Thoughts on liberalism and realism

In the current issue of The Nation (August 14/21), Eyal Press attempts to explore realism and liberalism with "The Left Gets Real." Spanning five pages in the magazine (not counting ad space), it attempts to cover a great deal.

Press rightly notes the way some on the left have gotten all moist in their delicates (be they boxers, panties, thongs, BVDs, what have you) over Brent Scowcroft and others. Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger as poster boys for the left is shocking -- the sort of behavior that should require mailed warnings to alert the neighbors. But the topics he's attempting to address need further space than the magazine's issue provides. Reality of realism and liberalism require further column inches.

Realism doesn't just shrug at human rights or just ignore them, it allows administrations to get in bed with countries taking actions that are an affront to notions of humanity and citizenry. "Hardcore realists," Press writes, "consider human rights a peripheral concern, at best." The realism practiced by Kissinger and Scowcroft isn't summed up in that sentence. (Press may be attempting to be kind as well as attempting to fit the exploration into the alloted space.)

That realism doesn't, for example, look at South Africa under apartheid and say, "This is wrong, we shouldn't be partners with them." Nor does it look at it say, "This is wrong but by being partners we can influence the outcome and eliminate apartheid." (We're referring to the practice, not the sop tossed out to attempt to mitigate public disgust. And we're basing this on both our own observation and studies as well as speaking to three people who served in the Reagan administration and two who served under Bush I -- one of which served under both.) "That is not our concern," would be the argument. The concern would not be with the country's domestic situation but with what it can do for or provide to the United States.

That is the behavior that many pundits (you can probably think of a few names) refer to as "grown up" such as in sentences like, "Back when the grown ups were in charge . . ." They're considered "grown ups" by gas bags because they are bottom-liners (where the bottom line is always the US economy). "Grown up" was the term used to batter the Clinton White House long before Paula Jones found her ride to fame. It had nothing to do with sex scandals, the revulsion announced as the first inauguration approached and gas bags rushed in to offer "advice." Coming into power promising programs the voters had endorsed left much of the Beltway reeling. (Advice? Boiled down as to forget the voters.)

The gas bags appeared to feel "order" had been restored when the Supreme Court installed the Bully Boy. Press argues that Bully Boy does not present as a "realist." We'd agree with that. We'd also note that his late-life conversion appears to have resulted in some messianic zeal.

Press feels human rights language has been co-opted by the Bully Boy. We'd agree with that. Laura Bush's radio address to cheer on the war on Afghanistan was a prime example. Laura Bush presented an administration determined to improve the rights of women. That was the tail end of 2001 and, in 2006, there is no improvement for women in Afghanistan.

Co-opting the language to sell the action (usually war in this administration's case) they want devalues human rights. It empties the power of the language not only of meaning but, when the effects of the action are clearly seen not to have improved human rights and not to have been concerned with them, also leaves human rights as one more grandstanding pose that can be used to trick and fool resulting in real efforts to improve human rights being lumped in with the psuedo-ones.

One issue we have with Press' article is the presentation (implied through title and text) that the left is undergoing some new transition when, in fact, this transition has been occurring for the last forty years. Somewhere around the time Mission Impossible first started airing in the sixties and when the show was cancelled, America really began to wake up. The idea that the US was not "Cops of the World"* was not an uncommon belief. (Though Press might dismiss the awakening of being that of "radicals.") This awakening is similar to what's happening for many with regards to Israel's current aggressions (for many, not for enough, sadly). Presently, America has been a bit more interested in occupation because of the illegal one in Iraq. Connections are being made.

In the sixties (we loosely define that as from the death of JFK through the resignation of Tricky Dick), connections were being made as well as a result of a host of movements going on in this country. The women's movement and the Black Power movement are two examples where people grasped that leaving it to the 'well meaning' White boys wasn't going to result in much. As those two movements questioned and exploded, the issue of who decides became a big one.
History, sociology, anthropology, and other fields addressed (and were addressing already) issues of self-decision that began to find an audience eager for more than "We decide, you abide." The country was led to by two presidents who felt they knew better than people (LBJ and Tricky Dick), better than the facts, better than anyone. "Who decides?" became a serious issue.

Tariq Ali is labeled a "radical" by Press and we're led to believe through context, intentionally or not, that Ali's view (expressed in an e-mail for Press' article as: "There can be no such thing as a 'positive U.S. foreign policy agenda'.") is a view he's recently arrived at which isn't the case. This isn't a post-9-11 view. This view is a common thread throughout Ali's speeches and writings from the sixties through today. It's reflective of an awakening going on in that period both domestically and internationally as the results of US foreign policy were strongly critiqued.

Connections were being made, awareness was being raised. Some movements (such as the Chicano movement and the gay and lesbian rights movement) realized that to count on the day when the White-boy-led movements might devote needed attention to their issues was to continuing waiting in vain. The awareness of imperialism and oppression wasn't just an awareness of what went on outside the United States.

We live in the wake of that awareness. (We're not sure readers of Press' article will grasp that.)
It's why many (though not The Nation) question the absurdity of "framing" when the "frame" is, as is almost always the case, defined for, of and by White boys. The "framers" early on pushed Bill Cosby as the "father figure" we should be going for. Apparently forgetting that people were aware of the real life scandals, that a backlash began against Cosby among some African-Americans when Lisa Bonet found out that job and motherhood did not go hand in hand in the land of Cosby and that the 'humorous' bumbling nature of Cliff Huxtable wasn't exactly demonstrating a fully functional adult. But that's how it is when "frames" are created by a select group intending to appeal to many (ask Karen Hughes). There's no need to get the input from, for instance African-American mothers outraged over the firing of Lisa Bonet (from A Different World) and what that firing implied about the almighty Cosby's attitudes towards their own lives?

Framing's the new hula hoop and, as Elaine noted last week, "I'm guessing only Frances Moore Lappe and C.I. will ever question the wisdom of this decade's hula hoop ("framing") and what happens to women's issue when a "frame" is created by men, for men and of men? I guess that's not something that will be addressed? We'll just have to live through the damage much as we live now through the damage of Reinventing Government (the previous hula hoop)."

"Framing" is pushed as the "new" answer. It's really not that different than schooling on sound bytes or, for that matter, a journalistic "angle" to hang a piece on, but it's being pushed as "salvation" and "new." It will end up shutting out the same groups that always get shut out (in terms of their issues and in terms of the audience included in the message). Is it idealistic or just plain stupid?

On that note, the realist view could be summed up as: "America's bottom line is the financial health of the United States and that trumps issues of human rights. For the United States to have any impact on the world scale it must place the needs of its business institutions ahead of all else."**

The two previous sentences reflect the views of the five who served in the administrations of Regean and Bush I. (As one stated, "We were businessmen.") Realist? Idealist? It's promoting an interest that they feel is most pressing. Those advocating various options in response to violations of human rights could argue that the US has the most global power when it is seen as a beacon of freedom and concerned with human rights.

But even setting aside that argument, the truth is that conservatives have often acted out of an interest in human rights. There were conservatives who truly believed that human rights would be improved by preventing what they saw as the Soviet menace/encroachment. Conservatives have always had their lofty goals and those efforts weren't confined to religious goals.

The difference, according to the five, is that realists kept idealists in check in the two previous Republican administrations. Human rights were bottom of the list, when on the list, and, said one, "If the landscape changed mid-mission, that issue [human rights] could and would be dropped. It wasn't a driving force." Or, as another put it, "It was 'Sure, sure, we can stop at the toy store on the way home.' But when we hopped in the car, we just wanted to get home. The babies who squawled before and were told 'Dry it up' are now the ones charting the course."

Another issue we think needs further exploration is with what Press terms "humanitarian intervention." Though never defined exactly, it appears to include 'spreading democracy' (in very vague terms) and, due to examples, military intervention. That's it? Those are the options for those who believe in human rights?

'Spreading democracy' could be the idealistic reason of those (right and left) who foolishly supported the Reagan administration's efforts in Latin America. Those efforts included death squads, torture and much more. We see nothing democratic about it.

Whether it's military intervention, funding overthrows or what have you, the principle we support is self-determination. We think one tremendous achievement (only one) of the sixties was the realization that "My wants" may not be "Your wants."

We see the revulsion that greets those of advocating for others such as in the case of the recent Mexico election where gas bags took to the airwaves and print immediately after the election, gas bags not voting in that election. We were promised proof of fraud, tremendous proof of election fraud and, as Elizbeth DiNovella pointed out, the proof finally offered was, at best, underwhelming. (DiNovella and Matthew Rothschild explore the issue in greater detail in an interview for Progressive Radio.) We've seen a shout out over a recent article on a 2004 election in Oaxaca promoted as protests against the most recent election. We've seen outside forces attempt to drive and control the debate. We've seen precious little coverage of what the average Mexican thinks. As protests go in the seat of Obadore's power (and only there), we aren't surprised that the same gas bags telling us we should be outraged are still up to the same tactics. Tactics, it should be noted, that included Naderizing the Zapatistas who, for the record, neither ran a presidential candidate nor are a presidential party. As DiNovella pointed out, there actions of sitting out this election were not new actions on the part of the Zapatistas.

When a gas bag wants to denounce the Zapatistas for conducting themselves the same way they always have conducted themselves and furiously blame the turnout on them, we think the gas bag's not able to clearly report or even "report" on the situation. If the election is to be challenged, it will need to come from the people of Mexico, not from gas bag outsiders, whatever their personal motives.

We're thinking of one gas bag in particular who took to print and the airwaves to argue the importance of this election as if it were the most pressing one in Mexico. (We'd argue the continued acts of violence against women in and near Juarez, which has gotten much less attention, is much more pressing.) He seemed to be attempting to fan flames of outrage (while providing nothing resembling reporting) and that's actually at the heart of the "intervention" we see so many calls for.

We don't see that as idealism for human rights or anything, really, other than what we'll term "buttinsky thought." It's aided domestically by the need for 'swift action.' You can see it in the cries of "Do Something" and "Act Now." Such cries to action usually come with very little details and, what little is offered, gives the most recent description of an issue with a long history. We're no more fond of the buttinsky strand of thought than we are of the realist school.

We're certainly not fond of the ones who would reduce options for the crisis in the Sudan down to military intervention (while compressing the long history of events even further). We've offered our position on that: if you feel it's a crisis, you should be working to get those in jeporady out. [See "Darfur" and "Head on Home (a musical in four scenes)."] Intervention into the genocide that took the lives of six millions Jews, the lives of gypsies, dissidents, gays and lesbians and more was long in coming. A lot of people turned a blind eye to the genocide. More lives would have been spared if asylum efforts had been made. We find it appalling that attempts of asylum by those currently suffering were rebuffed by Israel. The nation-state created after WWII should understand the importance of asylum more than any other.

But instead of cries for that, we got (in the US) snappy, peppy placards, at peace rallies no less, saying: "Bring the troops home [from Iraq] and send them to Darfur." In light of Mad Maddie giving sanctions a bad name and Bully Boy setting a tone of nonstop, continual violence, it often appears that the only solution certain groups (right or left) can advocate is military intervention.

Though we doubt Press intended it as such, the article comes at a time when the left already has cause to feel distorted. Peter Beinart*** is making the argument that the left needs to get in touch with, stroke and finger it's inner Oppressor in his new book that provides soft lighting and a porono soundtrack to US actions in Nicarauga. Beinart wants to play Tough Boy and imply that those who won't are "soft." He's far from alone. (Evan Blah, Hillary Clinton and assorted other War Hawks also play the Tough Boy card.)

To focus on another issue, we'll turn to Iraq. The six of us responsible for this site as well as all participating in the editions have advocated for a withdrawl of US troops from Iraq and allowing Iraqis to determine their course. Site wise, that goes back to our first edition, community wise that goes back to the creation of The Common Ills, thought wise, it's in keeping with the principles we were raised to believe in and act upon: self-determination.

We don't believe the US has the right to go in and impose their ideas of democracy (or their claims of democracy) onto another country. That means we're opposed to the Bully Boy's current plans for Cuba (and appalled that some on the left have endorsed those aims). We look at Haiti and see a case for how each changing (US) administration has attempted to impose its will upon the country. In some cases, that meant the democratically elected Aristide could rule but always with a strong (US) hand on his shoulder.

We're also aware that it's not just Pat Robertson calling for action against the democratically elected Hugo Chavez, it also includes purported lefties (such as slimey Simon Rosenberg).


We think the greatest threats to democracy in the world come from those like Mad Maddie who fail to grasp how they've disgraced themselves and still sit on "think tanks" and committees devising ways to "help" and "aid." The biggest threat to democracy, our opinion, comes from "thinkers" who see the world as an experimental lab for the United States to test out their pet theories. (Naomi Klein laid out the harm done by "thinkers" run amuck, in a country that mistook for their own playground, brilliantly in her "Baghdad Year Zero" article for Harper's magazine.) Speaking of Mad Maddie, it should be noted her own profit motive gave cover to James Baker's actions (as outlined by Naomi Klein in "Bush special envoy embroiled in controversy over Iraq debt" and "The Manchurian cover-up" -- yes, we're suffering Klein withdrawal while she finishes her upcoming book for others suffering withdrawals as well, we'd urge that you read Antonia Juhasz' The BU$H AGENDA: Invading The World One Economy at a Time).

We see idealism in realism, despite their denials. The idealism that places the interests of US businesses (really multi-nationals) as the determining force in US interactions. ("Interactions" is putting it mildly.) We're sure our own thoughts/beliefs are equally idealistic. We don't argue that they're not.

Nor have we argued that war is never an option. If and when war is needed, by all means utilize the military (and note, that this piece isn't about when or if it is needed -- if our readership**** needs clarification on that, we'll do a future piece on that topic). But the military is too often the first resort and too often utilized for activities that it's not suited for (either in inherent character or training). In addition, the aims/goals of whichever administration are too often garbed in lofty rhetoric that denies reality more so than the absence of reality in the plans that Americans learn of much too late.

We think Press raises some important issues and, given more space (we're eager for a book), could address all the above. We're not sure that we'd agree with him but we think compressing schools of thought down to two schools (loosely defined on both of the two sides) and forty years of global awareness down to five pages (with ads) does his argument a disservice and that, provided more space, he might raise many of the issues we are raising.



Notes:
*"Cops of the World" is a scathing critique ("Lyndon Johnson plays God") of US foreign policy written by Phil Ochs and appears on his 1966 album Phil Ochs in Concert.
**Before setting up the five calls, C.I. stated that we needed to have something the five could agree to without reservation so that they felt their opinion was noted (and so C.I. didn't have to hear about them being wronged in phone calls). After the first series of calls, we came up with two paragraphs. The two paragraphs were whittled down to two lines based upon their input. After they'd verbally signed off on the two sentences, they were e-mailed the the two sentences and responded they were still in agreement that the sentences conveyed their belief. One added, in an e-mail, that this was one core of their beliefs and we're noting that here. The other four signed off without reservation.
***C.I. knows Peter Beinart (and will defend the person if not his ideas or ideals) and Rebecca's met Beinart through her in-laws.
****Our readership. Not the drive-bys, not the cranks. We saw a lot of e-mails from them, didn't read any, and laughed that they were so touched by "A Sense of Purpose" that they were moved to write in. We saw the site Mike has dubbed "Lotta Links" provide shout outs to
writing that seemed to pick up (very obviously) on points made here by Ava and C.I. and on the importance of whack-a-mole that C.I. outlined. Picked up on, though not credited. We love Ava and C.I. too and realize they're usually far ahead of the curve. They're also usually far in front of the lazies who seem to have difficulties figuring out what to post about until after reading Ava and C.I. (This article was actually built around the opening paragraph of the TV commentary Ava and C.I. started last weekend but put on hold to address Primetime.) Though the pickers are obviously "fans," we don't consider them our readership either. For any wondering, it's been repeatedly noted that all involved read The Nation (most subscribe). For any wondering why there's no link to the article -- it's not an oversight. We're aware of something else that's not an oversight and so are community members (who drew it to our attention). Naomi Klein's writings on Baker & Albright appeared in The Guardian before The Nation and when we were attempting to figure out how to link to them, C.I. remembered that fact -- so community members who missed Klein's reports in real time should feel free to utilize the links.