Warning: file_exists() [function.file-exists]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-content/plugins/../../../../../../tmp/sessions/sess82388123.txt) is not within the allowed path(s): (/var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs:/tmp) in /var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-settings.php on line 346

Warning: include(/tmp/sessions/index.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-content/themes/classic/index.php on line 2

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/tmp/sessions/index.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:') in /var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-content/themes/classic/index.php on line 2
Austin Bay Blog » “Leaving The Left”

Austin Bay Blog

5/22/2005

“Leaving The Left”

Filed under: General — site admin @ 10:31 am

I saw this link at powerline. From today’s San Francisco Chronicle, an essay by Keith Thompson titled “Leaving the Left.”

Thompson demonstrates (to paraphrase neo-neocon) that “a mind is a difficult thing to change” — but facts matter. Thompson remembers –with brutal honesty– his Ohio hometown and its legacy of discrimination. His sincere anger is at rank social injustice is palpable. Desire to right wrongs and seek justice motivated his activism.

But now, Thompson writes:

Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I’m separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.

I’m leaving the left — more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.

I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives — people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere — reciting all the ways Iraq’s democratic experiment might yet implode.

My estrangement hasn’t happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it’s all too obvious. Leading voices in America’s “peace” movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom. ..

Here’s Thompson describing his reaction to rcial prejudice in his hometown. I’m going to quote at length:

grew up in a northwest Ohio town where conservative was a polite term for reactionary. When Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of Mississippi “sweltering in the heat of oppression,” he could have been describing my community, where blacks knew to keep their heads down, and animosity toward Catholics and Jews was unapologetic. Liberal and conservative, like left and right, wouldn’t be part of my lexicon for a while, but when King proclaimed, “I have a dream,” I instinctively cast my lot with those I later found out were liberals (then synonymous with “the left” and “progressive thought”).

The people on the other side were dedicated to preserving my hometown’s backward-looking status quo. This was all that my 10-year-old psyche needed to know. The knowledge carried me for a long time. Mythologies are helpful that way.

I began my activist career championing the 1968 presidential candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, because both promised to end America’s misadventure in Vietnam. I marched for peace and farm worker justice, lobbied for women’s right to choose and environmental protections, signed up with George McGovern in 1972 and got elected as the youngest delegate ever to a Democratic convention.

Eventually I joined the staff of U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio. In short, I became a card-carrying liberal, although I never actually got a card. (Bookkeeping has never been the left’s strong suit.) All my commitments centered on belief in equal opportunity, due process, respect for the dignity of the individual and solidarity with people in trouble. To my mind, Americans who had joined the resistance to Franco’s fascist dystopia captured the progressive spirit at its finest…

His turning point:

A turning point came at a dinner party on the day Ronald Reagan famously described the Soviet Union as the pre-eminent source of evil in the modern world. The general tenor of the evening was that Reagan’s use of the word “evil” had moved the world closer to annihilation. There was a palpable sense that we might not make it to dessert.

When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find “evil’” too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport.

My progressive companions had a point. It was rude to bring a word like “gulag” to the dinner table.

The “left wing trope” of moral equivalency between the US and USSR was simply too much for Thompson to take. I am struck by the phrase “the knowledge carried me for a long time” (refering to injustice in Ohio). Though he doesn’t use the term “liberal guilt” or its softer formulation “liberal embarassment,” it strikes me that Thompson knows this “dimmer side” of personal motive was also at work in his life. He was ashamed that his hometown was morally compromised. As an adult he’s learned the entire world is morally compromised and one has to weigh gray phrases like “greater good” and “lesser evil” in order to act sensibly and responsibly.

Thompson adds:

All of this came back to me as I watched the left’s anemic, smirking response to Iraq’s election in January. Didn’t many of these same people stand up in the sixties for self-rule for oppressed people and against fascism in any guise? Yes, and to their lasting credit. But many had since made clear that they had also changed their minds about the virtues of King’s call for equal of opportunity.

These days the postmodern left demands that government and private institutions guarantee equality of outcomes. Any racial or gender “disparities” are to be considered evidence of culpable bias, regardless of factors such as personal motivation, training, and skill. This goal is neither liberal nor progressive; but it is what the left has chosen. In a very real sense it may be the last card held by a movement increasingly ensnared in resentful questing for group-specific rights and the subordination of citizenship to group identity. There’s a word for this: pathetic. ..

And then he returns to the impact of the Iraq’s January election:

Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality. A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals — people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense — is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years.

Thompson’s chosen to act his age instead of act out his rage– and written a thoughtful, honest essay, to boot. Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Neo-neocon on the “tragedy of the Utopian.” She’s describing the philosophical tragedy, but she also mentions the heinous tragedy of millions killed in the pursuit of impossible social perfection.

11 Comments »

  1. Thompson makes some good points in this editorial, and touches on the main disagreement I have with “the Left.” I fundamentally disagree with the idea that our country’s shortcomings and failures undermine our ability - and indeed, our responsibility - to make judgments about other nations’ governments and their actions. In his editorial, Thompson uses the example of the alleged moral equivalency of the US and USSR; as someone who grew up during the 80’s and 90’s, the claim I hear more often is that American democracy is less legitimate because of [insert “Thomas Jefferson had slaves,” “the Trail of Tears,” “the stuff the CIA did in South America during the 70’s” etc.]. In a strange way, this argument is a modern-day iteration of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” I’d be the first person to agree that these things were hypocritical and wrong - but I would never agree that they somehow negate the superiority of democratically-elected governments to authoritarian regimes. In the course of this line of argument, these examples of American failures are always presented dramatically - as “the stuff you don’t learn about in school.” This always takes me by surprise, because I grew up in a North Carolina family that worshipped Jefferson, and for as long as I can remember, I’ve known that he had slaves. I think they even talked about it at Monticello when I visited it in the 3rd grade. While I agree with him on some things, Thompson conveniently leaves out many of the Bush administration’s worst moments. The Left’s “simpering voices” seems like a minor thing to be complaining about when our conservative President has thrown the Geneva Conventions out the window. The Geneva Conventions were one of the best examples of why democracies are morally superior to authoritarian governments. If Thompson is going to complain about liberals who can’t see the difference between the two types of governements, he should also complain about conservatives who have blurred that (once-clearly-marked) line.

    Comment by Thad Anderson — 5/22/2005 @ 8:23 pm

  2. Yeah, there are more than a few of us who just hate dictators and terrorists and other such bully-boys on principle. Still kinda shocked I voted Republican last time around but, hey: anyone who makes a habit of overthrowing evil tyrannies is OK by me.

    Comment by McClain — 5/23/2005 @ 1:07 am

  3. The Left Is Leaving You After reading the article I don’t think it’s so much that he is leaving the left, more like the left has left him and many many others….so instead of going over that cliff the left is heading towards it looks like Keith has come to his senses.

    Trackback by Flopping Aces — 5/23/2005 @ 1:57 am

  4. Thad A: “The Left’s “simpering voices” seems like a minor thing to be complaining about when our conservative President has thrown the Geneva Conventions out the window.” You made some excellent points, but precisely which portion of the Geneva Conventions have been “thrown… out the window”? The Geneva Conventions refer ONLY to uniformed military personnel who have been captured in battle. They do NOT cover “insurgents” or any other kind of non-uniform combatants. Uniformed military are specified for a reason. Wearing a uniform protects civilians. It says, “Shoot at me, not at the non-combatants”. Because uniformed military are putting their lives on the line to protect non-combatants as much as they can, they are given these protections in reward. The “insurgents” in the Middle East are going out of their way to NOT protect non-combatants. They are, in fact, hiding behind the skirts of women and children. For this reason alone, they neither warrant nor deserve the protections of the Geneva Convention. This is the reason so many innocent people were picked up in Afghanistan and subsequently released… because the Taliban and Al Qaeda do not wear uniforms to identify themselves from innocents. So people were picked up along with the Taliban and Al Qaeda because they just happened to be nearby. This is the sort of thing that is caused by not wearing uniforms. It is the fault of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, not the soldiers who picked up the innocent the terrorists were hiding behind.

    Comment by mamapajamas — 5/23/2005 @ 3:27 pm

  5. From a State Department press briefing on May 17, 2004: [An anonymous Sr. Military official] said most of the individuals currently in custody fall into the category of civilian internees, with a subset of those referred to as “security internees.” The fourth Geneva Convention, he said, even covers the security internees, specifically, Article V, which allows for detention of those considered security threats against the state . . . . . . [t]he official said, for example, that no one is authorized to force an individual “to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time.” The official said “all the stuff you saw in the pictures (of Iraqi prisoner abuse), that’s not allowed, that’s not authorized, that’s wrong.” http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/May/19-396279.html

    Comment by Thad Anderson — 5/23/2005 @ 4:21 pm

  6. Thad “simpering” Anderson fails to make his point. The fundamental misunderstanding on his part has to do with the nature of the war on terrorism and the extent to which the geneva convention applies against a force that is not a signatory and which violates the convention in its every action against civilians.

    Comment by Birkenstock — 5/23/2005 @ 6:19 pm

  7. Sorry, I’m going to go with the Senior military official quoted by the State Department on this one, Birkenstock.

    Comment by Thad Anderson — 5/23/2005 @ 7:03 pm

  8. Thad, I’m at a loss trying to understand how a senior US military official discussing issues with the implementation of the Geneva Conventions means that we’ve “thrown the Geneva Conventions out the window”.

    Comment by lurker — 5/25/2005 @ 10:20 am

  9. If only the oh so self-proclaimed “historical materialist” leftists could see history in all its glory unfolding right in front of their own two eyes in Afgh. Georgia, Ukraine, Iraq, Uzbekistan. But not – blinded by their own impotence, relativity, and self-righteousity - they are now in bed with the fascists, religionists, and nationalists in all of the 3rd world demanding that history unfold according to their ideological and defeated designs.

    Comment by sharifabad — 5/25/2005 @ 3:59 pm

  10. TA; Violation of the fundamental “sanctuary” provisions of civilized warfare is . Demanding asymtotic respect for criminal combatants is imposing too much of a handicap. In any case, “security detainees” does not describe out-of-uniform soldier prisoners.

    Comment by Brian H — 5/26/2005 @ 10:21 pm

  11. Should have used standard HTML. The link works, though.

    Comment by Brian H — 5/26/2005 @ 10:23 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress