Interesting thread. On selling out generally, I think the key is quite
clearly not whether we
disagree on diverse issues and their relative importance (if forced to
associate only with those
who agree, we will always be a tiny, marginalized to the point of
irrelevance minority). I think
back to the old saw, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of
the problem," which of
course doesn't by itself resolve the issue since people disagree
profoundly on where one draws the line on being 'part of the problem.'
Still, if one endorses a presidential candidate who has
been a crucial catalyst for rapid globalization of capitalism, the
increasing gap between rich &
poor/ North & South, and who has essentially genuflected before the
anti-government ravings
of the Right, well, I think one's political acuity is pretty suspect.
I can understand how people got caught up in support of the NATO attack
in Kosovo --there
were quite clearly "Reasons" for intervention against Milosevic & his
stormtroopers. My big
problem with Gitlin's analysis is his easy labeling of those who opposed
the NATO attack
--e.g., Zinn, Chomsky, Ehrenreich, etc.-- as "rejectionists" who somehow
"reflexively" or
automatically (by implication, mindlessly) oppose all military
intervention, use of force, etc. by a U.S. administration. This
viewpoint simply distorts the arguments of the left on that intervention
(check the many articles in Z Magazine, for example, on the war and its
aftermath --e.g. the
"ethnic cleansing" by Kosovars-- as well as the basic fact that Serbian
violence against
Kosovars greatly escalated in the AFTERMATH of, not prior to, the NATO
attack, and the
rising democratic opposition to Milosevic was quickly eroded by the NATO
attack, etc.).
[I also note that, on the Gulf 'War', Gitlin takes account of
"unimpeachable UN" claims of
Saddam's having anthrax, but ignores the resignation of two UN officers
(Halliday & his
successor) overseeing the oil for food program because they saw the
West's policies as not
being really concerned with 'weapons of mass destruction,' etc. and he
somehow ignores the
fact that the existing US-backed sanctions are themselves weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq, at least if 40-45,000 dead children a month is
an indicator of 'mass destruction.']
So, the problem for me really emerges not in debating different
positions, on saying, for
example, 'I think NATO should intervene here for these reasons,' but, in
effect, in doing the
mainstream's business of marginalizing truly left criticism of US
foreign policy/ globalization, etc. while simultaneously filling the
mainstream media's required role of "leftist." That's very
damaging. In some ways, as politically damaging as the volatile
Horowitz.
On the other hand, I will say (again), that the media culture tends to
reduce people to polarizing positions (eliminating dialogue in the
process) and we have to escape that trap if we on the left are ever to
reach a broader audience. We need to know how to pull together behind
worthwhile political actions & objectives, even with people we
profoundly disagree with on other issues, or whose analysis doesn't
match our own --all the while contending with their analysis.
Ted Morgan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 28 2000 - 08:39:52 CUT