The Moral Crisis on the Left and Missed Points
Lance on Sep 05 2007 at 5:10 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs, Lance's Page, Notes on the war, Society
In response to my post on the moral crisis of the left, I (and the Eustonite left) got a response from Matt Zeitlin.
To begin with he makes some good points about the Bush administrations lack of support for non-sectarian groups such as labor unions in the aftermath of the invasion with a link to an article I had not read before. I have some quibbles with it, but all in all the administration missed some opportunities to strengthen labor unions as a force for civil society and I do suggest reading it. He also makes some rather poor points:
Now, some of these soi disant “leftists” are honest about their support for unions – BobFromBrockley has real labor credentials — others, like Jamie Kirchick seem to only be fans of labor unions in Iraq (or Iran).
I am not sure exactly why he feels this is relevant. Leaving aside the accuracy of his characterization of Jamie, one wonders why one can only legitimately be opposed to the slaughter and murder of union members, gays, leftists, secularists or the like if one has marched on a picket line or even why it would be necessary to support most union activities? (Though I appreciate the link to Bob, a humane and thoughtful man who I will put on my blogroll as soon as I post this.) Must I support everything the NAACP advocates to call for their protection should a group of neo-nazis begin targeting its members for death?
The main thrust of the post however is this:
The article also details how the occupation and the CPA especially was run like a Heritage intern’s dream — massive , indiscriminate privatization and a 15% flat tax were all implemented with greater vigor than retaining the Army. The CPA even maintained Saddam era restrictions on union activity. So, where were Nick Cohen and Jamie Kirchick as the Bush administration’s CPA failed the Iraqi trade unions? The way the Euston left would have it, those of us who opposed the war and continue to do so are responsible for the plight of the Iraqi trade unionists, even when their war leader (Bush) and his CPA were gutting the unions and leaving them out to dry. Why wasn’t Nick Cohen devoting maybe 1/3 of the columns where he was otherwise bashing the left for being soft on “clerical fascists” to examining how the administration he supported was trying to implement the Thatcherite/supply side revolution in Iraq? Michael Weiss, Oliver Kamm, Christopher Hitchens, anyone?
Leaving aside his rather over the top characterization of the article in question, and why exactly a more progressive tax rate in Iraq would have made any significant difference, would it be possible to do a more thorough job of missing the point of Nick Cohen, Jamie, Norm Geras, Oliver Kamm, Michael Weiss or any of those he is taking to task, including myself? Actually that is too kind, he is illustrating the point. (All the links above are to posts which I think are relevant to this discussion, though not directly. Well worth reading, all of them.)
To narrow the point down, I will repeat:
No, the left that I imagine, the loyal opposition, would have clamored after the invasion of Iraq to truly work for the welfare of its people. They would not have stood aside and watched as the trade unionists, democratic socialists, homosexuals, secularists and any number of other groups who had suffered so long under Saddam were targeted for supporting the liberation of Iraq. That left may or may not have supported the invasion, but they would have no doubt about whose side they were on, and it would not be the “resistance.” They would not have stood aside and said “I told you so,” no matter how opposed they were to this administration or the invasion itself.
That the administration wasn’t union friendly enough doesn’t change the fact that whether the invasion was a foolish debacle, a cynical way of enriching the Presidents cronies or any number of fantasies about what drove the invasion, it was not the administration bent on slaughtering their supposed allies, it was the terrorists, fascists, sadrists and salafists. Instead we get “I told you so” yet again from Matt. He stands by and revels in the smug evidence of his oh so certain he is correct assessment of the Bush administration while those he purports to care for die and become fodder for his intellectual victory.
Frankly the Iraqi people would have been better off with the left helping Bush be succesful than looking as bad as possible. They could have used money, expertise, and probably most important, moral support. An outpouring of concern for them, support for them against those who were intent on putting a fascist dictatorship or terrorist death cult back in power would have benefited them far more than expressions of solidarity with the resistance, glamorization of the murderers, the encouragement of the delusions of Michael Moore and other fantasies which were eagerly recycled in Iraq and the Middle East and fed the civil war. If the left had been part of an international movement to wrest control of Iraq’s destiny from its oppressors and to put it in the hands of democratic elements who knows how different things might have been.
Instead we have gotten the kind of response Matt has provided, “See, the Bush administration doesn’t support unions.” If this were an isolated example, I might ignore it, but it is the way too much of the left has approached this from the beginning. What is best for the Iraqi’s is far less important than what is bad for George Bush. Did he miss the point? Yes, and this response embodies the point.
When we all look back on the Iraq debacle, the “leftists” who were so willingly duped and used by the most reactionary, militaristic, authoritarian president in recent memory will be seen as a sad, pathetic lot.
Maybe, but if I were a leftist I would rather be pathetic than dancing a jig about how right you are on the bones of Iraqi children. George Bush looking a bit better in history’s eyes would be a rather small price to pay to avoid having that as part of my legacy.
Technorati Tags: Iraq, unions, leftists, George Bush
Sphere: Related Content2 Responses to “The Moral Crisis on the Left and Missed Points”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
Thanks for the link, kind words and excellent post.
I appreciate your thoughts as well. I spent about an hour and a half reading over at your place and found it well worth my while. I am not sure how I have missed you in the past, but I’ll beg off by saying the blogosphere is a very big place.
Unlike many libertarian leaning types, I have a soft spot for the democratic left despite their follies. Of course, what group doesn’t have its fair share of those?
Anyway, much of my intellectual growth over the past forty years has been from reading the anti-totalitarian intellectuals of the left who once seemed so prominent, momentous thinkers who even the right took seriously and sought out common cause with when it came to protecting and nurturing the democratic civil society that binds us all. Now I see a beleaguered minority sneered at by shallow apparatchiks such as kos who care for little more than party power along with those who have abandoned any kind of commitment to universal human values and rights for bitterness and selective antagonism towards the liberal order itself.
Maybe I am too pessimistic, and no self centered survey such as my own experience can provide should be taken at face value. Which makes sites such as yours, where the thought of the left I always saw as being political opponents at times, but moral brothers, still has resonance. It takes courage to stand against the herd mentality of political movements and not become embittered, and I am not sure I have it myself, but I would like to think so. So far you seem to have managed, that is worthy in and of itself.