Cha Cha Cha Changes...

[Lyion]

Leaving the Left
By Keith Thompson
SFGate.com | May 23, 2005

Nightfall, Jan. 30. Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.

I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.



I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.

My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.

Like many others who came of age politically in the 1960s, I became adept at not taking the measure of the left's mounting incoherence. To face it directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first to myself and then to others. That could only give aid and comfort to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other Usual Suspects the left so regularly employs to keep from seeing its own reflection in the mirror.

Now, I find myself in a swirling metamorphosis. Think Kafka, without the bug. Think Kuhnian paradigm shift, without the buzz. Every anomaly that didn't fit my perceptual set is suddenly back, all the more glaring for so long ignored. The insistent inner voice I learned to suppress now has my rapt attention. "Something strange -- something approaching pathological -- something entirely of its own making -- has the left in its grip," the voice whispers. "How did this happen?" The Iraqi election is my tipping point. The time has come to walk in a different direction -- just as I did many years before.

I grew up in a northwest Ohio town where conservative was a polite term for reactionary. When Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of Mississippi "sweltering in the heat of oppression," he could have been describing my community, where blacks knew to keep their heads down, and animosity toward Catholics and Jews was unapologetic. Liberal and conservative, like left and right, wouldn't be part of my lexicon for a while, but when King proclaimed, "I have a dream," I instinctively cast my lot with those I later found out were liberals (then synonymous with "the left" and "progressive thought").

The people on the other side were dedicated to preserving my hometown's backward-looking status quo. This was all that my 10-year-old psyche needed to know. The knowledge carried me for a long time. Mythologies are helpful that way.

I began my activist career championing the 1968 presidential candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, because both promised to end America's misadventure in Vietnam. I marched for peace and farm worker justice, lobbied for women's right to choose and environmental protections, signed up with George McGovern in 1972 and got elected as the youngest delegate ever to a Democratic convention.

Eventually I joined the staff of U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio. In short, I became a card-carrying liberal, although I never actually got a card. (Bookkeeping has never been the left's strong suit.) All my commitments centered on belief in equal opportunity, due process, respect for the dignity of the individual and solidarity with people in trouble. To my mind, Americans who had joined the resistance to Franco's fascist dystopia captured the progressive spirit at its finest.

A turning point came at a dinner party on the day Ronald Reagan famously described the Soviet Union as the pre-eminent source of evil in the modern world. The general tenor of the evening was that Reagan's use of the word "evil" had moved the world closer to annihilation. There was a palpable sense that we might not make it to dessert.

When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find "evil'" too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport.

My progressive companions had a point. It was rude to bring a word like "gulag" to the dinner table.

I look back on that experience as the beginning of my departure from a left already well on its way to losing its bearings. Two decades later, I watched with astonishment as leading left intellectuals launched a telethon- like body count of civilian deaths caused by American soldiers in Afghanistan. Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of Sept. 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations.

Stated simply: The force wielded by democracies in self-defense was declared morally equivalent to the nihilistic aggression perpetuated by Muslim fanatics.

Susan Sontag cleared her throat for the "courage" of the al Qaeda pilots. Norman Mailer pronounced the dead of Sept. 11 comparable to "automobile statistics." The events of that day were likely premeditated by the White House, Gore Vidal insinuated. Noam Chomsky insisted that al Qaeda at its most atrocious generated no terror greater than American foreign policy on a mediocre day.

All of this came back to me as I watched the left's anemic, smirking response to Iraq's election in January. Didn't many of these same people stand up in the sixties for self-rule for oppressed people and against fascism in any guise? Yes, and to their lasting credit. But many had since made clear that they had also changed their minds about the virtues of King's call for equal of opportunity.

These days the postmodern left demands that government and private institutions guarantee equality of outcomes. Any racial or gender "disparities" are to be considered evidence of culpable bias, regardless of factors such as personal motivation, training, and skill. This goal is neither liberal nor progressive; but it is what the left has chosen. In a very real sense it may be the last card held by a movement increasingly ensnared in resentful questing for group-specific rights and the subordination of citizenship to group identity. There's a word for this: pathetic.

I smile when friends tell me I've "moved right." I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left.

In the name of "diversity," the University of Arizona has forbidden discrimination based on "individual style." The University of Connecticut has banned "inappropriately directed laughter." Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that harassment "may be intentional or unintentional and still constitute harassment." (Yes, we're talking "subconscious harassment" here. We're watching your thoughts ...).

Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like "Why you ain't" and "Where you is," Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to "level the playing field." Why not? Because "drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that."

When self-styled pragmatic feminist Camille Paglia mocked young coeds who believe "I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening," Susan Estrich spoke up for gender- focused feminists who "would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided."

I'll admit my politics have shifted in recent years, as have America's political landscape and cultural horizon. Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with today's best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback?

He is also by most measures one of the most conservative senators. Brownback speaks openly about how his horror at the genocide in the Sudan is shaped by his Christian faith, as King did when he insisted on justice for "all of God's children."

My larger point is rather simple. Just as a body needs different medicines at different times for different reasons, this also holds for the body politic.

In the sixties, America correctly focused on bringing down walls that prevented equal access and due process. It was time to walk the Founders' talk -- and we did. With barriers to opportunity no longer written into law, today the body politic is crying for different remedies.

America must now focus on creating healthy, self-actualizing individuals committed to taking responsibility for their lives, developing their talents, honing their skills and intellects, fostering emotional and moral intelligence, all in all contributing to the advancement of the human condition.

At the heart of authentic liberalism lies the recognition, in the words of John Gardner, "that the ever renewing society will be a free society (whose] capacity for renewal depends on the individuals who make it up." A continuously renewing society, Gardner believed, is one that seeks to "foster innovative, versatile, and self-renewing men and women and give them room to breathe."

One aspect of my politics hasn't changed a bit. I became a liberal in the first place to break from the repressive group orthodoxies of my reactionary hometown.

This past January, my liberalism was in full throttle when I bid the cultural left goodbye to escape a new version of that oppressiveness. I departed with new clarity about the brilliance of liberal democracy and the value system it entails; the quest for freedom as an intrinsically human affair; and the dangers of demands for conformity and adherence to any point of view through silence, fear, or coercion.

True, it took a while to see what was right before my eyes. A certain misplaced loyalty kept me from grasping that a view of individuals as morally capable of and responsible for making the principle decisions that shape their lives is decisively at odds with the contemporary left's entrance-level view of people as passive and helpless victims of powerful external forces, hence political wards who require the continuous shepherding of caretaker elites.

Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality. A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years. All of which is why I have come to believe, and gladly join with others who have discovered for themselves, that the single most important thing a genuinely liberal person can do now is walk away from the house the left has built. The renewal of any tradition that deserves the name "progressive" becomes more likely with each step in a better direction.

[mofish]

Some nice generalizations in that article. Im a member of the so-called left, I think Bush is easily the worst president of my liftetime. I think his administration lied and deceived to go to war with Iraq. Oh the intelligence was bad! Yeah right....I am repulsed by the cloak of faith he drapes himself in to garner votes. I dont think he's a particularly smart, wise, or good man.

Guess what else. I fully support our success in the region since we are there now. I fully support democracy for Iraq. I fully support our troops. I do NOT support a premature withdrawal of force. Do I think things will work out in the end? Not really, considering the shady, misguided foundation for the whole enterprise. But Im hoping.

Signed,
A Dirty Liberal Patriot

P.S. When do we invade Africa? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? China?

[Ganzo]

I was a hardcore liberal, now i'm conservative republican. Anyone can change his views on life as they grow up. As once was said: If you not liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you are not conservative at 50, you have no brains.

[xaoshaen]

P.S. When do we invade Africa? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? China?

As soon as they demonstrate hostile intentions coupled with the political will to execute them, and military intervention is a feasible option.

[KILL]

haha, yeah. thats exactly what Iraq did.

fucking tosser

[Themosticles]

haha, yeah. thats exactly what Iraq did.

fucking tosser

So are you saying that Saddam was incapable of demonstrating both the desire and military pressance to be dangerous? Think hard b/c there are more countries than just the US in this world.

You can do it...

Whether or not you believe our intervention is warrented is another story and you're more than entitled to dissagree with our current situation but your comment is fucking stupid.

[Tossica]

Whoever Keith Thompson is, I miss him already. I sure hope he comes back to the left... I'm not sure how the ideals can be upheld without him.

[Gidan]

P.S. When do we invade Africa? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? China?

As soon as they demonstrate hostile intentions coupled with the political will to execute them, and military intervention is a feasible option.

korea

[xaoshaen]

haha, yeah. thats exactly what Iraq did.

fucking tosser

Iraq clearly demonstrated hostile intentions towards the US.

Obviously military intervention was feasible since it, you know, succeeded.

Thus both parts of the requirement are satisfied.

[xaoshaen]

P.S. When do we invade Africa? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? China?

As soon as they demonstrate hostile intentions coupled with the political will to execute them, and military intervention is a feasible option.

korea

Korea is a particularly bad example. Initiating military hostilities with the North Koreans would be a much trickier proposition than in Iraq. The North Korean army is vastly better supplied and trained than their Iraqi equivalents and don't suffer from the systematic problems Arab militaries do.

North Korea also has the proverbial 800-pound gorilla sitting in their backyard, an atrocious economy, and a suppressed populace beginning to be influenced by exposure to western culture. I think I've seen this set of circumstances before... There're plenty of levers to use to use on them, right up until they initiate hostilities.

[Gidan]

Lots of countries demonstrate hostile intentions toward the US. We don’t attack those that don’t offer us something in return though. Wonder if we would have even bothered with Iraq if Bush didn't need something to gather public approval or if they didn't have oil.

[Gidan]

P.S. When do we invade Africa? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? China?

As soon as they demonstrate hostile intentions coupled with the political will to execute them, and military intervention is a feasible option.

korea

Korea is a particularly bad example. Initiating military hostilities with the North Koreans would be a much trickier proposition than in Iraq. The North Korean army is vastly better supplied and trained than their Iraqi equivalents and don't suffer from the systematic problems Arab militaries do.

North Korea also has the proverbial 800-pound gorilla sitting in their backyard, an atrocious economy, and a suppressed populace beginning to be influenced by exposure to western culture. I think I've seen this set of circumstances before... There're plenty of levers to use to use on them, right up until they initiate hostilities.

Ahh so attack the people who pose less of a threat and leave the real threat alone until they actually attack us.

[xaoshaen]

Lots of countries demonstate hostile intentions toward the US. We dont attack those that dont offer us something in return though. Wonder if we would have even bothered with Iraq if Bush didn't need something to gather public approval or if they didn't have oil.

No, lots countries posture against the US. Very few of them actually fire on US citizens. There's a distinct difference between rhetoric and bullets.

I had really hoped we'd put paid to the "war for oil" sillyness. It's an intellectually bankrupt argument that exists to bolster the spirits of those who'd rather rely on catchphrases than actual thought. Don't bother trotting that horse out again, it's dead, beaten, and (I'd hoped) buried.

[xaoshaen]

P.S. When do we invade Africa? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? China?

As soon as they demonstrate hostile intentions coupled with the political will to execute them, and military intervention is a feasible option.

korea

Korea is a particularly bad example. Initiating military hostilities with the North Koreans would be a much trickier proposition than in Iraq. The North Korean army is vastly better supplied and trained than their Iraqi equivalents and don't suffer from the systematic problems Arab militaries do.

North Korea also has the proverbial 800-pound gorilla sitting in their backyard, an atrocious economy, and a suppressed populace beginning to be influenced by exposure to western culture. I think I've seen this set of circumstances before... There're plenty of levers to use to use on them, right up until they initiate hostilities.

Ahh so attack the people who pose less of a threat and leave the real threat alone until they actually attack us.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Obviously the probability of success has to be a major factor in evaluating the wisdom of military intervention. I just listed for you reasons why attacking North Korea would be not only unwise, but unnecessary. Pay attention.

[Lyion]

Ahh so attack the people who pose less of a threat and leave the real threat alone until they actually attack us.

Imminent Danger. Korea, China, etc are not an IMMINENT danger. We thought Iraq was.

The trick is acting in a way that best protects our people while leaving fair opportunities for diplomacy.

Iraq was good in that it showed we mean business, and has started a ripple effect in Libya, Lebanon, and even Syria. It might go down as the catalyst to wholesale change in the world and peace for a region after 2000 years of war.

Korea is a puppet of China and is not an imminent threat. They solely rely on China for their survivial and thus we ensure that any time we negotiate, we do so with the country pulling their strings.

Our diplomacy has lacked things, but overall has been amazingly good despite the continuing primarily negative coverage of the wholesale march to democracy in many places.

I wish we'd do more in places like Uzbekistan and Darfur. Our lack of intervention there disheartens me.

[Gidan]

Lots of countries demonstate hostile intentions toward the US. We dont attack those that dont offer us something in return though. Wonder if we would have even bothered with Iraq if Bush didn't need something to gather public approval or if they didn't have oil.

No, lots countries posture against the US. Very few of them actually fire on US citizens. There's a distinct difference between rhetoric and bullets.

I had really hoped we'd put paid to the "war for oil" sillyness. It's an intellectually bankrupt argument that exists to bolster the spirits of those who'd rather rely on catchphrases than actual thought. Don't bother trotting that horse out again, it's dead, beaten, and (I'd hoped) buried.

So why exactly did we goto war again?

Our intel (wront, right, doctored... it doesn't matter) said Iraq had WoMD. Even though we can not find them on any inspections, what do we do? We steamroll into the county. Why exactly would saddam not use them if he had them? We were so certain (based on intel) that they had them yet were in no fear of them actually using them?

Sounds to me like the gov't just wanted saddam out of there and a new democracy (because its our job to dicatate world polotics to other countries). Is it not possible we did this simply becasue we thought it would make trade with them easier?

[Ganzo]

Can't touch Uzbekistan. The shitstorm it would bring in Russia/US relationship would be unparalel. Only solution there is to try and influence Russia to interfere there

[Gidan]

Also, why is it that we condemn Iraq for the way they treat their people? Yet the Chinese are far worse, and we do everything in our power to be friends with them.

IMO, everything our gov't does in world politics is about 1 thing, Money and how it affects the US financially. We befriend to worst because they can control trade, yet we condemn those same acts is other countries who can provide for us the way the Chinese can.

[Lyion]

We condemn human rights abuses in China, Gidan, but its a slightly different situation. China isn't a threat to us, and we are working to try and change them from a diplomatic angle.

Again, it goes back to 'imminent danger'. Saddam was percieved to be a real threat.

I realize the political nature of Uzbekistan, G. I just still feel its a travesty and I wish we could do something.

[Ganzo]

Gidan, no one in the right mind gonna attack strongest opponent. You take out weak ones to bring small sucsess while flexing muscle for negotiations with bigger fish.

[Ganzo]

I realize the political nature of Uzbekistan, G. I just still feel its a travesty and I wish we could do something.

We could try and influence Putin to get involved. Karimov is his homeboy.

[Lyion]

Putin makes it a point to play the strong Russian Leader and do his own thing, though. There has to be a better option.

[Ganzo]

Unfortunatly there isn't. As i said Karimov is Putin's buddy. Uzbekistan, Belaruss and Russia also have a millitary alliance agreement. Anyone touching Uzbekistan gets into unimaginable complications.

[Yamori]

Hrm, I used to be very far left leaning about 4-5 years ago, because I thought they were the champions of freedom.

Then I actually stepped back and thought about what freedom actually meant, and realized the left is far more about control than it is about freedom. It was just a reflection of the right wing that I so hated, manifested in a different way.

Been a libertarian ever since, and I plan on being one forever more.

I'd say good for this guy, but it doesn't sound like he learned that lesson.

[Narrock]

Libertarians make a hell of a lot more sense than liberals.