I intend to write two essays for blog/discussion that kind of go together. The first hits on the overall view of progressive/Left politics in the US, and the attack on it by Todd Gitlin and by others posting at this site. The second zeroes in on what is in my view a major problem of the Left both in this country and worldwide, namely antiSemitism, together with the tolerance of and 'softness on' antiSemitism that is widespread on the Left (both authentic and pseudo) in this era.
There might indeed need to be a series of essays in defense of the Left generally, as it is attacked in so many different ways, just by Todd Gitlin alone, leaving aside those criticisms that I would accept as valid, at least to the extent that I would accept them. But for today, a jumping off point is Todd Gitlin's column, appearing in the April 9 Los Angeles Times, accusing the Left of a purge mentality because of the (I'm falling off the floor) widespread or near-universal rejection of his "patriotism" outside of the circles of Dissent and others fairly close to Gitlin's version of supposedly progressive politics. I am not one to embrace the kind of sect-like purge mentality of either the Bolsheviks (even before Stalin, as well-portrayed in Dr Zhivago, despite what the New York Times describes as the latter's "antiseptic" qualities), nor of the Weather Underground (a notorious crew of assholes), nor of the Chinese Cultural revolution or a host of others. But sometimes someone is rejected by the Left for good reason -- and, although I have not read his latest book on patriotism itself (although I have read his commentary about it here), I have read and heard enough of Gitlin to say confidently that his rejection is broad and hardly sectarian, and, from the standpoint of progressives, most justified!
Some commentors excoriated me for suggestion that opponents of Gitlin were "legion" among progressives and Leftists. Well, in this column, entitled "The Urge To Purge", Gitlin admits more or less what I was saying that his defenders at this site found presumptive: that Gitlin is widely rejected by progressives and Leftists as being authentically one of our own. I want to try to explain a little bit about why, and to critique the column here.
First, there is a major fallacy, if you read the column, that underlies it. He puts forward the humble-sounding position that he argues "liberalism" to be compatible with "patriotism". But remember that the 'urge to purge' is not directed at those who would describe themselves as 'liberals' but as progressives and Leftists. Liberals are, say, like Kennedy, and patriotism is very much a part of the mainstream liberals' worldview, both of politicians and of grass-roots liberals like my mother. Patriotism is not, however, a major part of the politics of the progressive left, and when WBAI on the second anniversary of 9/11 tries to play a hip version of "America the Beautiful", something does indeed sound out of place, and very much contrasting with what was heard on the station in September and October 2001, when I was listening and calling in, describing some of it, in unusually strong language for me on the air, as 'head up the ass'.
This observation of fact about progressive politics is neither a denial of any possible place for progressives to fly the American flag proudly, nor an embrace of the puerile anti-Americanism that is visible in many quarters of the left, and of the pseudo left, about which more later. What I describe as a "US Out of North America" mentality is what in Hegelian terms is a mere 'negation' of nationalistic patriotism that does not first and foremost oppose American imperialism in all its forms; a 'negation' is merely an antithesis, an inversion of what is being opposed, rather than a transcendance, or 'cancellation', the latter being a new synthesis. The new synthesis is the approach of the genuinely progressive Leftist, rather than mere America-bashing.
Gitlin argues at TPM and elsewhere, that the proper synthesis for progressives and Leftists, rather than merely for liberals -- although somtimes he seems to acknowledge his opposition to Leftists (who sneer) as opposed to liberals (who hope) -- is an enlightened patriotism. I would argue that in fact, most progressives find the proper synthesis in an enlightened and informed (not like the mockery of a 'world government' candidate running for office found here) humanism, internationalism, and, indeed socialism. The latter does not rule out all forms of patriotism -- far from it. But it does not use the flag, as others, including those claiming to be progressive, use religion, to implicitly or explicitly decry the politics of those lacking 'God' or 'country' as touchstones of their progressive politics.
The lack of being guided specifically by loyalty to nation rather than other principles is not to be confused with antiAmericanism. The latter is neither neutral about America nor simply a guidance by other principles -- it is an animus directed against America. One could analogize the issue to those who oppose white supremacist racism, as engrained institutionally and in society, as well as in individual attitudes, in contrast with those who are anti-white. A case of the latter was the group of Weather folk who got into a debate about whether or not all honky babies are pigs (the consensus already being reached that most are). But while I am anti-racist but not anti-white, I do not feel it necessary to proclaim my 'loyalty' to the white race in order to win support, and be on the side of the angels (financial or otherwise). Similarly, I am anti-imperialist, and against my government's and elite's central role as hegemon in world imperialism today, but I am not anti-American. But just as I don't feel it necessary to proclaim 'white pride', so I do not feel it necessary to proclaim 'patriotism' as a central driving force of my politics. I know the analogy is imperfect for a number of reasons, but it reveals how one can be against oppression but not therefore embrace the categorical bigotry against the supposed "oppressor" category. The latter I would emphasize is to be rejected as indeed a form of bigotry, including in the case of 'antiAmericanism'. But rejection of that bigotry should be separated from what is advocated by Gitlin and others here, namely that our loyalty is owed to nation, rather than to humanity or to life or whatever other principles are, indeed sneered at as alternatives.
But there is more to this problem than just patriotic hopeful liberalism vs. antiAmerican, sneering Leftism. When you have a definition of antiAmerican that is broad enough to include Noam Chomsky and Arundhati Roy, you aren't just condemning a "US out of North America" attitude, often put forward by copperheads only posing as Leftists in order to parody leftism and pursue another agenda entirely (one that, it should be noted, very much includes antiSemitism).(Granted, at least some of this sentiment is expressed by authentic, if misguided, progressive Leftists). Conan Doyle, in his classic short story "The Red-Headed League", which I use as a template for discussing the problem of the 'Ahab's peg leg' left or copperheads and other inauthentic progressives, writes in the story: "I'm not sure your assistant isn't as remarkable as your advertisement". [Those who would police what I call secularity, along with lack of patriotism and the embrace of even multiethnic progressive alliances including those loyal to particular ethnic groups will inevitably protest. So be it.]
In any event, the implicit requirement rather than possibility of patriotism, lest one be condemned as antiAmerican, and the notion that this requirement applies, at least as a moral standard, to progressives and the Left as well as to mainstream liberals, separates Gitlin in practice from his innocent self-portrayal in the column. It boggles the mind that someone who says that the Leftist sneers and the liberal hopes would complain that they are being 'purged' by the Left! After all, if you reject leftism that categorically, then indeed you are NOT a left progressive, but a mainstream, post-Cold War liberal, not unlike the other genuine 'apostates' of the Cold War era who abandoned their youthful leftism and joined the liberal mainstream. If Gitlin would make it clear that he is not a progressive, not someone to give advice to a 'young activist' implicitly as an enlightened left progressive, and 'come out' consistently as a mainstream liberal, then at least the sense of betrayal would change, for me at any rate.
When someone says 'poor manic depressive Abbie', not only critiquing the things Abbie Hoffman said in the 60s, but attributing those things to a disorder that emerged decades later, or when that someone puts Michael Moore on a footing with Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, I see a pattern here. Not only is Gitlin a liberal rather than a progressive, but among mainstream liberals he is one of the most hostile figures toward leading left figures from Noam Chomsky to Arundhati Roy to Abbie Hoffman to Michael Moore! This is not uncommon among those who leave an ideology -- many of the most ardent McCarthyites were themselves ex-leftists. In the case of all four of the abovementioned leaders, I have my criticisms, though I am aware of fewer about Roy. But to trash them the way Gitlin does is decidedly less generous than liberals for whom I have greater respect, like Brian Lehrer or Barbara Boxer or the King family.
Responding negatively to that kind of approach is hardly sectarian "purging" -- after all, the rejection is from a broad range of leftists, and not just from some faction or element. And while some segments of the left could rightly be accused of a cult mentality, I don't think that the breadth of progressives could be fairly lumped together with the French revolutionary terror and the Weather Underground. After all, there are some principles that really define the Left, just as there are others that define the Democratic Party mainstream, and people like Ed Koch and Zell Miller as 'apostates', with good reason.
What is needed is a balance -- something between anomie and relativism on one hand and sectarianism on the other. To see only one side of the problem is indeed a problem with Gitlin in looking at the Left, especially in contrast to mainstream liberalism. I would add that this applies to many other notions -- such as support for the imperialist venture in the Kosovo War, supported by liberals but opposed by most leftists; opposition to even the most positive forms of black and chicano nationalism as somehow a betrayal of 'common dreams' (recognizing that nationalism, like any ideology, can be misused by some -- as is the case with American patriotism, however people try to define the latter problems away); and joining in the chorus of protestation about what was, after all, a highly accurate if imperfect documentary by Michael Moore, even while equivocally praising it. On the other hand, we hear less about the media lockdown of Votergate 2004 from radically-credentialled Gitlin (who has other more politically or at least career profitable fish to fry) than from liberals like Fitrakis and Wasserman, who have done an excellent job in their ongoing expose of the subject, and many others, both liberal and progressive Leftist.
Indeed, little of the harsh, anti-liberal rhetoric is heard today on the left that was prevalent in the 60s -- in this respect, not only is Gitlin a liberal, but something of a provocateur of conflict between these two groups, who have much in common tactically and strategically at this point in history, despite differences. Highlighting patriotism does for this area of politics what putting the issues of race and immigration front and center does for Repuglicans -- it highlights points of difference that really don't have to be an obstacle for unity, but can be useful for that purpose, particularly when you want to make sure that one party (in this case the Left) loses out.
I notice also that this column appears in the LA Times, hardly a forum for Left debate. It is not intended even to bring forward a debate among Left/progressives but is addressed to garner sympathy from the liberals as against the left, especially those liberals prone to refer, without even seeing the need to argue the point, to such notions as 'Chomskyite crapola'. It is using the language of sectarian purge to mount a liberal assault on the left generically, one that could only be in the hopes that liberals generally will join in, and dump on the Left under circumstances where they dare not trash such things as the media lockdown of Votergate 2004 or the systematic omission of the flimsiness of the flipflop spin from the 2004 campaign, or the apparent effort, likely to be at least partially successful, on the part of the Democratic Party to throw the 2006 elections, to the extent it is possible to do so.
One other thing. Repeatedly Gitlin tries to scapegoat the Left for the debacle of 2000. It is true that, in an election so close, ANYTHING could be said to have cost the election for the Democrats, but Gitlin insists on repeatedly focusing exclusively on Nader as scapegoat. I strongly opposed Nader then as in 2004, in venues (like WBAI) where insisting on voting for Gore was not popular in 2000. I note also that Bill Maher, on "Politically Incorrect", briefly endorsed Gore and then, without explanation for the shift, quietly shifted to Nader and condemned 'Bore' and 'Gush'. Maher was NOT a leftist -- but I wonder what forces were at work in the network to shift his stance. After all, his show was seen by millions, and that kind of network politics should be Gitlin's forte. There's one bit of investigative journalism I'd like to see -- interviewing Maher to get the inside scoop and back story on what happened, as opposed to some cover story to explain it away. When that and the media lockdown of Votergate 2004 get the same attention that his harping on Nader does, then I'll tune in; after all, that election should NOT have been close. It was the Democrats' to lose and they blew it, something that should not be laid at Nader's feet. Yes, Nader, among others, was a spoiler, but after all, Gore did win the election anyway, and it was stolen while no one dared file a class action lawsuit on behalf of all disenfranchised black voters in the state -- a much better venue than the West Palm Beach ballot, where all the DISadvantages of the old were combined without the ADVANTAGES of the new!
