[sixties-l] Liberalism's Patriotic Vision (fwd)

From: sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Thu Sep 19 2002 - 23:00:45 EDT

  • Next message: Marty Jezer: "Re: [sixties-l] Iraq: Attack by the Chickenhawks"

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:28:14 -0700
    From: radtimes <resist@best.com>
    Subject: Liberalism's Patriotic Vision

    Liberalism's Patriotic Vision


    September 5, 2002

    With the massacres of a year ago came righteous outrage, bewilderment and a
    thirst for interpretations: What could such colossal violence mean? What did
    mass murder require of us? Who were we now? We needed a story.

    The White House declared that the terrorists hated our freedoms; after an
    interlude of coalition building, the administration resumed its
    America-love-it-or-leave-it attitude. Members of Congress became sullen
    cheerleaders, cowed by the White House's willingess to question their
    loyalty. Patriotism seemed to function not as a spur to come to the aid of
    the country, but as a silencer.

    Absolutists dominated the field - and eerily converged in their penchant for
    going it alone. The terrorists took it upon themselves to act in the name of
    all of Islam and all Muslims, to settle all accounts and slaughter all
    enemies. There could be no appeal or dissent; they expected their allies to
    be as silent as their enemies. They openly yearned to restore the
    eighth-century caliphate: a purist theocracy and an empire if ever there was

    Squandering much support from around the world, President Bush soon showed
    he was ready to go it alone, keeping even Congress at arm's length. He was
    not content with self-defense. Countries that were not with us were against
    us. We were launched upon a permanent war against anyone he declared we were
    at war against; the administration reserved the right to break treaties and
    to undertake pre-emptive war.

    The American left, too, had its version of unilateralism. Responsibility for
    the attacks had, somehow, to lie with American imperialism, because all
    responsibility has to lie with American imperialism - a perfect echo of the
    right's idea that all good powers are and should be somehow American.
    Intellectuals and activists on the far left could not be troubled much with
    compassion or defense. Disconnected from Americans who reasonably felt their
    patriotic selves attacked, they were uncomprehending. Knowing little about
    Al Qaeda, they filed it under Anti-Imperialism, and American attacks on the
    Taliban under Vietnam Quagmire. For them, not flying the flag became an
    urgent cause. In their go-it-alone attitude, they weirdly paralleled the
    blustering right-wing approach to the world.

    Long before Sept. 11, this naysaying left had seceded. When Ralph Nader's
    Greens equated a Bush presidency with a Gore presidency, they took leave of
    any practical connection to America. Rightly demanding profound reforms but
    deluded about their popularity, they withheld their energy from the
    Democrats and squandered alliances that would have promoted their ideals.
    They acted as though their cause had to be lonely to be good.

    Many liberals and social democrats saw through this hollow negativity and
    posed necessary questions. What was a war against terrorism? To what did it
    bind the nation? War against whom, and for how long? Why should American
    foreign policy be held hostage to oil? How should strong and privileged
    America belong in the world? Was the United States to be a one-nation
    tribunal of "regime change" wherever it detected evil spinning on an axis?

    Some good answers float in the air now. They have not yet found political
    support, but they could. As the Bush administration paints itself into a
    corner, we could be headed toward a new liberal moment. Liberals need to
    step up their promotion of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan and elsewhere,
    helping to stifle terrorism. Even conservatives no longer smirk about nation
    building or foreign aid.

    Likewise, mainstream economists like Joseph Stiglitz (once chief economist
    of the World Bank) and Jeffrey Sachs (former free-market shock therapist)
    campaign to convince rich countries to give more development aid.

    Liberals should affirm that American power, working within coalitions, can
    advance democratic values, as in Bosnia and Kosovo - but they should oppose
    this administration's push toward war in Iraq, which is unlikely to work out
    that way. Against oil-based myopia, there are murmurs (they should be
    clamors) that we should phase out the oil dependency that overheats the
    earth and binds us to tyrants. On the domestic front, corporate chiefs
    have lost their new-economy charm - and the Bush administration's earlier
    efforts on their behalf have lost whatever political purchase they had. With
    the bursting of the stock market bubble, deregulation no longer looks like a

    Whom do Americans admire now? Whom do we trust? Americans did not take much
    reminding that when skyscrapers were on fire, they needed firefighters and
    police officers, not Arthur Andersen accountants. Yet we confront an
    administration whose policies reflect the idea that sacrifice - financial
    and otherwise - is meant for people who wear blue collars.

    A reform bloc in Congress, bolstered in November, could start renewing the
    country. But we need much more than legislation. One year after, surely many
    Americans are primed for a patriotism of action, not of pledges. The era
    that began Sept. 11 would be a superb time to crack the jingoists' claim to
    a monopoly of patriotic virtue. Instead of letting minions of corporate
    power run away with the flag (while banking their tax credits offshore), we
    need to remake the tools of our public life - our schools, social services
    and transportation. Post-Vietnam liberals have an opening now, freed of our
    60's flag anxiety and our reflexive negativity, to embrace a liberal
    patriotism that is unapologetic and uncowed. It's time for the patriotism of
    mutual aid, not just symbolic displays or self-congratulation. It's time to
    close the gap between the nation we love and the justice we also love.
    Todd Gitlin, a former president of Students for a Democratic Society, is
    author of "Media Unlimited: How the Torrent of Images and Sounds Overwhelms
    Our Lives." He is a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Sep 19 2002 - 23:25:34 EDT