the U.S. and the likes of North Korea is just insane. All it demonstrates is that legalism alone is not a good criteria to determine what is "evil". As far as doctrinal purity and intolerence on the radical left, I don't neeed Gitlin to tell me. All you have to do is take a look at Chomsky's 911 blog. Just because he politely disagreed with the conspiracy brigade he was called a sellout and worse.This is what they do with one of their biggest Gurus. Outside the blog scene it is very much the same. Leftists just seem to have very low tolerence towards dissents within their ranks. Some of you sound like a bunch of Stalinists. Speaking of constructive criticism may I suggest that you reread your prose before posting them. Your writings are full of rhetorical questions and lame sarcasm, the sentences are abrupt and often unclear in what they try to convey. P.S. Gitlin claims the far left misrepresent his position in order to smear him. He says that he opposed invading Iraq from the start on principle, not out of "pragmatism". I am not interested in the he says she says, but just make a note here since this is the topic of the blog.

This is a question of nomenclature. After all, both pragmatic and ideological imperialists are, as far as I'm concerned ideological. In fact all policy positions, including my own are ideological, insofar as they involve numerous largely unverifiable assumptions.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that I loathe the pragmatist/ideologue contrast. Everyone, of course, thinks of themselves as pragmatists (i.e. "grounded in the real world") and thinks of their opponents as ideologues, dancing with faeries in a world of their own making.

I like your point about Fords vs. BMWs. Perhaps the main difference is that liberals tend to have better PR among the intellectual classes. The "liberal" exercise of imperial power allows the intellectual classes to more comfortably indulge themselves in their idealized self-image. Perhaps that's why so many people feel the media and academy are "left wing." A confession: perhaps that is also why I find them more attractive than the two-faced folksy jingoism of the Bush republicans... my middle class bias showing itself again.

Dressing up self-interested state violence as selfless humanitarian intervention is indeed cunning when appealing to the cosmopolitan middle and upper classes. This is the perennial "civilizing mission" of European colonialism, or the Pax Romana. Bush uses it too, with all that "freedom agenda" bullshit. But to me, it seems so much more transparent; even the domino theory has more credibility than the "freedom/security from terrorism/WMD" line... especially in circumstances where the self-interested motivation can be seen so clearly.

The Gitlin/Ackerman form of liberalism, however, is better suited to the imperial project because it is more "internationalist" in character. If you want an empire you need to sell BMWs. In the end, US postwar system supports and feeds on a hegemony of global capital. What is striking about Iraq is that global capitalists were leery of the war; the politicians couldn't sell it, and Bush cut alot of foreign war profiteers out of Iraq honey pot. I get the feeling that European capital rather liked the pre-invasion status quo. A global empire requires the support of a distributed class of elites; "Going it alone" is historically a sign of imperial dissarray.

Not necessarily a bad thing. But the results of that kind of dissarray rarely include greater peace, security or justice.

 

 

 

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Both with a Bang and with Liberals.

The Hollow Men
T.S. Eliot, 1925 

 

Bwong:

Presumably, you would like a "big tent movement" that provides "realistic alternatives" to the way things are in the world--at least our part of it.  And you believe that this desideratum requires us to avoid "sectarian purity" (and the like). 

In my "Reply to Bobbo" (2006-10-22 12:43), I've already suggested one Big - Tent Alternative.  It is the kind that the Americans seem particularly fond of.  Even Ackerman and Gitlin's "We Answer to the Name of Liberals" is sectarian by its standard.  

If we take a look at the way things are in the world today, does our predicament more closely resemble that faced by the passengers aboard Royal Caribbean's new Freedom of the Seas luxury liner, or the passengers aboard the HMS Titanic, steaming for New York?  

In your second paragraph, you contend that the "U.S. is not uniquely evil." (Thanks for this insight.)  Rather, the U.S. is like any other state.

The first-half of this point would be important, were it meaningful.  But we both know that we cannot determine evil, either by reading tarot cards or by performing a transcendental deduction of the categories of evil from the essence of Americanhood.  Instead we are compelled to rely on an empirical approach: Evil is only as far as evil does.  No more.  No less.  So as the first-half of your point doesn't apply to me, I am left without a response to it.

The second-half of your point, on the other hand, is simply false.  In his separate post, Kelvin Yearwood (2006-10-24 08:49) cited in example one reason why this is so: "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who's the Biggest Rogue of All?" (Richard Du Boff, Z Magazine, September, 2003).

Here I'll share another.  According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's latest Yearbook on Armaments, Disarmament, and International Security (p. 11--though the print edition runs upwards of 1000 pages in all):

• World military expenditure in 2005 is estimated to have reached $1118 billion. This corresponds to 2.5 per cent of world GDP or an average spending of $173 per capita.
• World military expenditure in 2005 presents a real terms increase of 3.4 per cent since 2004, and of 34 per cent over the 10-year period 1996–2005. The USA, responsible for about 80 per cent of the increase in 2005, is the principal determinant of the current world trend.
• The USA now accounts for 48 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China, with 4–5 per cent each. The rapid increase in US spending is attributable to the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.         

You mention that we must never "forget that the sword cuts both ways."  Indeed it does. To quote something that ZNet circulated just yesterday ("The Liberals Answer Tony Judt's 'Useful Idiots' Charge," Edward S. Herman, October 23--sorry but I don't believe that a hyperlink is available just yet), an "imperial and militarized state will use its military power relentlessly," and the "feedback effects of this chronic warfare" inevitably will entail all kinds of world-destructive consequences.

In terms of its power relative to other states, including perhaps above all "way of life" issues (i.e., the nexus of concentrated wealth, along with the political and military institutions that serve and protect it), the Super Big Tent of American Power is decisively not like the other powers in the world today.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Poor Bwong, with the level of threats the US poses on small nation, wouldnt you be surprised the US does not get nuked withing a pre-emptive strike? I think it would be time small poor countries will be allowed to join the social pot of humanity.. blocades such as the ones imposed on cuba, iran, venezuela only create more dissent.. threats upon the arbas world for their oil could end up in greater disaster than the one "we " are already sucked in"//

Dear Bwong,

I have to agree that taking pot-shots at people can be incredibly counter-productive in building a cohesive movement, but I do need to come to David's defense. I see that he is a very dedicated activist who has put himself in positions of intense exposure to try to point out social and political inconsistancies and tendancies toward follow-the-leader policies and trends that build-up to or defend violence as an answer.  He does tend to find particular American scenarios, like Opera, The Liberals, and social-contract gathering like that, I think because he sees these groupings as dangerous group-think and emotional manipulations.  These groups can be dangerous because they push away independent thinking and personal analysis, which seems to be a consistant theme in his work and life.

 best,

 Gretchen 

Because the radical left offer no realistic alternatives. Take David, for example. All he does is complain, criticize and take pot shots at people who don't share his doctrinal correctness. Sectarian purity is good if all you want is to build a little leftist Church somewhere in the internet for a few admirers. It is no way to build any big tent movement. Instinctive America bashing is also not a good idea. Chomsky makes the frequent point (in fact one of his main themes) that U.S. foreign policies are motivated by elite interests rather than high principles. In that the U.S. is just like other nation states. It is not some kind of super hero running around the world fighting for justice and human right. I completely agree and that message is relevant to people who are spoon fed by the main stream media. But the flip side of that truism is that the U.S. is not uniquely evil either. IT IS LIKE ANY NATION STATE. The leftists here who indulge in ritualistic U.S. bashing seem to forget that the sword cuts both ways. They sound as though the U.S. is the embodiment of some metaphysical evil.When you have "leftists" arguing North Korea should have the nuke for self defence against "American aggression" something just don't compute. People with common sense when confronted with such mindless hyperbole would just tune out and I can't blame them.

Is this how liberalism dies? With loud hypocritical proclamations of false humanitarianism and denouncement of the very establishment they implicitly support? So violence is fine and dandy until it becomes too inconvenient or costly for the perpetrators...innocent victims be damned!!!! I think I prefer the more virulent brand of American patriotism!!! It's more honest. At least the Neocons are not hiding behind false modesty or pretenses about their ambitions for a new world order as evidenced by their Project for a New American Century. Quite frightful reading but I would recommend it to anyone who has any lingering faith in this nation's misadeventures in trying to spread democracy by the sword. As for Israel having a right to exist...Do these "liberals" believe in the fundamental right of the state of Palestine to exist (and everything that it entails)? I highly doubt it!!! So this is what has become of liberalism, the last final stand against the Neocon agenda!!! But really, in the final analysis, what the hell is the difference anymore??? The devil has finally won his greatest battle...He has finally managed to co-opt the opposition so that now everyone is marching to the same imperialist beat, and worshipping at the same altar...and the fools don't even know it!!!

The questions I keep coming back to after I read something like this, are:

If they are so bad and incompetant (which I completely agree they are), why are they beating us? Why don't their losing ways, which stem ultimately from being anti-people in so many ways, contribute to a shift from liberal to Left.

This is a separate question, and oversimplified, but it makes me wonder.

Bobbo:

We very well may be using terms at cross-purposes here--in which case, we may be making the exact same point, just expressing ourselves differently.  I'm not sure.

But I believe we should think twice about who really is a "pragmatic" as opposed to who's an "ideological" imperalist.

With respect to the Cruise-Missile Left (or what elsewhere I've referred to as the Humanitarian Brigades), I find the authors of "We Answer to the Name of Liberals" to be dangerously ideological.  This doesn't make them more trigger-happy than the regime currently occupying the White House.  But it does make them more cunning.

Consider how pathetic it is for Ackerman - Gitlin to feel the need to dress-up their support of the threat or use of violence by their favorite superpower in humanitarian terms.  Pop-psychologically, it reminds me a lot like how different brand-names appeal to different strata of American society: Fords and Chevys versus BMWs and Audis.  Off-the-rack clothes and second-hand shops versus designer suits.  Within the political spectrum of Establishment USA, who is it that is more comfortable with using the awesome military power of the United States to steal other people's territory and incinerate them if try to stop it?  And who is isn't?  That is, who will buy their favorite superpower's violence only if it comes bearing the more snobbish brand name of the "responsibility to protect"?  (I'm not in the market for either, incidentally.)      

For a case in point, take Barack Obama, the State of Illinois junior Democratic Senator, whose star happens to be in the ascendency today.  "[H]is athletic good looks have landed him on the cover of a major fashion magazine, with a spread by Annie Leibovitz," we read in Sunday's Washington Post; Obama "harks back to a Hamiltonian tradition that calls not for big government, but for limited yet energetic government to enhance social mobility. The contemporary guru he cites most is Warren Buffett," in last Thursday's New York Times.  

This Obama is closer to the JFK brand than John Kerry could ever possibly be.  

Christ.  I can even feel an Oprah Moment coming on.

But--I digress.  

Apologies.

 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA  

It seems to me there have always been tensions between "pragmatic" and ideological imperialists in every regime. Bush, whose admin has an unusually high concentration of rabid ideologues, definitely highlights those tensions. That's making the cruise-missle left and pragmatic wing look like more attractive than they actually are.

That being said, I do prefer having pragmatic imperialists in power. They have a concern with legitimacy that can be used against them. Ideological imperialists don't give a damn what people think; they will pursue violence without restraint.

Speaking of which, a couple of weeks ago, I got the sudden and disctint sense that the time of the "liberals" has finally come. It would seem that things are finally sticking to Bush's teflon suit. The Baker plan is a blow for the pragmatists. The Republicans are seeing openings to turn on the White House.

Most importantly, that strange halo seems to have left Bush et al. even for his most ardent supporters. I was speaking with a family member who is pro Bush, and suddenly he's dismissive and negative about him. "I always felt that he made mistakes," or "he played his hand badly in Iraq," etc., etc. Limited criticism, to be sure, but it's a complete reversal from even a few months ago when Bush's "freedom agenda" in the middle east was just about the best thing since sliced bread.

I smell blood.

 

Keir and Victor:

What the Cruise-Missile Liberals who drafted "We Answer to the Name of Liberals" advocate is an abandonment (long-time coming) of decent liberal principles (e.g., Hobhouse, the UN Charter), all in the name of “Liberalism”!

Rather than ruling out the threat or use of force in international affairs, and naming the United States of America as its principal violator, hands-down, they affirm two of the last three U.S.-led wars of aggression (over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and, later, Afghanistan)!  And the nature of the objections they raise about  the U.S. aggression over Iraq is such that this war has turned out to be overly costly to American Power (both in dollars and in the new forms of resistance that it has inspired) and to something called “America's moral standing”!

Not only is their “liberal” universe populated by something called “America's moral standing”!  But among its other dramatis personae are “American ideals,” “Founding Fathers,” and “true patriotism”!  (I'll have to check to see if it also includes Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.)

Even their mentions of "public reason" and "reason and evidence [as] the bedrock of a pluralist democracy" are nothing but Habermasian Hot Air.

And the reason they singled-out Tony Judt's "Bush's Useful Idiots" to frame their otherwise starry-eyed liberal manifesto in the first place probably had more to do with "L'Affaire Judt"--his recent run-ins with pro-Israel enforcers in the States--than with anything Judt actually wrote in his rambling commentary for the London Review of Books.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA 

I would agree. Based upon history, Americans are quite PRO-War. In fact, that is usually their initial response to any perceived threat. Note I say "initial", not "considered". And only after 1) the war turns pear-shaped on them and actually starts to cost money and lives, or 2) the thing drags on too long, do these same folks become "anti-war".

Not me. Nice post. The Hobhouse bit is illuminating. I can't remember ever meeting anyone who self-defines as a "liberal" who wouldn't also happily defend acts of aggression committed by other self-defining liberals. PS: something's definitely in the air today. Keir The Hague