The Politics of Renunication

« Blogs and Think Tanks | Main | Unity in Opposition »

12/10/2004

The Politics of Renunication

Great minds may think alike, but it only counts if you get it
written down in time. Story of my life. I've been puttering for a week
on comments in response to Peter Beinart's New Republic essay
calling for a more anti-terrorist Democratic Party modeled on postwar liberal anti-communism, but Josh Marshall
yesterday wrote almost exactly what I had drafted and what was in my head, right down to the basic structure of the argument, only better put.
So this will fortunately be a good deal shorter and perhaps just a gloss on Josh's
comments.

As it is for Josh, the emergence of liberal anti-communism in the late 1940s,
and the founding of Americans for Democratic Action, is a great
foundational myth for me, so Beinart's invocation of the period almost has me hooked. I think there is a small school of thought emerging, which includes Josh and me and others, and in a different way Beinart, that is based on admiration of that era and that tendency, which has been out of fashion since the rise of the New Left and the disintegration of the liberal consensus in the late 60s. We finally have enough distance to draw some lessons from that era for our own time, much as some liberals of the last decade, such as E.J. Dionne, drew lessons from the Progressive Era. In that light, I'd like to strongly recommend a very new book: Kevin Mattson's When America Was Great: The Fighting Faith of Postwar Liberalism is a group biography of Reinhold Neibuhr, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith and the less-remembered newspaper editor James Wechsler, with cameo appearances by some equally fascinating figures such as the popular historian and commentator Bernard DeVoto. Kevin is an intellectual historian at Ohio University and writes beautifully, and I suspect that this book will be a key document in this new appreciation of the postwar anti-communist liberals.

Of course, like all history, this is contested territory, so where Beinart treats postwar liberalism as if it were indistinguishable from Whitaker Chambers' Manichean view of a final battle for civilization, Mattson is equally attentive to domestic liberalism, civil rights, and the opposition to McCarthyism that was also prominent in the ADA view. They were not the soft anti-anti-communists who forgave or forgot communist influence in the CIO and Henry Wallace's 1948 presidential campaign, but they understood the danger of demagoguery, alarmism and false accusations and false choices as well. We know what Galbraith and Schlesinger would say today because they are alive and wonderfully productive, though Beinart treats his heroes contemptuously when they don't help him, saying, "Schlesinger, ironically, has moved toward a softer liberalism later in life." Of the others, it's quite likely that they would be no less concerned with civil liberties than mainstream liberals are today, not so much at the expense of a fight on terror as in recognition that it's not helping. Just as Wechsler noted McCarthy's record of never identifying a single actual communist, they would note John Ashcroft's comparable record of failure to identify and prosecute a single al-Qaeda terrorist. The fact that the threat is real is all the more reason to resist false choices about it and opportunistic misuse of it.

Of course, as Josh points out well, the metaphor is just absurdly strained. "Islamic totalitarianism" is real, it's a threat, but it is not the same kind of threat as Soviet totalitarianism in the 1940s and 50s. Soviet communism dominated half of Europe and much of the rest of the world. It controlled parties and front groups throughout the world, including in the United States. The liberal anti-communists had to deal with actual communists, supported by the Kremlin, in American labor unions and political movements. Are there al-Qaeda sympathizers in danger of obtaining direct control of major institutions in the U.S. and other countries? Are there countries or populations living under the domination of al-Qaeda totalitarianism? To ask it is to answer it. Al Qaeda is a huge and monstrous gang. It "threatens millions" in one major sense: if it gets a nuclear weapon it will use it. That's a big deal, but it's a very different deal. The one and only thing, I think, would be to make sure that they don't get a nuclear weapon. Yes, we can and should also destroy the monstrous gang. But there's no reason to believe that al Qaeda is the only monstrous gang that might aspire to commit mass murders in the future, and the others may not even be Islamic.

Beinart's metaphor reminded me of the period leading up to the Iraq War. I was not a "liberal hawk," rather, I was something more like a "liberal hawk wannabe." I certainly wanted to be as clear-eyed about the threat and the need for a response as, say, colleagues of mine were about Kosovo and people like Paul Berman and Michael Ignatieff were about Iraq. Or, I wanted to be like the postwar liberals. Who wants to be on the soft side of history? But as much as I temperamentally wanted to be on that side and not the Michael Moore side, I couldn't get there. I couldn't have faith in the Bush administration to do things right, I couldn't bring myself to see the threat of Iraq as in any way related to Islamic terrorism. In the same way, reading Beinart now, I want to be like the historical figures he invokes, but I can't make it across the bridge of his metaphor, sorry.

Beinart's argument might make more internal sense as an argument for invading Iraq. But that's now thoroughly discredited, even at the New Republic. So Beinart's is an argument for Iraq without Iraq. If it's just about al Qaeda, yes, we should go after al Qaeda and its sanctuaries and its appeal in the Islamic world with all necessary weapons and all confidence of success. Is that task so overwhelming that in the richest and most resourceful country in the world, we can't also think about health care and education? Of course not. I think Beinart is in exactly the same trap as John Kerry: Kerry wanted to argue toughness on terror, and had the freedom to do so, but the question of toughness has already been framed as the question of Iraq. Kerry couldn't possibly support the Iraq war as conducted, but he didn't have the option of redefining the question. Iraq was a setup, a trap, that prevented Kerry from demonstrating that, in fact, he did "get it" on terrorism and had for decades. It might have been a little easier to get out of the trap if he had not voted against the $87 billion appropriation for Iraq, but not much. But most importantly, the trap was not set by Kerry or by moveon.org.

If the argument is about some definition of "totalitarianism" bigger than al-Qaeda itself -- Saudi Arabia, Pakistan's leadership, Syria, the Palestinian leadership, Iran, some big worldview thing -- then I'd at least want to know what it is. What tangible policy choice should we be advocating that most Democrats do not currently advocate, if we want to take Beinart's path?

The only clear thing I see is the politics of renunciation. Beinart asks us as Democrats to renounce and excommunicate moveon.org, Michael Moore, and anyone who was uncomfortable with the use of force in Afghanistan. The politics of renouncing is, like, so late '80s. Democrats were always facing demands to renounce Jesse Jackson, and Jackson was constantly confronted with demands to renounce whatever third-string black nationalist was stirring up attention that week with a "kill whitie" chant, as if Jackson was somehow responsible for everything that another black person said. It was offensive and there's no end to it. Bill Clinton finally renounced the rapper and writer Sister Souljah, as a proxy for renouncing Jackson, thus adding a phrase to the lexicon that long outlasted the brief flame of Lisa Williamson's celebrity, but that is probably the only renunciation that had any political value, although it was trivial and contrived.

I'm not a pacifist and I didn't oppose the use of force in Afghan, but I'm sorry, I see no point to renouncing those who did. They had no significant effect on the political process or the party, and did not slow down the decision or obstruct the use of force. I may think they're wrong, but so what? Should one denounce Jeanette Rankin, the pacifist elected only twice to Congress but who voted against U.S. involvement in both world wars? Of course not -- she was a principled person, even if the world would be worse off had her view prevailed. There exist true pacifists, Esperanto-speakers, and Level 5 vegans who won't eat anything that casts a shadow, as well as garden-variety infantile leftists. Is it my problem that they find the Democratic Party marginally more congenial to their views than the crazy-interventionist Republican Party?? Why is it my obligation to renounce them?

As for Michael Moore -- who, incidentally, supported one of the presidential candidates that Beinart rather arbitrarily identifies as more "serious about terrorism, General Clark -- earlier I mentioned Kevin Mattson, author of the new book about postwar liberalism. As it turns out, Kevin has also written about Moore, critically, but with much more subtlety than Beinart. As he sees it, the problem with Moore isn't that he's soft on terror, but that "his own lampooning tendencies, his vulgar materialism, his tendency toward cynicism about American politics, his contempt for all the 'dumb guys' we have to convince" reflects a takeover of entertainment culture in political debate. I recommend it as a good example of the kind of serious, thoughtful criticism that would have improved Beinart's essay.

Posted by Mark Schmitt on 12/10/2004 at 08:21 AM in Decembrist archives | Permalink

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

A masterful non-renunciation renunciation of Beinart. I found myself nodding in agreement with every sentence.

Posted by: Sven | 12/10/2004 at 10:35 AM

Holy smokes! Ralph Nader renunciates Michael Moore! Seriously!

Will the real Michael Moore ever re-emerge and shut the door on his theatre of the absurd? It was a wild and crazy run, was it not, Michael? Weeks of standing before large college audiences mixing a potion of book and movie promotions with a message that was more laughable than producing laughter. You told the young men and women that "George W. Bush and John Kerry both suck. Vote for Kerry." That is supposed to be "cool?" Here you were -- against the Iraq War occupation, pro-justice for the Palestinian people, against the Patriot Act, against the swollen military budget and you were telling the university students to vote for Kerry who is on the complete opposite side of these issues.

Posted by: Sven | 12/10/2004 at 03:47 PM

And Charles Pierce renunciates the New Republic!

I mean, it's been a pretty good 20-year run for the Singer midgets since they signed aboard Ronald Reagan's Excellent Nun-Slaughtering adventures in Central America. People still take them nearly as seriously as they take themselves -- and this is despite Ruthie Shalit and Stevie Glass, and the Bell Curve, and Liz McCaughey's health-care horsepucky, and Beinart's own defense of on-your-Beltway-duff reporting from a couple of months back. Turning a highly successful -- would TNR really like to measure itself against the works of Michael Moore using any of the conventional benchmarks of American success? -- progressive activist into cheap shorthand in order to advance the progressive cause is a strategy that leads me to believe that maybe some of the golden children need to get out into the country more.

Posted by: Sven | 12/10/2004 at 04:00 PM

I think that your description of being a "liberal hawk wannabe" is incredibly illuminating of the psychological issues involved. For someone like Beinart, it's less about forming the right policy (with all the tedious work of forming a political coalition behind it), and more about striking a pose.

Posted by: Walt Pohl | 12/10/2004 at 05:20 PM

Does this mean we have to stop demanding that Republicans renounce Ann Coulter and John Derbyshire and Pat Robertson and the Montana Militia? Or do they just not have to listen?

Posted by: Matt McIrvin | 12/10/2004 at 07:56 PM

"I couldn't have faith in the Bush administration to do things right, I couldn't bring myself to see the threat of Iraq as in any way related to Islamic terrorism"

"Al Qaeda is a huge and monstrous gang. It "threatens millions" in one major sense: if it gets a nuclear weapon it will use it. That's a big deal, but it's a very different deal. The one and only thing, I think, would be to make sure that they don't get a nuclear weapon. Yes, we can and should also destroy the monstrous gang"

These two quotes, Mark, highlight the whole problem in my mind. The administration managed to convince people that Iraq might be an offshoot of the 'gang' or just another gang that would mimic Al Quaeda. Even if true, using a war to solve the problem indicates a massive lack of imagination. I do not believe that the US could not have taken Sadam and his crew out without bombing Iraq back to the stone age. Bush could not be, and cannot be trusted to analyze, plan and execute in a manner that improves the world. He has a long pattern of using every aspect of policy to reward his friends and punish his enemies.

As you point out, there are no positive results in the war on terror. Ashcroft got his way and did not deliver. Bush got his way and did not deliver. Democrats will improve our image in this regard when we do things that work, instead of trying to be more or less militaristic than Republicans.

Posted by: Desert Donkey | 12/11/2004 at 11:25 AM

Very good. Here is what I wrote on my blog:

How Democrats Should "Fight"

Peter Beinart, in the 12/13/04 issue of The New Republic, suggests that to win future political battles, Democrats must drop their peaceful liberalism and replace it with a warlike liberalism. We should drop "soft" Howard Dean in favor of someone as "hard" as Lieberman. I say Lieberman is so "hard" you may as well call him a Republican. Dean is my man because he wants to move the Democratic Party in exactly the opposite direction from that favored by Beinart. I, and Dean, want a Democratic Party that "fights" for a domestic policy that is concerned with all American citizens, not only the rich; that "fights" for a foreign policy that encourages freedom, democracy and helpfulness among all nations; and that "fights" terrorists who attack us, and not "rogue" states.

Beinart says:

"... there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda."

I don't know where he gets this from. It seems that he is confusing the Iraq War with the war on terrorism. The two are not related. There never has been a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Because of Bush's intense propaganda, something like 40% of the people still believe it.

Surely Beinart does not believe this also.

Liberals, like all Americans, want to get rid of Al Qaeda. It's ridiculous to say or imply anything different. The question is how. Most liberals insist that we should have stayed in Afghanistan until we captured Osama bin Laden. Instead Bush - and Beinart championed the idea - attacked Iraq. Yes, there is little liberal passion for the struggle in Iraq, but there is plenty of liberal passion to destroy Al Qaeda.

Beinart states:

"... if liberalism was to credibly oppose totalitarianism, it could not be reflexively hostile to military force."

Liberals are not hostile to military force. They approach the problem differently from conservatives. Conservatives are competitive people; they have the "us vs. them" attitude. They see themselves as "good" people fighting "evil" people in the world. They believe in attacking, then talking. Liberals are cooperative people; they have the "we're in this together" attitude. They see people around the world with different approaches. They would rather talk first and attack if all else fails. Liberals truly believe in the slogan: "Military force as a last resort."

I do agree with Beinart - partially - when he says:

"But, while an updated Marshall Plan and an expanded Peace Corps for the Muslim world are more naturally liberal than conservative ideas, they have not resonated among post-September 11 liberal activists."

I agree with his implication that these are great ideas. Doing things like this would cost a lot less than war, do more to win America friends in the Muslim world, and will accelerate the building of democracy in the Arab world.

This sort of thing does resonate among liberals, especially those Beinart calls "soft."

Fighting terrorism is important. But liberals should not change their basic philosophy to do it. Liberals should continue fighting for the little guy, both at home and abroad.

Posted by: Paul Siegel | 12/11/2004 at 05:04 PM

I think I agree with you. In particular
I've been baffled by the question of
what distinct policy and principles
the "liberal hawks" would put forward.
For anyone who supported the Iraq
(mis)adventure at the time of invasion,
when UN inspectors had checked our best
intelligence about WMD and found it to
be worthless; the UN security council
was opposed to immediate action; and
major allies such as France and Germany
were also opposed - for those hawks,
I have two questions: on what principle
did they make that decision ? and how
would their actions and policies differ
from Bush's ?

Surely decisions of war and peace must
be made on solid moral and practical
principles - but the only justification
I seem to hear is that of political
calculation - that Democrats need to be
as "tough" as Bush to win election.

Posted by: Richard Cownie | 12/11/2004 at 10:56 PM

How can anyone be credible if they don't reflexively question the use of military force?

The military is the cost-plus results-minus way of doing anything, with lots of extra downside and potential liability built in. Kind of like a chutes-and-ladders game with way more chutes than ladders.

When you hear a military solution proposed, the first question in your mind should be "Isn't there a better way?"

It's mindboggling that Beinert's brainless 'toughness' has survived for 50 years in the shadow of our knowledge that we can now destroy ourselves completely by going to war. Maybe this is what they mean when they talk about 'reptilian brain'.

Posted by: serial catowner | 12/12/2004 at 01:37 PM

Very interesting and well thought out post. I was pleased to read: "Al Qaeda is a huge and monstrous gang."

Which is something that people are beginning to recognize. A gang, not a state power. There was the illusion of substantial power due to the fact that they hijacked airplanes and, for a brief moment, had an air force. But other than that, all that they have explosives, trucks, small boats, and people willing to die in an attack. A meanace, to be sure, but nothing that justifies a compete re-organization of the federal government, or an invasion into Iraq.

Posted by: Quiddity | 12/12/2004 at 09:46 PM

Richard: I supported the Iraq war on the basis of practical and moral principles, not political calculation. Clearly, in retrospect, I was wrong.

Posted by: Walt Pohl | 12/13/2004 at 01:17 AM

Walt: thanks for your admission of error
Can you tell me what practical and
moral principles you based your decision
on ? For myself, I favor the principles
of Just War, plus the Powell Doctrine as
a practical guide. I would also
recognize the "pre-9/11 consensus"
position - go to war only with the
support of major allies and NATO or UN.
But the Iraq war seemed to require
something beyond these "dove" or
"multilateralist" positions.

Posted by: Richard Cownie | 12/14/2004 at 05:02 PM

I really don't understand the need of some liberals and Democrats to go after people like Michael Moore. They seem to think that people like Moore, who admittedly are sometimes over the top, are the reason we lose elections, by turning off conservatives in the center. Do conservatives similarly worry about people like Ann Coulter turning off liberals who might lean conservative? No! Rather, they embrace them, because they understand that you need people in your movement who will confront the other side, who will motivate the faithful, who attract attention to your cause, and who act as a thorn in the side of your opponents. And what of all the people Moore did make think twice about their convictions with F 9/11? Whatever you may think of Moore's antics, the truth is he cares very deeply about his country and is willing to risk being lampooned even by those who are supposedly on the same side as him, to get his point across. We don't need less of people like Moore...we need more.

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe | 12/15/2004 at 09:23 AM

Decembrist:

Lots of things to chew on here; namely the contrast between historical conjunctures, and the particular "threats" they create. I have quibbles with the characterization of the communist threat--sure, the CIO had communist organizers, but were they really poised to take it over? Or any other institution? Didn't communists do some good in this country, in the steadfast commitment to integration, in the overall direction of popular front politics and the New Deal? And despite the Kremlin's authority over the CP, did that mean that every US communist dreamed of Stalinesque totalitarian power?

I also think stronger words need apply to the liberal hawks of Iraq fame. They meant well, shit, we all want democracy in the Middle East, and we all know Hussein is a bad guy. But liberal hawks either never did the analysis, or consciously let an overwrought sense of personal moral purpose (and sometimes ambition), over ride the reality behind the shameful casuistries of the Bush Administration on Iraq. Tony Blair represents the dilemma writ large, on a national political stage. If there was ever need to not separate a war from those who would perpetrate it, this was the one, and that was clear from the start.

I'll leave the language of "soft" and "hard" to cultural studies critiques; it's a Freudian field day.

But isn't this the reality, that most people think force can be legitimate, not just in pursuit of the "national interest," but in pursuit of justice? The thing is that it doesn't matter how much one says that force can be legitimate (or, for that matter, that Saddam was a bad guy), because the real issue issue is the legitimacy of force for the particular situation at hand, which in this case is Iraq. The hard vs. soft opposition is, in my opinion, a kind of a trap, if we are talking about staking out a meaningful, long term position. For soft really points to a meaner set of suppositions; first, it means against this war in Iraq (especially if you were from the beginning), and second, given the election results, it is just a losing way to package a candidate.

Posted by: Rwells | 12/15/2004 at 08:03 PM

Richard: I think I suffered from a serious case of confirmation bias. I already believed (pre-Bush) that Iraq was developing WMDs, so when Bush trumpeted the claim that Iraq was developing WMDs, I thought he was only telling me something I already knew. At the time, it seemed odd to me that all of the evidence he presented turned out to be so weak, but I didn't resolve the cognitive dissonance of it all until after the invasion (towards the end of May).

I thought there was a three-pronged test for war: moral, legal, and practical. The moral argument (Saddam was a bad, bad man) I'm sure you're familiar with. The legal argument was that Saddam was violating the terms of the cease-fire by not cooperating with inspectors -- a weak legal argument before the war, but if we discovered massive amounts of WMDs it would seem stronger retrospectively. For the practical argument, I just took the word of the Bush administration that it wouldn't distract from the war on terror, and that the aftermath wouldn't be that difficult.

Posted by: Walt Pohl | 12/16/2004 at 02:45 AM

Walt: thanks very much for taking the time to
explain your reasons for supporting the Iraq
invasion (at that time). To confess a mistake
is hard, but admitting and analyzing mistakes is
the best (maybe only) way to get it right next time.

Certainly your position is understandable, given
the statements from the administration and the
media frenzy at the time. You had to be quite
paranoid to believe there could be that much
smoke without any fire - for myself, I thought
the nuclear scare was bogus, but I did expect
they would find a few chemical weapons and claim
that as a retrospective justification.

Posted by: Richard Cownie | 12/16/2004 at 10:33 AM

Mark says:
"But there's no reason to believe that al Qaeda is the only monstrous gang that might aspire to commit mass murders in the future, and the others may not even be Islamic."

You mean like Iraq, right? You actually make the case for being a "liberal hawk" right there.

No, there were no operational ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda but there is a huge paper trail of Saddam funding terrorism around the globe (particularly suicide bombings in Israel). Let's remember this is a "War on Terrorism" not on Al Quaeda, or Osama, or Saddam, or -enter state sponsoring terrorist thug name here-. Are we to just look the other way when a country under sanction for creating/using weapons of mass destruction and invading neighboring countries is also a known sponsor of terrorism?

Mark says:
"Beinart asks us as Democrats to renounce and excommunicate moveon.org, Michael Moore, and anyone who was uncomfortable with the use of force in Afghanistan. "

Perhaps (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Beinhart is right. Just as the anti-communist liberals renounced communist sympathizers during the cold war, a "liberal hawk" would renounce those that blame the actions of terrorists on the policies of America or the existence of Israel, as the sympathizers actions could possibly do more harm than the enemy itself.

Mark says:
"If the argument is about some definition of "totalitarianism" bigger than al-Qaeda itself -- Saudi Arabia, Pakistan's leadership, Syria, the Palestinian leadership, Iran, some big worldview thing -- then I'd at least want to know what it is."

It's not. It's about terrorism. Are you against terrorism? To ask it is to answer it.

Posted by: Lloyd | 12/17/2004 at 08:05 AM

PS. I renounce Trent Lott... again.

Posted by: Lloyd | 12/17/2004 at 08:54 AM

Peter Beinart's article also doesn't make it clear that Kerry advocated all the right things policywise. Kerry said:

Nuclear weapons are a huge problem.
The iraq war was a bad idea.
Al qaeda is the main problem.
Special forces and homeland defence need to be beefed-up.

The war in Iraq is a dangerous sideshow. Everyone knows it. Bush has made us less safe. The mainstream Democrat position is way better. Why blame Micheal Moore? Why pretend that Bush has better policies just because he was re-elected?

Posted by: joe o | 12/20/2004 at 04:35 PM