« Ramesh Ponnuru Isn't Making Sense | Main | No Ben Domenech »
April 24, 2006
The Inadequacy of the Euston Manifesto
Would that the questions were easier. The tradeoffs not so grave, the deaths not so real, the chaos not so close. Would that war was heroism and grandeur and the bad guys were tangible and near and the snipers could aim and shoot. Would that we could fight, and win, and have it be better than it is now.
But that is not the way of it, which is why I'm so disappointed to see the effusive reaction being offered to the Euston Manifesto (site may be temporarily down, here's a cache). The document, scrawled out by Norm Geras during a short burst of inspiration and arrogance, is some sort of statement of principles meant to sort those on the good, "responsible" left from the defeatist, terrorist-sympathizin' softs currently infecting the coalition. All the usual suspects are signed up, and Bill Kristol made it the subject of his weekly editorial.
Yawn. Sign me up, I guess. Hitchens and me, marching gloriously forth to face the barbarians. Who woulda thunk? I mean, I think dictatorships are bad, and terrorists should be stopped, and human rights respected, and all the rest. And if anyone wanted to throw in a pony, I'd be for that, too. But the problem with this document, which is also the problem with the contemporary right, is that there's no mention of the actual disagreements at work, the questions of war and tactics, of death and destruction, of blowback and radicalization, go entirely unmentioned.
But the disputes at work, the disagreements this manifesto supposedly clarifies, are not of principles but of tactics, not of who we dislike but of how we defeat them. It's easier, simpler, starker to etch out manifestos and petitions, to take applications for the Great Men of History Club (no libs allowed), but to do so is to truly underestimate the stakes. This isn't a game, it's not a chance to define the self against far away, never-to-be-seen horrors. It's real, it's high-stakes, and it's serious. Would that those demanding fealty to such values in the abstract actually applied them.
April 24, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83427eebf53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Inadequacy of the Euston Manifesto:
Comments
Very, very interesting. What this is is a change in message, the very thing the Democratic left needs.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 24, 2006 3:43:00 PM
Now to get it down to ten words or less...
Posted by: Steve Mudge | Apr 24, 2006 3:48:15 PM
Why, Fred! I never would have predicted you'd sign up as a card-carrying member of the Democratic left. You even avoided the reflexive slur that elides the party adjective to its noun form.
Welcome to the fold, big fella. Whatever changed your mind so?
Posted by: wcw | Apr 24, 2006 3:50:22 PM
Whatever changed your mind so?
It was not my mind that has changed....it's the message.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 24, 2006 3:58:40 PM
No, not that: I can read.
It's that you suddenly know "the very thing" the Democratic left "needs." How should I explain that except by assuming that you now self-identify as a Democratic leftist?
When you publicly hold diametrically opposing partisan opinions, you're in no position to dictate to your opponents so definitively. Unless, of course, you're a stalinist who revels in oppressive totalism that overwhelms all but a unitary party line.
Oh, wait..
Posted by: wcw | Apr 24, 2006 4:13:49 PM
How should I explain that except by assuming that you now self-identify as a Democratic leftist?
I think you're more interested in 'getting' a conservative than discussing the issues at hand.
For the record, I didn't vote for Mr. Bush (either time). I could vote Dem if they promoted the right policies. I have no problem with anything other than the current policies.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 24, 2006 4:26:31 PM
And what policies would they be, scion of the Decent Left?
Posted by: Pooh | Apr 24, 2006 4:42:19 PM
Talk about your all time mixed messages. Is it the policies or the messages, Fred?
Posted by: Adrock | Apr 24, 2006 4:52:20 PM
Is it the policies or the messages, Fred?
Isn't the message a proposal of what your polices would be? Aren't you advertising to your audience how you would govern with your message?
I think this proposed change in message has really fucked you up some. If it becomes popular with the party, you will be relegated to the fringe even more than you are from mainstream Democrats.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 24, 2006 5:49:00 PM
Aside from the fact that the UK origins of almost all of the signers of this declaration explain the somewhat strange language used throughout, one has to wonder exactly what they believe are the most significant dangers to democracy are today - the far left that is denounced, but not described or named, or the forces of the radical right which are barely mentioned.
Where (and who) in the democratic world is there danger of whatever the 'far left' is, taking control of the machinery of government or making major impact on public policy? Is the communist party (or other far-left group) a substantial force threatening takeover in some democratic countries? Their expressed disgust with whatever far-left forces they rail against seems so very dated - late 1950's or so.
Isn't it far more likely that the standards and principles the Euston signers profess will be ignored or destroyed by ultra-conservative, corporate-conservative, radical religious conservative, or outright fascist movements in the various countries?
That lack of 'actual danger' perspective about the far left versus the far right makes me doubt that this declaration has substantive weight that US liberals or progressives should pay much attention to. It doesn't describe the plight actually facing the US today.
Absent the repeated attacks to a far-left that barely exists and has no political momentum, and with some added clear exposition and denunciation of the dangers from the right, this declaration could be influential. Since it is what it is, it seems mostly irrelevant to our present needs in the democracies worldwide, and especially here in the USA.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 24, 2006 5:51:00 PM
"...that US liberals or progressives should pay much attention to."
I certainly haven't, tho it keeps popping up in the weirdest of places. Took Norm off my blogroll long ago.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 24, 2006 7:50:01 PM
As a scientific control group, I suggest would monitor Fred's behavior should the Dems retake the House in Nov. My hypothesis is that the whinge would be something along these lines:
I think this increase in actual power has really fucked you up some. If power becomes popular with the party, you will be relegated to the fringe even more than you are from mainstream Democrats.
Takers?
Posted by: Pooh | Apr 24, 2006 8:16:56 PM
Wow, I found the document quite refreshing, and see it as a statement of general principles all in the progressive left can get on board with.
"I mean, I think dictatorships are bad, and terrorists should be stopped, and human rights respected, and all the rest."
I've never seen such a half-assed, inearnest supposed defense of progressive ideals by a so called progressive. In this respect I'd rather have a far-sighted utopian liberal arrogance of Norm Geras than the amoral apathy you displayed in this post.
You also didn't mention the rest of the manifesto, only a portion of which deals with foreign policy.
Posted by: Dustin | Apr 25, 2006 2:18:39 AM
They really soft-pedal Abu Ghraib and extraordinary rendition calling it "a departure from universal principles." They seem much more concerned by abuse of metaphor by AI than acts of torture, the Bush administration's torture memos, indefinite imprisonment by a democracy and any number of efforts by the Bush administration to flush international human rights law down the toilet.
As for their section on anti-Americanism, it's also soft-pedaling. Besides, what constitutes anti-Americanism? Any criticism of the US policy?
If you want to fight anti-Americanism, you should also fight American exceptionalism. That goes to fuel a lot of anti-Americanism.
Posted by: Randy Paul | Apr 25, 2006 2:27:56 PM
It would have been simpler if they just said, "We hate Saddam, bin Laden, and all other tyrants and terrorists."
As opposed to those OTHER lefties, who say, "We hate them too, but...."
And they do have a point. There are many lefties who hate George Bush more than they hate anyone else in the entire world, and love it when even worse scumbags embarrass him. It's sickening for Kim or Amajenidad to spew an insult at Bush and for lefties to go, "What he said!" It looks like you are making common cause.
Bush is a turd, but he's an elected turd who will be freely leaving office peacefully in less than three years. He hasn't filled mass graves with American citizens. He is not equivalent to the Saddams and Kims of the world.
It's called perspective. Get some. That's all the Euston Manifesto folks are saying.
Posted by: Adam Herman | Apr 28, 2006 4:08:10 AM
It's sickening for Kim or Amajenidad to spew an insult at Bush and for lefties to go, "What he said!"
I don't know anyone who's ever done that. Could you be specific, please?
Posted by: Randy Paul | Apr 28, 2006 10:02:19 AM
It's called perspective. Get some. That's all the Euston Manifesto folks are saying.
Thank you for your most reasoned post, Adam. Please remember that the lefties you find on this board are not mainstream and they hate any Democrat that is. That is why you find the opposition and ridicule of this issu.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 28, 2006 10:58:45 AM
Still no examples.
Posted by: Randy Paul | Apr 28, 2006 12:07:22 PM
Hit post too soon. Still no examples, just more strawmen than a road show of the Wizard of Oz.
Posted by: Randy Paul | Apr 28, 2006 12:39:03 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
