Norm Geras – who I’m happy to have drunk a Tsing-Tao or two alongside – has something on his site I hope you’ll all read. It’s a manifesto for a Left that makes sense.
A. Preamble
We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.
1) For democracy.
We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures — freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold.
2) No apology for tyranny.
We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently “understand”, reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy — regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.
There’s more, read the whole thing.
The New Statesman has an article about how this document came to be.
On a Saturday last May, right after the general election, 20 or so similarly minded people met in a pub in London. We had no specific agenda, merely a desire to talk about where things were politically. Those present were all of the left: some bloggers or running other websites, their readers, a few with labour movement connections, one or two students. Many of us were supporters of the military intervention in Iraq, and those who weren’t – who had indeed opposed it – none the less found themselves increasingly out of tune with the dominant anti-war discourse. They were at odds, too, with how it related to other prominent issues – terrorism and the fight against it, US foreign policy, the record of the Blair government, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, more generally, attitudes to democratic values.
I’m sorry I missed it…must have been quite a “do”.
Norm interviewed me a long time ago, he asked:
What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to disseminate?
And I answered:
The opposite of romantic self-annihilation, and when I can convince you to figure out what that is, we’ll all be better off.
Well, we’re headed that way.
And I’ll enthusiastically sign up to walk there alongside him.
This is an outstanding document, and it covered everything that I thought it might skip over before I started reading it, like the rise of left anti-Semitism and “the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq”.
I wish only that it had stated forthright support for Israel. Why the hell not? Two-state solution, fine. But Israel is a part of the liberal democratic world, while “Palestine” (it whatever sense it does or ever will exist) has yet to prove that it wants anything to do with such a world, or even tolerate anyone who does.
That aside, this is mostly excellent, and I’m not surprised to see Michael Walzer’s name on it.
I’m opposed to social engineering, so I’m not signing. It is a leftist manifesto, after all, and I’m more libertarian/conservative than leftist. As for economic freedom, the authors do leave it to individual nations to choose their own economic systems. There is a lot of slop in definitions of “democracy” which leaves room for mischief.
But I’m very, very, very tempted to sign anyway, because I agree with much of it, particularly the free speech provisions and the Orwellian statements about telling the truth, even if it hurts. It is an excellent statement of principles.
When will conservatives stand up with their own manifesto?
Dale, I’m opposed to social engineering too, but the manifesto is much lighter in that area than it might be, and much weightier in all the places it should be.
That’s a damn good document; while there’s a lot that a Libertarian might (and does) take issue within it, the spirit of it is definitely good. If you can’t support it, at least recognize that those who do are the best of the Honorable Opposition.
Talk about a breath of fresh air!
I’ve seen significantly more attention devoted to this document from the Right Blogosphere than from the Left. I’m not sure how to interpret that. Possibilities that come to mind include the notion the “Left” and “Right” are utterly without meaning at this point, the Right Blogosphere sees more need to define the Left than the Left Blogosphere does, or the Left Blogosphere isn’t much interested in a sensible Left.
It is fascinating to me that free markets are not mentioned in this “manifesto.” I suppose that that is why it is, in the end, “Leftist.”
The Left just doesn’t like economic freedom, doesn’t trust it, fears it. So, I won’t be signing on either. Any “manifesto” that ignores economic freedom is not quite there.
I’d say Dave’s (#4) last interpretation of his observations is most likely (“the Left Blogosphere isn’t much interested in a sensible Left”), but his first is also correct (“the notion the “Left” and “Right” are utterly without meaning at this point”). Let me explain.
Most of the Left is hostile to this document, either overtly or quietly, and will remain so. Go check out The New Statesman’s comment-able version of the manifesto and give yourself an intro.
It will be seen as an indictment by more than a few. Well, it is. Or it will be seen as “off focus” for those who wish the issue of The Islamic War would just go away… so they can get back to either The History of Me, or (less charitably) to the REAL war against the right, while handing out more money to their client groups. This Islam stuff isn’t a war, after all. Once people just get used to the idea of allowing a higher “cull level” among their fellow citizens from the Warriors of Islam, they’ll see it’s all nothing to get upset about or redirect spending priorities over.
And that’s the crux, really.
Norm Geras et. al. have looked into the abyss and seen the potential Death of Socialism and All It Struggled For in the current conflict. After all, if the liberal, Enlightenment order of individual rights, secular governance and the dignity of man (including gays, Jews and other dhimmis, apostates, et. al.) is destroyed, the ideals of socialism die with its host/symbiote. Likewise, if the Left become auxiliaries for Islamic theocrats (as many now are), the level of betrayal involved is so complete that the Left as an idea can be declared dead in any meaningful sense. Essentially, the auxiliary path is a path of Undeath for the Left, the end of even lip service to its soul. In some ways, I think that horrifies Norm et. al. even more than defeat.
And so we reach the bottom line. Having seen the potential passing of those Enlightenment values, those who do hold them dear are mobilized to action. Given that foundation, it’s utterly unsurprising that the right blogosphere, which sees the same threat to Western Civilization as a whole while placing greater value on other aspects and traits of that civilization, should take approving notice.
In that sense, Left and Right are indeed passing from meaning. What we are beginning to see is the real cleavage underneath: Western Civilization and the values of the Enlightenment, vs. its opponents.
Plus a good dose of ennui and decadence factored in for good measure.
If you are still in your comfy Bubble Of Me, or believe that Western Civilization is just one long story of oppression and evil, then the war is an inconvenient distraction, “values” is a word used to relativize rather than affirm, and none of this has any interest.
The bad news? There won’t be much snapping out of this, no mater what happens. History tells us (note, for example, the specific stories around the fall of Rome and, almost 1000 years later, Constantinople) that this kind of bubble can persist right into and through the final sieges and surrender of a civilization. Constantinople’s denizens were not decadent by birth – they had been carefully made that way, and in the end it was impossible to undo by any persuasion or set of external events. This scenario may be in the process of repeating itself in large segments of Europe/Eurabia, but it is present as a broad tendency in America as well.
Those who believe in nothing but survival, or power, can always find opportunities for it, after all. And we already see its harbingers and indicators in the various “letters to Muslims” (or more hilariously, the photos with hand-made signs) from the Liberal-Left that amount, more or less, to “we’re not the problem, leave us alone, go get the bad [neocons/Jews,Red Staters, whatever] over there.” some, like Michael Moore, have been more openly literal about this, and we thank them for their honesty.
The good news? Many people will never leave the 1960s, but this mortal coil is another matter – and their children and childrens’ children are still reachable. The war will hinge on them, in the end.
Going beyond mere decadence, some on the Left have so little experience of religion that they completely fail to understand it, and see even its most rabid and hostile followers as rubes and fodder they can use to gain/extend their program of power and control. At least, until the “rubes” execute their own plan and the tables are turned. Ask Iran’s Left how that game goes. These people are betrayed in the end, but it never matters because by then it’s too late. Holland’s socialists are the latest to play this game, and they’ve had significant success in recent elections courting the Islamist vote.
The entire history of the moderate Left is filled with similar “Menshevik” episodes – only the betraying religions (Communism, Islamism, Cults of personality in Latin America) change. It might behoove them to ask why, but those who gain the motivation are usually either forcibly “selected out” of the mem pool by the events in question, or they survive and leave the Left entirely. Some few remain leftists and issue warnings thereafter, but the cohort on their side of those who might understand on their side is usually quite small (barring a truly large-scale AND international event like the Spanish Civil War). Thus, the overall amnesia level remains stable even in the face of consistent and repetitive events.
Moving to the darkest note, the issue of Deep Power and Politicism also lurks within the narrative. The aspect/attraction of socialism that is closely connected to the desire to control others actions and even thoughts does NOT die even under the “defeat/retreat” scenarios that horrify Geras et. al. It merely finds an alternative religious expression. This will be fine to many; the ability to order others around is their primary motivation, and they’re already operating out of a politics-as-religion worldview. The seeming converse, “religion-as-politics,” comes complete with all the images of solidarity and the same “democratic centralism” tendencies (albeit from an imam); as we’ve seen in the communists who easily became fascists and vice-versa, this sort of underlying commonality makes the switch itself relatively painless. The gays et. al.? They can fend for themselves – we have a larger and more potentially powerful “opressed class” now with which to pursue our dreams. They will discover, as the Israelis did, how fast the fall from darlings to pariahs can be. Or at least, bored/approving silence from the gallery as those who wish them ill are encouraged to have their way.
And so we see, as Harry, Norm et. al. see, the overt alliances with Islamists via parties like RESPECT, the quiet doing of Islamists’ bidding, silence while petting Islamists who call for the murder of gays, the push to fund entities like Hamas (even as the lives of gays in the Palestinian territories is a dangerous nightmare due to persecution by Islamists), et. al. Winds, Belmont Club, Harry’s Place, and many others have detailed it on an ongoing basis.
The Left has, frankly, been a force for evil since the 1920s. A force for its active commission, and a force for its perpetuation, support, and endless excusing. The (now-departed) Raymond’s endless repetition re: 100+ million skulls over the past century alone may have been tedious, but it was true – and it tips any rational scale into deepest darkness. Yet the Left has also always had a contingent that has been a true force for good in the world.
This seeming paradox begins to resolve when one notes the key cleavages between these cohorts: [1] Depth of commitment to Western civilization asnd Enlightenment values; [2] The determination to see those values as primary and so look at friends with clarity; and [3] The approach to power and its application to the “common people,” with the main differentiators being the presence of respect (sometimes called “humility”) and where they fall on the scale of stewardship/accountability vs. overlordship/vanguard.
What we are seeing is simply the latest instance of these cleavages. As The Islamic War gathers steam, these cleavages will matter more and more. I do not know how many we may welcome under the Banner of the West in the end; but I do know that all who wish to stand under it must be made welcome.
We can argue about the rest later.
We can argue about the rest later.
Exactly. Or not argue about it later, since (like Randall above) I’m not sure the left will ever be convinced to embrace economic liberty as an essential component of democracy. Or that they will ever understand that the problem is not inequality of wealth, but obstacles to the creation of wealth. Still, this manifesto is an improvement over mindless anti-capitalism – too much of an improvement for some to ever embrace it, I’m afraid.
And this manifesto makes it clear where the authors stand on the issue of Jihad vs. Humanity, which is the important thing.
Maybe we’re willing to settle for a very low standard. The authors say that “it ought to go without saying” that they want a left that rejects anti-semitism. There are a lot of things in this manifesto that ought to go without saying. Obviously they have to be spelled out now.
“The authors say that “it ought to go without saying” that they want a left that rejects anti-semitism. There are a lot of things in this manifesto that ought to go without saying. Obviously they have to be spelled out now.”
It seems to me that this is an era where “it ought to go without saying” doesn’t really exist anymore. Notions of Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal, are too mixed up for anything to be commonly accepted anymore. A general re-allignment is in order, and those who recognize something is going on are struggling to find out where they are, much less, where they want to go. Perhaps this will be a century, an Age, of Chaos.
#5 Randal,
One the one hand, I hear ya. On the other hand, it’s necessary to acknowledge decency and sanity where it’s found.
Joe says “we can argue about the rest later”. I agree. A.L. calls this “a manifesto for the Left that makes sense”. I can’t go that far, but “a manifesto for the left that _doesn’t suck_” is something to cheer about.
Probably never since “manifestos” are pretty much a fetish among Leftists and internet cranks. Organizations which are actually worthy of the name have “mission statements” or in the case of political ones, they have “platforms.”
IMO conservatives ought to stay out of this strictly internecine battle within the Left and focus on getting our own house in order, particularly in demanding that federal spending be brought under control (e.g. entitlement reform) and our borders be secured.
Exactly which is why at best the “decent Left” whom this is supposed to be targeted should be regarded as “co-belligerents” in the GWOT rather than “allies” much like the Soviet Union in WWII. At the end of the day, they’re ultimately animated by wealth redistribution and getting any many people dependent on government as possible. We may have a limited common cause with them against the more dangerous immediate threat of Islamofacism but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that these are people that we would ever want anywhere near the levers of power.
Thorley: I was thinking more along the lines of a statement of principles or “contract” than a manifesto. But I think it’s worthwhile for conservatives to get this down on paper – or bits. Commitment to a set of common principles sets the ground rules and stakes out principles which are not subject to compromise. How these principles are implemented in the rough and tumble of politics is a different matter.
I can’t sign on fully with libertarians, a group which spends time arguing over whether local governments should pay for fire departments. New York City tried the private fire department idea for a while, and it didn’t work so well.
The Left Blogosphere begins to take note of the manifesto (and reject it out of hand):
Tbogg
http://tbogg.bl*gspot.com/2006/04/we-were-liberals-once-and-had-dry.html
Euro “shame and Guilt” is becoming, or at least is starting to become, more than an exotic notion, limited to discussion in shadowed, academic, right wing circles. These days, I can use this expression with friends fully confident that the raw source and troubling consequences of this social dynamic are quickly understood by most listeners, whatever their broader political leanings.
Things are looking up. A bit.