I’ve been following the “good liberal/bad liberal” thread with some interest (and not a little amusement) for a while, not only on this blog, but in the broader world of political commentary.
First, let me suggest that it had definitely been a tactic of the Right to suggest that “love it or leave it” is the best policy, and that “love it” means “my country, right or wrong”, so sit back, shut up, and hang on. I’m sure that Joe, and even Trent, in more reflective moments will acknowledge that this is true.
And to suggest that any criticism of U.S. policy is “objectively pro-(Soviet, Saddamite, or whatever)” isn’t the strongest basis for a healthy dialog. The fact that the Soviet Union was smart enough to support Martin Luther King through CPUSA operatives doesn’t in any way invalidate the Civil Rights movement.
But…there is a definite lack of perspective on the part of much of the Left that I read and ly know. I think that that’s a bad thing, both because I think it leads to bad conclusions, and because it self-isolates the Left from the mainstream of American thought. When my friends – who freaking live in Manhattan – explained to me after 9/11 that “we had it coming”, or when my friends suggest that the sole reason for the disaster that is most Latin American politics is American foreign policy – or when they suggest that the sole cause of the crisis in the inner city is the continuing legacy of oppression and debt of slavery – with no acknowledgement of other historic inputs into the problems, or of the responsibility of the people affected themselves to do more – they aren’t making a lot of sense.
I talked about this a while ago, and see no reason to change what I said then:
I know two really bad parents. One is a couple that simply refuses to control their children; they love them totally, and so, they explain, they love everything they do. Unsurprisingly, they are raising two little monsters. The other is a single mother who explains that everything bad in her life is the fault of her child, and that everything he does is wrong. Unsurprisingly, her child is depressed, withdrawn and equally badly damaged.
I’ll define patriotism as “love of country.” Both the parents above (all three of them, actually) claim to ‘love’ their children. But to blindly smile and clean up when your child smashes plates on the floor is not an act of love. And blindly smiling and waving flags when your country does something wrong is not an act of patriotism.
But … there is a point where criticism, even offered in the guise of love, moves past the point of correction and to the point of destruction. It’s a subtle line, but it exists. And my friend (who is less of a friend because I can’t begin to deal with her fundamentally abusive parenting) is destroying her child. And there are liberals who have adopted an uncritically critical view of America. Who believe it to have been founded in genocide and theft, made wealthy on slave labor and mercantilist expropriation, to be a destroyer of minorities, women, the environment and ultimately they argue, itself.
I’m sorry but their profession of love for America is as hollow to me as that mother’s profession of love for her son. Are those things true? As facts, they are an incomplete account of this country’s history. As a worldview, they are destructive and self-consuming.
I really can’t add much to that.
(edited for punctuation)
A.L.
“And blindly smiling and waving flags when your country does something wrong is not an act of patriotism.”
In my personal case, I did not engage in the above. It was my judgement, based on large quantities of information from various and diverse sources, that the invasion of Iraq was the correct course.
Based on information that has come to light, it was the correct course. The current course of the “peace” is far less clear, and open to criticism from all sides.
The appearance was certainly given, and noticed by a majority of people in this country, that critics of a possible invasion of Iraq preferred to leave Hussein in place. While this point was marginally debatable before the war, evidence that came to light during/after the initial battle phase removed any logical reasons to support the premise that Hussein should not have been toppled. Critics who have not repudiated this argument give the appearance of siding with a brutal dictator against the US. How could they not be viewed as “unpatriotic”?
It also didn’t help that the anti-war movement was coordinated by extreme Leftist/Marxist organizations that explicitly announced their contempt for the US and its form of government, before, during and after the war.
I don’t so much feel as if I was more “patriotic” by supporting the war, but felt the opposition displayed contempt for the US govt and the suffering of the common Iraqi people.
Phil, in the specific case, I’ll point out that I’m a *liberal hawk*…in this case, after a lot of thought, I decided to support the Iraq war…
A.L.
Worse than just isolating the left, it paralyzes it. People will forgive a lot of foolish talk from someone who is doing something useful, but the crisis of the left is a product of all talk, no action. Fundamentally, both of the parents you describe seem to experience love as mostly talk: adulation or blaming, it is not the same thing as involvement and guidance.
The left that views its whole purpose as explaining how everything is “our own fault” is fundamentally depressed and paralyzed. Yes, our government from its inception has fought for certain things and not for others, protected the interests of some and ignored the suffering of others.
But this is not “us.” The populace is not the same as the goverment: we need to be clear about this in order to move past this confusion. We can love or hate the U.S. Goverment, we have to live and work with the populace. The left needs to stop holding America at arms length and start figuring out how to be a part of it.
http://www.kapshow.com/newcities
See, now that is something I can agree with, and a criticism I have made, not just of the left, but all intellectuals. The goal of an intellectual outside of any official academic setting, should be to further understanding about the truth among non-academics…so the people. But the goal of an intellectual who wants to make an impacting change on people, should not only be to further understanding… because not everybody is a history buff and not everybody has a the desire to spend their time in strictly book/newspaper type learning environment…but to further understanding in a way that will allow a person to change their actions in order to make their lives better, more humane, or more just. For the most part, my criticism has dealt with how intellectuals interact with others who aren’t intellectuals. The general elitist attitude, being argumentative and trying to prove you’re right, turns people away. Writing filled with jargon and words that have no use in every day speech, nonsense talk about political theories, isms and what not, is, simply, irrelevant to most people, and is for sure boring the shit out of them. The left should especialy be ashamed of their failure to reach the working class, because they claim to represent them.
What this has to do with criticizing your own country, before you criticize Russia, is that Russia, or politics, diplomacy, war, foreign policy or other national affairs are something most people can only really experience through intellectuals, either the ones who write the books, the essays, or in the media. We live in America. The people around you, your friends, neighbors, and co-workers, they all live in America. They care about America, and not some monolithic national entity, but the America they live in, work in, participate in every day. If you’re communicating to them, communicate to them about America, in a way that they can relate with their every day experiences. In their every day lives, Americans have a potential to act in such a way that defines American life, based on the knowledge they have, this includes how America interacts with the rest of the world. In one word, practicality. Knowledge about the nature of institutions they participate in every day, rates far higher on this scale, than knowledge about Russia which they can only experience indirectly. Of course, I feel this way because I believe it is important to actually interact, if I wanted nothing but to have an exclusive intellectual circle jerk I might find it important to waste my time talking about countries and governments I have no possible way to interact with and effect directly.
And finally, if you acknowledge that there is the US government, and the powerful, and then there is the American people… do you also acknowledge that this is a failure, and not how it is supposed to be? Doesn’t that make the imperative clearer? Americans need to understand the society they live in so they can actually have a say in their own government. Talking about Russia’s crimes instead of the crimes that happen with their support and taxes, alienates people from politics, because Russia can only really be dealt with through the official government, but that’s the purpose. All of the great propagandists know that dissent is killed when the people fall in line and unite against an outside enemy.
Jonathan, let me add one key point to your interesting comment. There is an issue of ‘standing’. When I was a young Vietnam war protest organizer, the VVAW (Vietnam Vets Against the War) had extraordinary standing because they had been there.
When I hear the tiresome litany of “Vietnam, Guatemala, El Salvador, imperialism, etc. etc.” from someone who makes no effort to frame it in any context (Latin America in the destructive Latin heritage and the actrive competition between the Left and Right in each country, etc., etc.), and more, when I see it from someone whose *associations* are cosmopolitan rather than national, I don’t give much standing to the criticism, and I’m a liberal. How well do you think it goes over in Peoria?
A.L.
Four key points I’d like to make.
First point: I see completely agree with A.L.’s parenting formulation. I’ve seen both kinds of parenting. I’ve seen both kinds of policy. Both are disastrous, and I was very clear that uncritical support is not what is called for.
Second point: What I’m addressing is, I believe, an important “root philosophical cause” of the abusive dynamic A.L. describes. Understand it, understand its consequences – and the causality chain that leads to this “abusive parent” dynamic breaks. Perspective is restored by seeing America in context, and concrete action that extends beyond America reinforces a sense of both balance and engagement with (not against) mainstream society. That’s the goal. When it is achieved, liberals and conservatives will still see these issues differently, but it won’t be such a corrosive difference.
Third point: This isn’t about Iraq. Iraq is not germane to the arguments I was making in “The Left’s Excuse”, except to the extent that it may furnish illuminating examples of a specific meme at work and its consequences.
It’s entirely possible to seriously examine and even agree with the issue in “The Left’s Exscuse”, and be AGAINST the war in Iraq, because one has seen the results of this meme turn the anti-war movement into something categorized even by prominent leftists as a pro-Saddam movement. Which it accomplished by presenting a picture of people absolutely willing to catigate the USA and absolutely unwilling to carry even a single sign demanding human rights in Iraq, or cooperation and compliance with the UN resolutions, etc. etc.
Why? Because “we can’t change/ affect Saddam.”
Sorry, that excuse (which has been used many times, in many situations) is inadequate, immoral, and politically fatal. It’s also untrue – indeed, it is designed to prevent serious thought about the levers that do exist. THAT, and not any one example, is the point of my argument.
Now, why should liberals care? This is just a fringe Chomskyite argument, right? Unfortunately, with Dean, Pelosi, Kuchnich, Bonior, McDermott et. al. visibly signing on to and supporting the anti-liberation demonstrations referenced above, the stain did indeed tarnish the Democratic Party and mainstream liberalism. Look at the polls on national security and the 25-40% trust gaps. That’s not PR, not an illusion, and not something the Republicans could have created by themselves even if they wanted to.
The Democratic Party did this to itself. It behaved its way in. If it addresses the meme, it can behave its way out. Addressing Jonathan’s paralyzing “can’t do anything, not worth trying” meme head on may be the best and fastest route available. Failure to address it means PR and window dressing, that don’t really change belief or actions at the grassroots level. Which would mean that the public perceptions and problems continue. A parent who doesn’t see what they’re doing as abuse, or doesn’t see how their belief in “discipline” is corrupting more important values, can’t really make a genuine, sustainable change.
Once upon a time, “Republican” was nearly synonymous with “isolationist.” Not any more, and largely because the key meme of “entanglement abroad threatens us, while disengagement will spare us problems” is dead, dead, dead outside of Pat Buchanan and his small coterie (now under sustained attack from the neoconservatives). 9/11 took another hammer to this meme… how many readers had that particular change in belief change much of the way they see the world, and even their behaqviour and engagement with politics post-9/11? Quite a few war-bloggers I know. A change in just one key meme can be very, very powerful.
Final point: The issue of standing. Standing requires credibility. In the thread concerning the Russia-Turkmen deal, Jonathan [1] blames the USA, entirely, for “genocide” in Indochina; [2] makes not a single mention of incidents like Hue, or other wrongful conduct by the North Vietnamese – all the West’s fault; [3] ignores the Khmer Rouge. This is not, to me, a person or a viewpoint with any legitimate standing. I might as well listen to the Aryan Nation rant about the Jews, it would be equally productive and equally credible. So kindly spare us the “I just want to engage Americans” and “furthering the goal of truth” speech – I don’t believe a word of it.
There’s a glimmer of truth in the argument of intellectuals needing to be engaged, but it cannot, will not, and should not be taken seriously if the intent of the engagement is abusive, or hateful, or dishonest. Calpundit is none of these things. Yglesias is none of these things. Jonathan is apparently all of them, he is not by any means alone, and the core meme that justifies his view (and lets commenters like InFill in “The Left’s Excuse” shrug at Mugabe’s conduct and contend it should not be of concern) is both widely shared and widely damaging to the liberal side.
Removing Jonathan from the body politic is not an option. Engaging and destroying an unsound and immoral meme that provides both intellectual cover and a linchpin for his arguments, is.
Somebody who makes arguments out of context, needs to learn how to better make arguments. It’s a matter of skill and training, not a matter of whether they’re wrong or right, justified or unjustified.
As to you being a liberal — The New York Times is pretty liberal as well. If youre anything near an NYT style liberal, it wouldn’t surprise me that you get uncomfortable talking about very real cases of US imperialism… you shop at the gap and bernini, for christ’s sake. Without the benefits of US dominance their summer and fall line ups would just be atrocious. 😉
Katzman,
You’re taking comments out of context… we never even discussed Khmer Rouge, or my position on the atrocities of North Vietnam. North Vietnam came into existence, as an independent body, a decade into US policy in the region on independence. They didn’t exist and weren’t fighting the government in Saigon until after the US established itself in the region. So in the context of the actual discussion about US Imperialism, what the NLF did didn’t come up. You have no idea about my opinions on the matter so quit pretending you do. As for Khmer Rouge, I don’t willingly discuss Khmer Rouge partly because there is absolutely no shortage of people willing to talk about the crimes of official US enemies. You prove this…and you don’t talk about US involvement in crimes in any reasonable proportion to the number of times you help the US demonize official enemies for crimes that US elites otherwise support and profit from when commited by clients or allies, which again, I don’t see you criticizing.
I did a little search on windsofchange.net… curious I didn’t find any pages containing the word ‘suharto’, which is funny because he was involved in a genocide which your tax dollars supported and whose spoils fueled the car you drive to work rather cheaply.
I’ll make you a deal and learn a little bit about Khmer Rouge, if you turn around and do the same for something that should be entirely more relevant to any decent American: where their tax dollars go and where their high standard of living comes from, and at who’s expense.
Jonathan –
You’re making a fairly classic ‘dumb leftist’ argument which I’ll reject out of hand as something I dealt with in my undergraduate days; that the reason we in the West have our stuff – oil, Gap and Bernini clothes – because we’ve brutally extracted them from the Third World, and that if we weren’t so selfish/blind/immoral, they’d have it all too.
I’ve got to tell you that extractive colonialism as practiced throughout human history reached a peak with European colonialism in the 18th and 19th centuries; the Congo comes immediately to mind.
So in the sense that the surplus resources that fueled the Industrial Revolution were extracted from colonies, there may be something to talk about.
But late-industrial economies make those kinds of colonies uneconomic, which is why everyone got shed of them in the 20th Century (and coincidentally, everyone got enlightened and guilty about them as well). So we have a mercantile system instead.
Now it is possible to imagine that our ‘stuff’ is somehow stolen from everyone else, but that’s a pretty 19th century view of things. The reality – sadly – is that most of the undeveloped world lives pretty much like humans always have, with marginally better health care and much better guns.
There are huge issues involved in our support of kleptocracies in extractive countries – where taking control of the country means being able to sell oil, or diamonds, or bauxite, and keep the cash in Switzerland.
But the ‘crimes’ you describe are a) hundreds of years old; and b) not too dissimilar from the crimes committed by societies throughout human history. I wasn’t aware that Western society had somehow repealed the laws of human nature. I am damn interested in figuring out how to make our society better, but orbiting in tight circles around contextless ‘crimes’ doesn’t really get me too far.
And, since I’m obviously as incapable “making better arguments” as you are of understanding history, I won’t waste any more of your time – or mine – in discussion with you.
A.L.
In a comment that dealt with genocide in Indochina, no less. I think that pretty much says it all, myself.
“J: You’re taking comments out of context… we never even discussed Khmer Rouge, or my position on the atrocities of North Vietnam…”
Because there was another genocide Katzman, and and it was by the French, with forced starvation as just one of many methods used to quell a popular movement for colonial independence, which began with a declaration that contained the same language as the declaration of independence written by Thomas Jefferson:
The US helped the french supress this rebellion. The US financed nearly the entire project. Then when the French couldn’t hold it together, the US escalated and got involved directly, and dropped more bombs on a third world country than all of the bombs dropped in World War II. It used chemical weapons and cluster bombs, which claim victims to this day. The US attacked food supplies, not only in Vietnam but in Laos and Cambodia. The US military claimed the lives of millions, in order to impose on a country a government the people clearly did not want.
I was talking about that genocides, because you flat out refuse to.
Armed Liberal,
the sum of your argument is that the US no longer uses military force to exploit the third world, to maintain friendly governments, or to impose regimes who commit human rights violations with impunity because they offer easy access to cheap labor or resources. This is patently absurd, to the point of being comical. Can I hear you say one more time that these things are of the 19th century?
Contextless crimes is mentioning any crime in the forum we’re in. You want to discuss a crime in detail, the comments section of a weblog is not the place to do it. That that is your best criticism thus far, is also comical. I appreciate you taking the time to amuse me.
Who was it that said a liberal is only a power worshipper that lacks power? I hope you don’t mean armed in the conventional sense. eek.
It was a pleasure, gentlemen.
Boy, who ever said religion was in decline? Looks like the fanatics just reorganized under other names: leftists, socialists, progressives, “thinkers”, et al. God (or “History”) forbid that they would ever admit anything that would harm their worldview. The American workers crassly prefer more more consumer goods rather than revolution; ergo, they are now “oppressors” (“They’re ignoring US”) and we must put our hope in the oppressed of the Third World, where the West robs the poor oppressed populace of their machine tools, their Lexus’s and their laptop computers to increase its own standard of living. Ignorant peasants of the world unite! You have nothing to loose but your lattes! Don’t worry, Jonathan, “The Revolution is Coming”…when Satan skis.
Passed wrongs does not mean that the US can not do the right thing today.
Showing a historical wrong does not mean that we should ingnore current wrongs done today.
Moral standards that are not applied equally are not moral standards.
In the past the United States had slavery and massacred an indigenous population. This should not prevent the United States from seeking to prevent anyone from doing such actions in the future. Some are demanding that the United States not seek to stop current atrocities, because the US is not morally or historicaly pure.
Interesting discussion, but it seems that the basic disagreement is one of dates.
For The Left the seminal and terminal date is 1968.
For Liberals the important date is September 11, 2001.
Given the immense historical differences between these two dates, “never the twain shall meet!” The two sides are simply talking past each other since they have two different points of reference.
Now it is possible to imagine that our ‘stuff’ is somehow stolen from everyone else, but that’s a pretty 19th century view of things.
Looking at the amount of 3rd world cheap labor and natural resources that the first world, let’s say “utilizes”, would you characterize that relationship as satisfactory to all parties? If not, than put it on a map somewhere between “fairly traded” and “forcibly extracted”.
The reality – sadly – is that most of the undeveloped world lives pretty much like humans always have, with marginally better health care and much better guns.
This is an argument for what? The same reasoning could be applied to any chronic condition–high infant mortality, say, or high crime in the inner city. “It’s just the way it’s always been.”
clue –
Well, a classic critical analysis of international trade would suggest that ‘unequal terms of trade’ means there can never eb ‘fair trade’ between the developed and undeveloped world…I find that to be an uninterestign analysis, since it by extension suggests that there is really no such thing as fair trade at all, since the terms of trade between any two parties almost always suggest some inequality.
I’m actually dinking away at a blog post on this…it’s a really significant question.
A.L.
i dont understand teh followingplz…summertize it thank you
love, Bob
There is actually more than two styles of parenting. The third alternative the Democratic and Positive Style is a better alternative to the Strict and the Permissives styles.
How to help a child become the Good Person within, through encouragement and a democratic approach by Aysegul Acar-Dreyer
I am writing re the Washington Post article ‘Conservatives Ascendant in Charles (County, MD) Schools’ of September 16, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/cqxn9
Here are two excerpts from that article that prompted me to write this:
“Margaret Young, chairwoman of the (Southern MD) Charles County Board of Education, has at times taught her children at home in Waldorf (MD) using a Christian-based curriculum. She says she wants teachers to stop assigning books that contain profanity and what she believes are immoral messages” and,
“Public schools, (Mark J. Crawford) said, should be teaching students humility and to distinguish between right and wrong”. [“Crawford’s beliefs were shaped by his family and religious schooling, including his studies at Jerry Falwell’s evangelical Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA.”]
I would certainly hope that all schools, as well as families, would be teaching children good values and I would highly recommend that Ms. Young and Mr. Crawford, as well as all educators and parents, read about and practice Adlerian child psychology principles at home and in school. There is currently much work being done across the nation on Character Education, using Adlerian principles.
Positive Parenting and Positive Teaching (see for ex. Jane Nelsen’s work) based on Adlerian philosophy instill in children as well as in adults, good values and social skills such as empathy, mutual respect, peaceful conflict resolution, cooperation, responsibility for one’s actions through the use of encouragement and democratic principles. A truly democratic society has to start with a democratic family and a peaceful world has to start with a peaceful home.
What I found so appealing in the Adlerian approach is that it encourages the child to do the right thing, how to be responsible, kind, etc. because it IS the right thing to do; not because of a reward/bribe/promise – be it a toy, candy or acceptance into heaven… The motivation then lies within the person.
Public schools as well as more traditional private schools and parents may also want to look into the Montessori way of approaching the child. Rather than being elitist (as some critiques claim), this is truly a democratic approach.
The Montessori education is characterized with approaching the child as a “whole”, and so, in the classroom, grace, kindness, responsibility for one’s actions, respect for one’s fellow human beings, respect for life, nature as well as one’s physical environment, self-motivation, practical life skills, peaceful conflict resolution, as well as academic knowledge are taught and emphasized: Maria Montessori believed that the purpose of education was to cultivate the child’s own natural desire to learn. For a primer I recommend the book The Montessori Way: An Education For Life by Tim Seldin and Paul Epstein. http://tinyurl.com/ax24u
Here is a nice summary of the Montessori approach to the spiritual side of the child:
“One of our fundamental aims is the inspiration of the child’s heart. While Montessori does not teach religion, we do present the great moral and spiritual themes, such as love, kindness, joy, and confidence in the fundamental goodness of life in simple ways that encourage the child to begin the journey toward being fully alive and fully human. Everything is intended to nurture within the child a sense of joy and appreciation of life.” (from http://www.montessori.org)
“Families (that apply Adlerian principles) are characterized by positive energy and a sense of purpose and inspire their members with courage, spirit, and hope, empowering them to contribute to others, to their community, and to the larger society.” (From PEP http://www.parentencouragement.org/ )
“Adler believed that within each person there is an innate capacity for learning to be socially motivated, for caring about others beyond the self. (He referred to) this capacity as social interest or community feeling. Since this is only a capacity, not yet developed in the child, Adler emphasized the importance of social education in the family, in school and in the community” (Barbara Fairfield, LCMFT)
Adlerian principles strengthen democracy since moral character is the foundation for a truly Democratic society: “The mission of Classical Adlerian psychology is to encourage the development of psychologically healthy and cooperative individuals, couples, and families, in order to effectively pursue the ideals of social equality and democratic living, it balances the equally important needs for individual optimal development and social responsibility.” (Henry T. Stein, Ph.D. Director, Alfred Adler Institute of San Francisco http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/ ) >>
If these are not good family values I don’t know what is… Forget Superman: The Adlerian and the Montessori approach can help a child become the good person within, in other words, a “Mensch”.
The Classical Adlerian Psychology web site address has been changed to http://www.Adlerian.us. Please correct the older link (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hstein/) as it is no longer active.
Also, please change “The Alfred Adler Institute of San Francisco” to “The Alfred Adler Institutes of Northwestern Washington and San Francisco.”