Peter Beinart takes a look at the current state of liberalism and asks the critical question what does it mean to be a liberal these days? He correctly points out that liberalism is a philosophy of negation at this point that the American left is rudderless and without ideas, drifting further and further from the mainstream, especially on terrorism:
Moore views totalitarian Islam the way Wallace viewed communism: As a phantom, a ruse employed by the only enemies that matter, those on the right. Saudi extremists may have brought down the Twin Towers, but the real menace is the Carlyle Group. Today, most liberals naïvely consider Moore a useful ally, a bomb-thrower against a right-wing that deserves to be torched. What they do not understand is that his real casualties are on the decent left. When Moore opposes the war against the Taliban, he casts doubt upon the sincerity of liberals who say they opposed the Iraq war because they wanted to win in Afghanistan first. When Moore says terrorism should be no greater a national concern than car accidents or pneumonia, he makes it harder for liberals to claim that their belief in civil liberties does not imply a diminished vigilance against Al Qaeda.
Moore is a non-totalitarian, but, like Wallace, he is not an anti-totalitarian. And, when Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Tom Daschle flocked to the Washington premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11, and when Moore sat in Jimmy Carter’s box at the Democratic convention, many Americans wondered whether the Democratic Party was anti-totalitarian either.
Beinart is one of the few on the left that gets what this war is all about. The left instinctively wants to blame America: the CIA supported Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviets (false), we supported Saddam Hussein during the 1980s (true to a point, but our contributions to the Iraqi military was less than 1% of total arms sales while Germany and France were actively providing WMD technology), our support of Israel makes us a target, etc. The impotent rage against the President has blinded many on the left to reality, which is why Kerry’s attempts to paint himself as a centrist failed. While Kerry was trying to embrace the vital center, he could not stray far from the anti-American left. Having Michael Moore at the Democratic Convention and treating him like a guest of honor was a major mistake — when Moore appeared at the RNC he got the treatment he deserved when John McCain, a true American hero, called him out for what he was. That was one of those indelible moments in American politics, a point where the differences between the two parties could not have been clearer.
Beinart gets much credit for understanding that for all the talk about “fascism” and “empire”, the war in Afghanistan and even Iraq are essentially liberal wars. In both countries, the aim is not to install some puppet dictator even though such a project would undoubtedly be more simple than our current course, but to install as liberal a democracy as is possible. Those who support women’s rights can scarcely be brought to recognize that under President Bush women in Afghanistan have more freedom than at any other time. Those who claim to be anti-fascists cannot even acknowledge that two of the most fascist regimes in the world have fallen under President Bush. Lip service is given to the concept that we’re better off without Saddam Hussein, but the argument essentially boils down to quite the opposite. We know that sanctions would not have removed him. We know that the UN would have never supported his ouster no matter how much we supplicated ourselves at the altar of multilateralism. At the end of the day, only the Coalition of the Willing could have removed Saddam Hussein from power.
Beinart understands the ramifications of all this:
Like the softs of the early cold war, MoveOn sees threats to liberalism only on the right. And thus, it makes common cause with the most deeply illiberal elements on the international left. In its campaign against the Iraq war, MoveOn urged its supporters to participate in protests co-sponsored by International ANSWER, a front for the World Workers Party, which has defended Saddam, Slobodan Milosevic, and Kim Jong Il. When George Packer, in The New York Times Magazine, asked Pariser about sharing the stage with apologists for dictators, he replied, “I’m personally against defending Slobodan Milosevic and calling North Korea a socialist heaven, but it’s just not relevant right now.”
What the left fails to understand is how their hatred of Bush has led them to abandon many of their own values. It is now the dreaded “neoconservatives” who have been allowed to carry the mantle of democratization worldwide. The left has embraced the kind of moral nihilism of Michael Moore that is instantly and deeply skeptical of American power, up to and including the belief that America is no better than Nazi Germany.
Beinart has ideas about how the left can reclaim the moral center:
But, despite these differences, Islamist totalitarianism–like Soviet totalitarianism before it–threatens the United States and the aspirations of millions across the world. And, as long as that threat remains, defeating it must be liberalism’s north star. Methods for defeating totalitarian Islam are a legitimate topic of internal liberal debate. But the centrality of the effort is not. The recognition that liberals face an external enemy more grave, and more illiberal, than George W. Bush should be the litmus test of a decent left.
Today, the war on terrorism is partially obscured by the war in Iraq, which has made liberals cynical about the purposes of U.S. power. But, even if Iraq is Vietnam, it no more obviates the war on terrorism than Vietnam obviated the battle against communism. Global jihad will be with us long after American troops stop dying in Falluja and Mosul. And thus, liberalism will rise or fall on whether it can become, again, what Schlesinger called “a fighting faith.”
Beinart is right, and he’s trying to reclaim the Democratic mantle of Harry S. Truman and Henry “Scoop” Jackson – the wing of the Democratic Party that in the words of JFK would “bear any burden, meet any hardships, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
The problem is, when the new guard of American liberals have been so indoctrinated with the concept that liberty isn’t worth fighting for, how can the left ever become a “fighting faith?” Until the left can grow up and accept that George W. Bush isn’t worse than Osama bin Laden, the left will continue to be marginalized from mainstream American politics. Sadly, while Beinart and others appear to understand this, many of his fellow Democrats do not.
Pat Buchanan believes all legalized immigration and international trade should end and that a trench should be dug at the border to isolate America from the rest of the world. Ann Coulter believes women’s suffrage should be reversed so that it’s even less likely that a Democrats can get elected. Buchanan and Coulter are both professed conservatives, so that must mean their opinion represents those of every conservative right? That’s the only conclusion I can come to given the fact that Michael Moore’s opposition to the war against the Taliban is representative of every liberal who opposes the war in Iraq.
Similarly, Bush received a letter of congratulations and a warning to avoid compromise at all costs from his old buddy Bob Jones of the university of the same name. If we are to accept that because Tom Daschle went to see “Fahrenheit 9/11” and because Michael Moore conversed with Jimmy Carter, that guilt by even the loosest association works both ways? Such infantile propaganda tools almost certainly helped Republicans win this election and a number of Senate seats (Oklahoma, North Carolina), but cheapen the potential for legitimate discussion. When Jimmy Carter’s casual conservation with Michael Moore in a public setting manages to indict John Kerry and Brad Carson as co-conspirators in an attempt to keep the Taliban in power, we’ve officially become too stupid for democracy and are gonna have a hard time selling it abroad. After all, there may be footage of Allawi speaking with a Baathist at some point in the last decade. This must mean that Allawi is a terrorist sympathizer, right?
Also, the right’s patchwork of schoolgirl adulation and scorched earth disdain for John McCain is really starting to get comical. Either McCain is a true American hero who “has your vote”, or he’s a tax-raising. RINO who committed horrible atrocities in Vietnam, fathers black children, and wants nothing more than to take away freedom of speech. Which is it?
Apparently someone has completely missed the point of Beinart’s article — then again, given that Beinart is talking about people with exactly the same juvenile attitude as you, that’s entirely unsurprising.
Moore was invited as a guest of the Democratic Party and given VIP treatment. He is representative of the Democratic Party in the way Pat Buchanan (who is an isolationist who left the Republican Party years ago) or Anne Coulter is not. Had you actually endeavored to read Beinart’s article, you might have actually understood the argument being presented.
Enjoy knocking down that straw man.
“Moore is a non-totalitarian, but, like Wallace, he is not an anti-totalitarian. And, when Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Tom Daschle flocked to the Washington premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11, and when Moore sat in Jimmy Carter’s box at the Democratic convention, many Americans wondered whether the Democratic Party was anti-totalitarian either.”
I did read Beinart’s article. He caricatured the left as peace-at-any-price white-flag wavers whose opposition to the imperialist conquest in Iraq necessarily equates to an endorsement of totalitarianism and opposition to the war on terrorism. Using the right’s one-size-fits-all bogeyman Michael Moore as his cookie-cutter, he perpetuated the GOP talking point that those who disagreed with the overthrow of Hussein also disagreed with the overthrow of the Taliban, the people who actually did support those who attacked America. What percent of the population (or even the left) would have opposed a military response to the 9-11 attacks and oppose current efforts to thwart terrorists planning further attacks against America? Possibly 10 percent?
In no way does Michael Moore represent the majority opinion of the Democratic Party, at least in terms of response to the 9-11 attacks. The fact that Moore was a prominent figure at the Democratic Convention only links him to the party problem as much as Bob Jones University’s presence at the Republican Convention connects Bush to bans on interracial dating.
As for Coulter, I know she’s been in attendance as a delegate to previous GOP conventions. Are you sure this year was an exception (and thus somehow different than Michael Moore’s attendance at the donk convention)? And by the way, Pat Buchanan wrote an article in the conservative magazine he edits two weeks before the election entitled “Coming Home” in which he affirmed his return to the Republican Party and stated his support for George Bush. He’s again a member of the Republican, so by you and Beinart’s thinking, must be the embodiment of the GOP platform.
Then your reading comprehension skills need work. From Beinart’s piece:
Emphasis mine.
What you emphasize merely reinforces MY point. Michael Moore is but one man whose opinion on fighting terrorism is outside of the mainstream of his own party. There are just as many if not more high-profile ideologues affiliated with the Republican Party who do not reflect majority opinion in their party. Why is it that John Kerry and Brad Carson are expected to be held accountable for Michael Moore and Ted Rall while George Bush is not expected to be held accountable for Jerry Falwell and Ann Coulter?
Good God! (emphasis mine.)
Mark is completely correct is his statement that Michael Moore is one man acting outside of the auspices of his party. He has a large microphone but he does not speak for the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party or “decent left” (though I would like to know how that is defined, since I probably don’t fit into it being a psychotic feminazi liberal).
AS for the DNC, I was there (actually present in the building), you weren’t. “Moore was invited as a guest of the Democratic Party and given VIP treatment.” That is because Michael Moore was a VIP, he’s famous Jay, people are going to make a big deal out of him, where ever he is, so just deal with it! Michael Moore was treated like everyother celebrity that was present, including but not limited to: the Black Eyed Peas, John Mellancamp, Ben Affleck, James Cromwell, and Natalie Portman. They all got face time with famous, and important political figures and they all were in Jimmy Carter’s box at some point through out the DNC. And while it was interesting to see these people, it was evident that they were merely famous people, not intelligent political actors. Bruce Springsteen may be cool, but he’s not going to change my mind on the issues.
Finally, this really annoyed me “Those who support women’s rights can scarcely be brought to recognize that under President Bush women in Afghanistan have more freedom than at any other time.” First of all, prior to the Taliban, women in Afghanistan were able to hold jobs, go to school and have access to specific types of health care. Yes, women are again able to have jobs (some of them are even in the government thanks to the quota system that is now being enforced) and they are able to go to school, but they are being denied access to reproductive health care because of an internation gag rule that Saint Bush enacted shortly after gracing us with his devine leadership. Bush may say that W stands for Women, but rather he stands on them, holding them down and pretending to care about their needs. Abortions went up 50% in the US since Bush came into office, women are being denied access to birth control (drugs that actually help to prevent several different, non-prenancy related, health problems) and you dare to insinuate that Bush has improved a woman lot in this world. Women in Africa and here in the US are in the highest risk group for AIDs and guess what, Afghanistan’s number of HIV/AIDs cases are on the rise. It was truly wonderful of Bush to improve the political situation of Afghanistan, but to say that he improved the lives of women in Afghanistan is a blatent overstatement and since he won’t approve funding for condoms, education or family planning, I would say that the women’s lives are going to get worse long before they truly improve.
The point of the article, struck me as partially true, the center left needs to figure out how to embrace or downplay its relationship to its fringe. The republicans embraced much of it, yet the democrats try to play both sides. Its very difficult for an umbrella party tow in anything, especially when its memebers can’t agree on certain issues ( whether the war in Iraq is just purely managed, or whtehr its wrong)
Interesting to me was the point that Kari made that abortions are up under President Bush. A statement like that, blaming the increase on bush’s effort to restrict birth control doesn’t show a graps of the situation. The majority of abortions take place because the motehr does not feel that she is capable of taking care of her children, and the percetnage of motehrs who will feel that way will go up as the economy worsens. We’ve been through a recession, its only rational to beleive that this would more likely be the reason, much more so then restricted acces to birth control (which i haven’t really found to any real degree)
Under the Taliban, women not only didn’t have access to birth control, they were being executed in the middle Kabul Stadium. Tens of thousands of women were murdered for the crime of adultery – including if they had been raped.
The primary reason that AIDS cases in Afghanistan are “on the rise” is that the government is actually trying to count AIDS cases in that country – before AIDS cases were either ignored, or the women involved were murdered in cold blood.
Furthermore, President Bush has given more money towards AIDS prevention in Africa than any other President in history – a fair and accurate assessment of his foreign policy would show that he’s done more for women worldwide than nearly anyone.
Truthado, your comments show a similar lack of understanding of the subject matter. Abortion access in the United States has seriously deminished since the beginning of the Bush presidency. Yes, the economy does have a factor in the increase of abortions, because as you stated, women don’t feel that they can parent because of their poor economic status. But if you think that our economic problems are over then you have been reading Jay’s website for too long, the Iraq war has caused our deficit to skyrocket, so the economy is not going to get better for quite a while. Furthermore, when funding is cut for non-profit organizations who attempt to educate women and men about family planning, contraception usage, and responsible intamacy, the number of unsafe abortions increases, and the number of unwanted pregnancies also increases. Planned Parenthood and other similar organizations that teach women about family planning have had their budgets slashed in the past four years. When budgets get slashed programs get cut. In Minnesota Planned Parenthood is no longer able to offer birthcontrol at reduced prices to college students and women who have limited incomes. $50 a month may not seem like much to you, but if that’s the difference between eating and not eating, it’s a big deal. Rural areas, such as South Dakota and North Dakota have only a handful of doctors willing to perform abortions, so the women of these states are being denied access. So, you’re right, I don’t know anything about being a woman in this country or the health care struggles that face the younger generation of women. You and Bush would agree, my uterus renders me stupid and oblivious to the world around me.
‘
“Where Have All the Liberals Gone?” There are two at your parents house. Come and visit us. We’ll talk so sense into you. Aunt Kate
I’d be very surprised if we see any significant change in abortion policy in the next four years. The re-election of Arlen Specter and his subsequent rise to the head of the Judiciary Committee has provided the perfect opportunity for Bush and GOP party leaders to dangle the abortion carrot in front of pro-lifers for another four years. Specter’s high-profile role in the nomination of judges, and the Bush administration’s tireless efforts to ensure Specter’s re-election against a far more conservative primary challenger, is no accident. Specter gets to play the bad cop for the next four years, obstructing efforts by social conservatives to stack federal benches with those seeking to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Meanwhile, Bush gets to continue playing the good cop, “respectfully disagreeing” with his Republican colleague blocking controversial pro-life judges from being voted on. In short, the pro-life ideologues got duped again by the Republicans who have zero interest in seeing the abortion issue (aka the gift that keeps on giving for them) go away….and the ascendancy of Specter to his current power position ensures Bush will be able to continue duping them for another four years.
Nonetheless, I expect dangerous “symbollic” victories to be won by the anti-abortion lobby, such as the recent overturn of partial-birth abortion which basically dehumanizes women to baby-carrying vessels for nine months, vessels that will be sacrificed on the operating table if it comes down to saving the woman or her unborn child. With this in mind, it’s getting to the point where we’re turning back the clock a good century in terms of women’s survival rate during child birth. In other words, guys, just another excuse for your woman not have sex with you….the consequences could be fatal.
I said we have been through a recession, not that the economy is on a rebound. It shows signs of strength, and we have a lot going for us, but its still in the rebound stage. You make the point that the number of unsafe abortions is increasing ( or will be) some numbers would be nice to see.
Mark- your point about abortion is a good one, the republicans would not like to see roe v wade overturned at all. However I think they believe that once that occurs, they will lose their claim to the center right. The republicans need to hold onto the vestiges of moderation, and not all republicans believe that abortion is evil. If roe v wade is overturned, they lose a lot more then they gain.
However, Democrats are little better in this dispute. They love this conflict over abortion. The abortion debate has helped them maintain their strong single women base. Without, they would have seen even more damage in the last election. Also, they can easily raise fear in the hearts of abortion supporter by just pointing out a person is pro life. Case in point is Kari’s response to my post. I merely mentioned that she had made a mistake in assuming that GWB was the reason for the increase in abortions and that I had seen little restrictions on getting birth control, and now I am a heartless evil bush supporter who views all women as dumb. This kind of attitude, an attitude that has no compromise, is the reason why both parties will never end this debate.
Truthado, a hypothetical abortion prohibition scenario would seem to me to have far more negative impact on Republicans than Democrats. I’ve been digesting seas of election numbers since 11-2, particularly in my home state of Minnesota. What I’m seeing is that small towns and rural farm areas in heavily Catholic areas that vote for Democrats by 20-point margins in statewide elections went either narrowly for Kerry (five points or fewer) or narrowly for Bush last month. There is no doubt in my mind that if the abortion issue were to go away tomorrow, rural Catholics in particular would abandon the Republican Party in droves.
I suppose the Dems would lose some upper-income single women in places like New Jersey and California whose vote for Democrats is rooted primarily in support for abortion rights, but not as many one-issue $6 an hour Wal-Mart clerks as the Republicans would lose.
Of course, the consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn’t be nearly that simple, and the tentacles of such a judicial action would be far-reaching and most likely unpredictable politically.
Truthado, you “merely mentioned” that I had mistakenly blamed Bush for the increase in abortions in this country? The majority of your post was dedicated to proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was making “A statement… blaming the increase on bush’s effort to restrict birth control.” And this statement was caused by my not having “a graps of the situation”. Believe me when I say that I did not make a mistake in my wording and that I do blame his reactionary policies and his dispensation of federal funds for the increase of abortions in the US.
According to infoforhealth.org “where abortion is restricted by law, safe abortion is usually available to those who can afford it.” If there are women who what to have abortions in this country and we restrict access to abortion then unsafe abortions occur. There aren’t numbers on this because they are UNSAFE meaning that they are not performed by doctors in clinics that keep records and write down statistics, but rather they are happening in someone’s home or some other unsanitary and unsafe place. We know that abortions happened prior to Roe, but the numbers of how many abortions were performed are not good because no one was going to step forward and say that they had been doing something illegal. Also, as I stated in my previous post, rural states that have limited access to abortion doctors do not have less abortions, they just have less statistics about abortions performed in their states; also, the Kaiser Foundation reported that only 46 states and 2 municipalities report their abortion statistics to the CDC. If you don’t believe me call a Planned Parenthood and ask about what happens to women who expierence unplanned and unwanted pregnancies and have no access to abortion, or call NARAL.
Outside the US things aren’t looking quite so peachy either. Planned Parenthood international states that “Of the 46 million abortions that occur each year, roughly 20 million are performed under unsafe conditions because of poorly trained providers, unsanitary circumstances, and crude and dangerous methods of self-inducement.” The World Health Organization reported that “In developing countries complications of unsafe abortion cause between 50,000 and 100,000 women’s deaths annually”.
As for the availibility of birth control. Viagra is covered by most insurance companies, but orthotricyclen isn’t and it assits with myriad problems, not just keeping a woman from getting pregnant. If you think that doesn’t impeed someone from going on the pill, then I don’t know what you are thinking. As for the people who don’t have health insurance, the pill is a luxuary that they can’t afford and believe me, the people who make up the socio-ecomonic lower class will not be spending any of their limited resources on purchasing birthcontrol. Also, pharmacists are now able to say that they are uncomfortable giving out birth control because of their personal values, and voila, more women are now denied birth control, resulting in more unwanted pregnancies, resulting in more abortions.
So yeah, I have an “attitude that has no compromise”, but there is no call to compromise, women’s lives are at stake and will be at stake until comprehensive family planning is made available to all women the world over. But hey, I’m just a crazy-liberal-feminazi who kills babies in my spare time, what do I know?
Keep driving off that cliff and equating “women’s rights” with the ability to perform infanticide — that will ensure a nice Republican majority for a good, long time.
Bush did 5% better with women than he did in 2000. Why? Because women’s rights and abortion “rights” are not the same thing. As long as the Democrats continue to marginalize their own pro-life constituency, as long as the Democrats keep arguing that not allowing the brutal and inhuman practice of partial-birth abortion (which even the American Medical Association has admitted is never medically necessary, contrary to another of Mark’s outright lies), as long as the Democrats continue to promote an anti-family culture, they will continue to lose ground with women, especially women who are economically successful and married women.
Jay, if your premise is correct that partial birth abortion is never medically necessary, the issue should be very simple to rectify. The Dems’ main objection to outlawing partial birth abortion has always been that there are no provisions to save the life of the mother. If partial birth abortion is indeed never administered as a matter of health (despite thousands of women on record who have received the procedure for that very reason), why not indulge the Dems and add the provision to your partial-birth abortion ban legislation? If a partial birth abortion has not once in history been performed as a lifesaving technique, what do you have to lose by adding that provision to the bill if it gains universal support for this “infanticide” that your party claims to find so morally repugnant?
Partial-birth abortion exists as a political issue for the sole purpose of branding the Democratic Party as “baby killers who no moral person could vote for” to social conservatives…and the number of children who become motherless as a result are just collateral damage for the gains Republicans can make by exploiting them.
Which is exactly what was done:
Given that there’s no such animal, the point is essentially moot, but the provision is already made into law — which you would have known if you’d actually read the partial-birth ban statutes that were enacted last year.
Nearly every Democrat who voted against this bill based their opposition on there being no specific clause protecting the life of the mother. If every single one of them was committing so blatant of a lie, why are you the first person to call them on it? Tim Russert is not the kind of journalist who would let any politician get away with such an obvious manipulation, yet I distinctly remember South Carolina Senate candidate Inez Tenenbaum claiming she wouldn’t have voted for that bill because there was no clause to save the life of the mother. If that were patently false, why hasn’t somebody other than you called her and other Dems on it?
The actual text of the bill can be found here.
It’s a common misconception that the ban does not have a provision about the life of the mother, and given that Tim Russert is part of a media that is profoundly pro-abortion, it’s not at all surprising that they would be willing to distort the record in order to advance their agenda.
I’d also like to correct Kari’s statement on the rise in the abortion rate in this country under Bush… it’s only increased around 12%, while the rate dropped by nearly 20% under Clinton…