| In defense of the Left: setting the record straight
By John Zwier
Staff Writer
The issue of war in Iraq is highly charged and emotional. Both pro-war and anti-war supporters fling insults at each other. They are victims of a process of polarization. Each side, as it develops its position, begins to see the other as an absolute. Indeed people convince themselves that the other side must be ignorant, insensitive and just plain blind. This tendency toward dismissal is something with which I personally struggle, but I was appalled at the way the Chimes article “Enemy at the gates: the real face of the Left,” went beyond dismissal to the point of derogatory, and what is worse, unfounded accusations. I wish to respond with equanimity to the accusations made against the Left. As a conscientious liberal I refuse to be dismissed in the slanderous manner of the recent Chimes article. This article should make clear that this type of McCarthy-age rhetoric will not go unanswered.
When propagandists practice their trade they throw a wide net over the opposition hoping that their generalizations will be applied to all associated participants. I wish for clarity’s sake Mark Armstrong had defined what he meant by the “political Left.” Armstrong, however, uses the “Left” as a euphemism for those protesting war on Iraq and, by incorrect extension, all liberals. Even this is not the “political Left,” which for the last two decades has been dominated by center-leaning Democrats. For humor’s sake I will assume that Armstrong wishes to attack the protesters. Let us examine, then, the protesters under Armstrong’s thick net. According to last week’s article, a mother with three kids, a liberal Leftist, who marches in a protest with a sign proclaiming “Mothers Against War” would be lumped in, Armstrong claims, with “murderers and terrorists who partake in criminal acts.” Reductio ad absurdum? I agree. The statement that terrorists are the “ideological counterpart” to Leftists is to make the same mistake as the mother and the murderer. Terrorists have a wide range of political goals from the removal of American economic imperialism to the demand for recognition as an autonomous movement. Some liberals sympathize with these political goals. But invariably a terrorist’s methods are violent. Liberals do not support these methods. If they did, then our exemplary mother would be throwing bombs instead of holding up signs. The mother does not support violence at all, on the side of terrorists or the responding government.
Armstrong is under the impression that “anti-Americanism is an article of faith” for the Left. Liberals and protesters alike hold a whole range of opinions. They are extremely torn between supporting the government, hoping for the best now that war has begun and protesting what they see as the unnecessary force being used to enforce American interests. Anti-Americanism, however, is not a sentiment widely held by liberals. I challenge Armstrong to define what is American. After he has identified what constitutes American behavior and American ideals, I would then challenge Armstrong to reassess his hasty truism. The beauty of American political discourse is the allowance for everyone to be heard. Speaking out is a demonstration of patriotism in and of itself. Armstrong’s next statement in the article also hinges on defining what is American: “To the…American [Leftist], ours is not a society worth defending.” It is true that protesters are disappointed by the administration’s insistence on force to remove Saddam Hussein. They may even dislike the violent implementation of foreign policies, but this is because they believe the ideological foundations of this nation are worth defending.
Acceptance of government action, especially without question, has never been this society’s cornerstone. The founding fathers were suspicious of government and they wanted to decentralize power as much as possible. This is why America began its historic journey insisting that the Bill of Rights guarantee protection from the government with the freedom of speech, press, association and the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unfortunately the federal government over history has gathered and centralized power to a great extent, giving it increasing opportunities to weaken these guarantees.
Hawks in this nation claim that the government has more information than the common civilian; thus, civilians should trust the government to make the right decision. I admit that the U.S. government has important classified information, but this does not make their policy of military intervention the correct way to deal with the situation. I can assume for the sake of argument that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Even so force should not be an automatic response. I am often asked what policy decision I would like to see implemented. I see a couple of options. The United Nations is weak, says many a “Rightist,” so why not fund it better and increase its resources? How about suggesting the possibility of a peace intervention force in Iraq, which would prevent human rights abuses by the Republican Guard and decrease the fear tactics? If peacekeeping is deemed too risky then there are still regional diplomatic connections which should be pursued. Saudi Arabia and Jordan were encouraging an exile plan, but it was given 48 hours to work instead of the slower but necessary avenues of diplomacy. I agree with the Rightists: Iraq is a big country and the inspectors cannot search it as effectively as may be desired unless there are more of them. Why not double or triple the number of inspectors? These are just a few diplomatic options that were ignored in the interest of time despite what the Bush administration admitted was Iraq’s minimal immediate threat.
To many around the world, the use of force shows disregard for the sanctity of all life, including that of Iraqi civilians. This is a difficult discussion and liberals do not take it lightly. Protesters know that they are fighting for a minority opinion, which they nonetheless believe is correct. Many pro-war advocates believe that that by expressing these opposing positions protesters harm troops in the field. If my protest consisted of standing in front of supply vehicles or kidnapping and preventing generals from directing troop movements, then, and only then would this accusation be valid. Instead I take my protest to the streets of New York City, Chicago and San Francisco to make it obvious that the government will be held accountable for its actions. Our protest is for the benefit of the American public, the administration and the world. It announces our conscientious objection and rejection of the government’s use of power for military ends when all peaceful methods have not been exhausted. A sign at a recent peace rally proclaimed what all of us believe: “Support our Troops, Bring Them Home Safely.”
What we have is a basic “ends justify the means” argument. Peace advocates argue against the use of bombs as a means for peace. This is not “giving tyranny a chance.” Advocating strict inspections is not acquiescing to tyranny, nor is working through the United Nations. We agree with nonviolent protestor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it.”
A caption accompanying the Armstrong piece read, “Is our national security being undermined by the Left?” No, but the freedoms, which define this country as a participatory, representative democracy, are being undermined by our government. The passage of the Patriot Act limits our freedom of association, allowing government monitoring of religious and political institutions without first suspecting criminal activity; freedom of information, with the closing of once public immigration hearings; and even the right to legal representation, by giving the government the right to deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes. The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. These fundamental rights may only be trampled so long before one must stand up and say no to the abuse of our historic freedoms. Protest is an expression of constant vigilance: the government may not do whatever it wants. Protestors are accused by Armstrong and “the Right” of suppressing the truth, and their rhetoric is often as one-sided as the government’s, but suppression of truth is not an agenda goal of “Leftists.” Instead we want the American public to see both sides of the issue.
Let us examine the anti-Americanism with which Armstrong accused our universities of indoctrinating students, an anti-Americanism “that is so reflexive and reactionary that its want of intelligence is superceded only by its predictability.” The indoctrination that is taking place is in actuality an encouragement toward critical thinking. We call it revisionist history, and it implies that history can only be as accurate as the primary documents available. Thus, as government documents become available, historians examine them and revise their initial conclusions based on new evidence. This does not breed anti-Americanism, but gives us a more realistic view of the decision making process. The Pentagon Papers are a prime and well-known example, for they showed the public that the U.S. government did not have as much control as it was spinning to the media.
Revisionism fights the perspective espoused by last week’s article, “America, throughout its history has used its unmatched power to liberate oppressed peoples rather than subjugate them.” I agree that America has seen its duty as providentially guided toward spreading its values of freedom and liberty, but a nuanced view of American history recognizes that our cause of liberty is not always rightly invoked. The Vietnam War was considered a righteous conflict for democracy against the evil of communism, but the reality consisted of our propping up a brutal dictator in South Vietnam. Napalm, bombs and death all rained down on North and South Vietnamese alike. The Vietnam War demonstrated what happens when we depersonalize war with the ideology of freedom. Unable to distinguish South Vietnamese from North Vietnamese, many thousands of innocent people were killed by American troops, who were there to set up a democracy for those same Vietnamese.
As for the widely held belief that Americans and her governments are not imperialistic, historical examples can reach back further. Expansionist desires by another Texas interest group pushed the nation into the Mexican War of 1846 by which the government acquired the Southern portion of Texas and “bought” New Mexico, Arizona and California. Proceeding forward we can see the dirty trick we played on Columbia to establish Panama and its new canal as American property. We still believe in Manifest Destiny, but that destiny is far from clear. Imperialism of the present is different from the colonial imperialism of the past. Subjugation does not need physical occupation and ownership. Cuba defied the Monroe Doctrine by aligning itself with the Soviet Union and has been under economic sanctions ever since.
I praise American determination to improve the world and truly believe that representative democracies should be modeled on the American ideological foundation of freedom, but America is not in all cases a benevolent nation interested in peoples’ rights.
Armstrong’s rhetoric was made more offensive by the lack of concrete support behind his broad statements. The language is reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy’s speech that became the start of the “red scare.” Despite the false accusations made against liberal intellectuals, McCarthy started a trend that ruined the reputations of many of the nation’s diplomats within the State Department. These young men and women were working for the improvement of the world through diplomacy so we would never need to use nuclear weapons, our weapons of mass destruction. The process of debate is complicated and intricate, and many may disagree with what I say and the conclusions I draw. Still, I would rather have the discussion than be dismissed by my pro-war opponents.
I consider myself a Leftist and a Democrat concerned with social welfare. I believe that the military should not be funded at the expense of education and other domestic problems, especially in the case of Iraq. But being on the Left of the political spectrum does not make me an anarchist, “anti-American” or, as Armstrong eloquently stated, make me forgo “critical thinking in favor of a mental straitjacket that abandons the spirit of open-mindedness that governs academic inquiry.” I would charge the March 14 article exhibiting precisely the narrow-mindedness with which Leftists are therein accused. Please take care when casting a weighted net of rhetoric against your opponent lest a similar net be cast back.
|
