Which Side Is the Left On?

BEFORE Sept. 11, American progressives had reason to hope they might be emerging from the political wilderness. After years of bitter squabbles over identity politics and the merits of the Clinton administration, the left appeared to have reclaimed its anti-corporate heritage and was growing.

For the first time since the 1930's, student activists and labor officials championed the same causes. At dozens of colleges, groups sought to curb sweatshop manufacturing in the developing world and to demand a living wage for employees at home. Organizers were predicting 100,000 protesters, including many union members, would be in Washington in late September during the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Progressives inside and outside the Democratic Party exulted that President Bush's poll ratings were not much higher than the percentage of the vote he had won a year before and that his administration seemed without a purpose beyond cutting taxes. Chances looked good that a liberal coalition could help take back the House of Representatives in 2002 and maybe the White House in 2004.

Those hopes, and the prospect of a unified left, disappeared along with so much else in the wake of the Sept. 11 attack. While labor leaders and liberal lawmakers endorse the administration's anti-terrorist campaign, radical foes of global capital on college campuses and the streets talk of peace and try to grasp why many in the Islamic world seem to hate the United States.

In pleading their case, each segment of the left evokes the metaphors of an earlier war — using two very different examples. For the embattled new peace movement, the war is Vietnam; for anti-terrorist liberals, it is World War II.

Indeed, the arguments of many peace activists echo those New Leftists made 30 years ago. "The fear and desperation that grows [sic] from poverty and oppression is crucial to any understanding of violence throughout the world," says a group called the Anti-Capitalist Convergence. Even symbols of the earlier movement are making a comeback — an ad in The Nation features the peace symbol, now colored red, white and blue.

Accused of being anti-American, peace demonstrators respond that they are upholding the most humane of secular and spiritual ideals — protection of the innocent in a world where the gulf between the rich and poor is ever widening. As with Vietnam, radicals accuse American policymakers of caring about acts of mass slaughter only when their own citizens are its victims.

Meanwhile, most liberals and a few chastened radicals view the Sept. 11 attacks through the prism of World War II. For them, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban represent what the author Christopher Hitchens labels, "fascism with an Islamic face." Echoing the words of Mr. Bush, the anti-terrorist left maintains there is a moral imperative to defend a society that remains, whatever its flaws, a pillar of ethnic and religious pluralism and representative democracy.

Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, entered politics as an opponent of the Vietnam War and the nuclear arms race. But the religious zealots who destroyed the World Trade Center and blasted the Pentagon remind the Jewish liberal of the Nazis; she vows "to stop that from happening again." Labor officials now struggling to help the families of the hundreds of union workers killed on Sept. 11 — cooks and waiters, janitors and security guards, as well as firemen and police — are hardly inclined to disagree.

This is no time to talk of peace, such progressives insist, before action is taken to punish those who planned the attacks and prevent them from committing further carnage. Repeating a charge hurled against isolationists 60 years earlier, liberals accuse opponents to their left of being naïve about the threat posed to a system in which a culture of opposition can flourish.

This debate within the left also parallels divisions evident in earlier wars. In the 20th century, visionary altruists were both the leaders of America during each major conflict and spearheaded the opposition.

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson insisted American troops were needed to make the world "safe for democracy," while pacifists and Socialists charged the doughboys were only protecting the profits of munitions makers and British imperialists. In 1940, leftists and isolationists made a similar indictment against Franklin D. Roosevelt when he urged passage of Lend-Lease and the revival of the draft. (It took the attack on Pearl Harbor to squelch or convert his opponents.) In 1965, most progressive Democrats backed Lyndon B. Johnson's decision to defend the "freedom" of South Vietnam, while young radicals argued that the liberal president was using American power to crush a war of independence against foreign rule.

EACH of these ruptures affected the future of American politics in significant ways. The divisions over World War I and Vietnam — unpopular wars — helped conservative Republicans dominate Congress and the White House in the 1920's and most of the 1970's and 80's. But most progressives backed World War II as a battle against the enemies of freedom, and their cherished causes of industrial unionism and racial tolerance gained as the fighting raged.

Now, though President Bush is a Republican, he is using words saturated with historic left ideals to win the confidence of many Americans. In his address to Congress, the president condemned the Taliban for barring women from school and prohibiting any religious doctrine but their own. He has also condemned acts of prejudice against Arab-Americans and wants to help unemployed workers pay for health insurance. Mr. Bush's oratory of war sounds a good deal like the reformist internationalism that guided the foreign policy of Democratic presidents from Wilson to Bill Clinton.

Anti-terrorist liberals hope the war will be limited and that, as after Pearl Harbor, the communal spirit that has animated New Yorkers and other Americans since Sept. 11 will stir a desire to ease domestic injustices. Antiwar radicals want Americans to put down their flags and address the global ills that the demonstrations in Washington were intended to dramatize.

But activists on both sides fear their chance to build a new left may already have passed.

I'm with you Yakboy- the right shouldn't overlook the real crises that people find themelves in right now. There are conservative/libertarian solutions to these problems- we need not bring back the welfare state to solve them.

I agree, there should be a way that would help people in crisis keep their homes and feed themselves until they can rescue themselves. Maybe deep tax cuts so that businesses can afford to hire more people and not worry as much about the bottom line and productivity.

I think the left seems very split right now, there are those who are living far from New York that seem willing to go on with liberal life and political correctness as usual, but there are all those New York and closeby liberals and Jews who seem shaken to the core over what happened Sept 11. Here the Jews have to have security guards now inside and outside their synagogues if they want to have it open for services, I think many are losing their political correctness quite fast knowing their freedom to worship and their very lives are under extreme threat now by the enemy that has infiltrated our society.

the government... can also make some kind of health insurance available or affordable for those whose employers can't afford to keep them on.

Terrible idea. When the government provides a product and then guarantees to supply the purchase price to the user, there's no incentive for the supplier - such as a private insurer - to keep the price down.

Ok, then how about leaving the cost as it is and offering temporary subsidies? How would you propose to solve the problem as originally defined by Yakboy in #6?

This is a great article.

It is a lefty pondering the fate of lefties.

The whole thing starts out warped....the left has been teetering on implosion for the better part of the last two years.

G.W. has been coming up roses from jump street.

The author attempts to paint a portrait of liberals coming back to its roots....I submit...theyhad nowhere else to go.

They had failed miserably at executive power...I'm not talking democrats, I'm talking lefties. Now in the face of their failures and the conservative spirit taking hold once again, the Liberal left had no place to go but back...and down.

Who's side is the left on?

Why, the left is on the lefts side.

Hello!?!

Only a liberal lefty could ponder such a question?

The rest of us down to earth types know full well who's side they are on.

~smile~

Government does not belong in the insurance business..

The government basically got in the insurance business by setting up the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) after people lost the money they had in banks during the Great Depression. Would you say they shouldn't have ever done that, or is government insurance OK under some circumstances? I'm not saying it is or isn't myself- just wanted to hear your opinion.

"Prior to the 11th. the left was a happy conspirator with the anarchists"

Absolutely...and this has been going on, with increasing strength, since the late 60's in this country. Our weakened military, lapses in internal and external security, all point to this "evil little union". They need to be held accountable for it. We must remain ever-vigilant going forward -- rebuild what has been destroyed (but build it better and stronger) -- and NEVER forget...

I'd be happy for any setbacks the leftists experience in their campaign against America and Western Civilization.

IMHO, the left is much more dangerous than any group of terrorists who openly threaten to destroy America, and even follow through on their threats. Although these terrorists use despicable tactics against defenseless civilians, they are honest in their pursuits. Eventually, this type of terrorist can be rooted out, hunted down, and stopped.

The more dangerous enemy is the one who declares itself one of us, while plotting to destroy us from within, over a long period of time, but destroy us nonetheless.

The dangerous ones are those who choke off our economies by pretending to protect the trees from the lumber industry, putting thousands of productive Americans out of work. They pretend to protect the suckerfish and other useless critters, while displacing thousands of Americans, depriving them of their land and livlihoods. They are the ones who wail for the protection of "the children", separate them from their parents, and place 70% of them where they are physically and sexually abused.

They are the people who want all our productive industries to move overseas, our American jobs to go to illegal invaders, our food and energy supplies totally dependent on foreign sources.

They are the ones who want each and every one of us totally dependent on government handouts, who want us watched and tracked every minute of the day, who want our every breath and movement monitored and dictated. They want us disarmed, and defenseless against their fellow criminals and their tyrannical leaders. They want us living in sheer terror every minute of our lives, lest we speak or think something politically incorrect.

So just who are the real terrorists here? Are we any less dead or destroyed if the process takes forty years as opposed to minutes or weeks?

To paraphrase the great President Reagan, if we continue to negotiate with terrorists, we will just get more terror.

Maybe there's a way to provide some sort of tax break or deduction that makes it attractive for companies to provide extended coverage as a stopgap measure. I don't have answer, unfortunately, and I agree a "handout" isn't an answer. I think it serves us all to consider if there is an alternative that can serve as a temporary measure under a situation such as war or national crisis. Normally, these people would be hard at work, but like in the case of airlines, everyone is afraid to fly (not me, I doubt they could pull us the sick crap they pulled like they did the first time twice.) So now we have people directly impacted by an act or war and terrorism. This is what I think should be considered. What about all of the single income families deprived of bread-winners? I just want to consider alternatives, not necessarily re-invent the curse of welfare.

Yakboy, your education or your intellect is inadequate. Possibly, you aren't a conservative at all.

Tell me, is this part time or being a snide ass a fulltime occupation for you?

As I said I don't have an answer but the issue of compassion for our fellow hard working conservatives who have found themselves in a fix deserves as much consideration for debate as any issue.

Clearly you have no conscience or your abomination for your fellow man under under circumstances of hardship is without match.

I am ashamed you would count yourself among us conservatives. You're brusk and innappropriate attack shows a contempt and lack of tact which I would consider a hallmark of any idiot liberal.

I approached this topic out of the same compassion that I had for the victims of this tragedy. It was forwarded as a point of discussion.

If you doubt my credentials as a conservative to a search under "To:Yakboy" and confirm my stands before you launch a mindless verbal assult.

I can entertain a totally rejection of my thoughts. I listen to common sense comments and am interested in civil discourse. Obviously you are so brainless and contemptuous that you didn't even take the time to look at my profile. I can assure you that Mensa does not believe either my intellect or my education is inadequate.

I will not partake in further discourse with you. You are nothing to me.

Now take your pill, go find your tin foil cap, and go take a nap or something.

The total donated to all 9/11-related charities is, last time I checked, $500,000,000. And that was a week ago, I'm sure it's more now. Not a single gov't bureaucrat was needed to raise this sum. The percent reaching the intended recipients is going to be close to 100%. This is in contrast to gov't programs which deliver a small fraction of that and serve mostly to keep the gov't fat&happy.

The best thing the government could do is Nothing.

Yeah, I don't really want to see another nightmare like Welfare or anything. I donated to the Red Cross and organized blood drives at my place of employment the day of the tragedy. I guess I've just personally known so many people impacted by the financial aspect of this that I can't do anything for it kind of gets to me.

This whole situation hit everyone so hard. I just wanted to think of any other way that help could be rendered. I suspect that the confidence our commander and chief is building among the population may have a stronger impact on things than anyone believes. Let's just pray and hope the best for our friends affected by this hardship.

Listen, there is only one reason these left-wing liberals support our President! They are weenies, they are scared to death, and they know it. They now see that their peace and love stuff didn't work, and they know it takes the right-wing militants to protect them. They hate it, but they know where their safety lies. I think it's the greatest! It has shut some of them up and the rest of them are now showing their true colors - they have no heart for America, only their own sorry a$$es.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.