I was referring to leading spokespersons of the Old Left, and even those
like Chambers, who became turncoats, never became part of the mainstream
as have Scheer, Gitlin and Hayden. And I agree they are liberals, who I
define as being folks who basically take progressive positions unless
they involve risk to their economic and social status or to their
physical well-being. Todd, Bob and Tom have become very successful in
finding well-paying niches in the mainstream thanks to their radical
past which they have largely abandoned in exchange for the pleasures
offered to the well-paid in American society.
I don't recall off-hand the positions of Scheer and Hayden on the
bombing of Iraq but I have a hunch, both of them supported it. If
either have taken a position against the sanctions, I would be
interested in hearing about it. Gitlin was such a supporter of the
bombing of Iraq that he invited the press to film him giving blood for
"our boys" over there. He also refused to sign an ad condemning the
Israeli invasion of Lebanon unless it also contained a condemnation of
the PLO. Hayden went even further, as I have written either here or
elsewhere, joining with Jane Fonda, Israeli troops on the outskirts of
Beirut who were shelling the Lebanese and Palestinians of the city in a
siege which lasted 76 days. Then they refused to meet with Israeli
opponents to the war while they toured Israel. Of course, Hayden was
currying favor with the large Jewish voting bloc in Santa Monica.
Had these conflicts not involved the Israelis and Palestinians, but the
South African apartheid regime, which was a major military ally of
Israel, warring against its black population, they would have been
written out of the movement long ago. but Arabs don't have the same
status in the eyes of the American left as did the ANC, and criticism of
Israeli actions have more often than not been muted or repressed, thanks
both to the presence of a large number of Jews within the movement, many
of whom are soft-core Zionists, but also to the fear of non-Jews, that
to say the truth about Israel and its powerful lobby in the US, would
invoke a wave of anti-Jewish racism, which is commonly, but mistakenly,
described as "anti-semitism," which the intention and the result of
separating from other forms of racism which are no more or less odious.
I am not implying that Scheer, Gitlin and Hayden share Horowitz's views
on anything, but that their revisionist interpretations of the Sixties
do much more damage to the movement than does the raving and ranting of
a Horowitz, as does their praise of Bill Clinton and support for the
Democratic Party. Hayden, while trying to have his feet in both camps
in Los Angeles, is, after all, a Gore delegate. If these folks are part
of the "left," the term has lost whatever meaning it once had. And I
haven't even mentioned the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Jeff Blankfort
> Jeff
> Have you never heard of D.Horowitz's hero, W. Chambers and that whole crowd
> of hideous turncoats who came out of the old left - and became the most
> militant of anti-Communists? I do make a distinction between Horowitz and the
> others you mention. David H's ideas have taken on a fascistic tint.
> Now I'm not completely sure where Scheer is coming from these days,
> but I think he still is some kind of liberal, as for Gitlin and Hayden - if
> you look at 90 per cent of their positions they are still quite on the left
> side of things, and, especially Hayden, not remotely close to Horowitz.
> Stew Albert
> http://hometown.aol.com/stewa/stew.html
Jeff Blankfort wrote:
> > << After all, I can't
> think of any Old Lefties who became the equivalent of Todd Gitlin, Bob
> Scheer, or for that matter, Tom Hayden (oh, oh, there goes Blankfort
> again, shooting down another 60s icon. Details at 11). >>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 03:57:12 CUT