Posted on 10/12/2001 8:52:12 AM PDT by dead
In the wake of the terrorist atrocities in the United States, the crumbling of the Left consensus continues. Thus while the usual suspects, especially in the media, heaped blame upon the victim and claimed that fanaticism and poverty in the Third World were the fault of the US and of globalisation, there were sufficient voices from independent thinkers who consider themselves of the Left to show that the centre of the Left consensus cannot hold - things are falling apart.
One of the more absurd propositions advanced is that somehow world poverty is the fault of the Americans. It is clear that over the past 50 years a number of extremely poor countries have overcome their disadvantage by engaging in international trade and encouraging both domestic and foreign investment, while other countries which have received large inflows of aid and direct investment have failed miserably to overcome their poverty. The fault is that of their own regimes, not of any outsiders. Much of the huge inflow of aid and investment into the poorest countries has been siphoned off by rapacious rulers and elites, while much has been wasted on ridiculous prestige projects which usually end up rusting away. Attempts to create socialist regimes turn out to create neither wealth nor egalitarian income distributions (socialism always produces a privileged nomenklatura), while the occasional benefits are more than offset by the loss of liberties.
Thus when the sillier adherents of left-wing causes propose the forgiveness of outstanding debts of poor countries, they are not taking account of the fact that the indebtedness, which everybody knows will never be repaid in any case, at least provides some sanction for past irresponsibility. Moreover when it is asserted that with x billion dollars (the popular figure right now is $US45 billion) hunger, etc, could be abolished, they are right in principle, but blithely overlook the fact that we know that the money would not for the most part be spent on such good purposes. Closer to home, just look at what happens to the ATSIC budget.
As I pointed out in an earlier column, the crumbling of the Left consensus in intellectual terms (though not where the general intellectual level is low, as in the ABC) has been exemplified by the denunciation by Christopher Hitchens, a leading leftist journalist, of the disgraceful responses to terrorism in Left circles. It appears that Hitchens has moved even further on some issues. Interviewed recently in the American magazine Reason (Free Radical), he has even declared that he no longer considers himself a socialist, saying, "There is no longer a general socialist critique of capitalism - certainly not the sort of critique that proposes an alternative or a replacement. There just is not and one has to face the fact, and it seems to me further that it's very unlikely, though not impossible, that it will again be the case in the future. Though I don't think that the contradictions, as we used to say, of the system are by any means fully resolved."
What he describes is a fairly common trajectory, followed by many others before him who have a sympathy for libertarian views on the state and a respect for individual liberty and have realised that socialism and liberty cannot go together. This is not a dogmatic position (and is not necessarily a conservative or neo-conservative one) - it leaves plenty of room for difference of views about specific policies and analyses. He in turn quotes the leading Polish dissident and editor Adam Michnik as having remarked to him before the fall of communism that "the crucial distinction between systems ... was no longer ideological. The main political difference was between those who did, and those who did not, believe that the citizen could - or should - be the property of the state."
Hitchens would still consider himself definitely on the Left, and certainly espouses views which would be categorised as Left. But he is prepared to argue his views and does not show the kind of massive ignorance, dogmatism and disrespect for either evidence or rational argument which categorises most of the modern Left, in Australia and elsewhere.
Libertarianism is an attractive position to espouse, but has the problem that it is too easy - to simply denounce any state institutions and policies is to deny that there is any difference between good and bad government.
Political libertarianism must take account of the fact that clear limits to liberty are sometimes necessary, even if to be deplored. Thus while the individual must never be considered in any sense the property of the state, "civil liberties" as asserted by money-grubbing and posturing libertarian lawyers are all too often a means simply of making the apprehension of criminals virtually impossible, and the detection of potential crime and terrorism equally impossible.
While libertarianism and a free market are always to be preferred to any conceivable alternatives, they need to be modified in practical terms by a degree of regulation and well-designed welfare measures, but not taken so far as to destroy productive activity; equally civil liberties have to be exercised within a framework which will preserve the possibility of their practice rather than opening a society up to those who would destroy its freedom.
ppmcg@ozemail.com.au
bobd (2 posts)
Oct-12-01, 09:29 AM (ET)
8. "Re: Mr. Bush's New Gravitas"
LAST EDITED ON Oct-12-01 AT 09:43 AM (ET)
As the saying goes: I'm a long time listener, first time caller ...
Not only did the the Sept 11 attacks kill 5000+, cripple the economy of NYC and the area, it also seems to have put a stake though the heart of our nascent liberal/progressive revival. Pre-Sept 11 we had W on the run and real momentum was building for a critical examination of his ascent to power. Newsweek's Sept 10th edition feature an inside look at the Supreme court's maneuverings relative to that horrid December ruling making W. President. The congressional Dems new-found spines were growing and hardening nicely, and W's poll numbers were dropping as folks began to realize his genetic ineptitude and right-wing agenda.
September 11 changed all that, probably for a generation.
Within days of the attacks W suddenly went from dim-bulb idiot to genius. The press seemed to be propping him up, probably out of the necessity for the country to appear unified behind our "democracy". The current W, in my view, is in fact a creation of the "traditional" news media (i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc., etc.). Like good Dr. Frankensteins they admire their work. The soft-ball questions and glowing praises make sense in this light because why would they want to deliberately cause grief for their kindly but dim-witted child? He seems to be coming along nicely too, don't you think?
The fact is that we're on the run my friends. Without the "traditional" mass-consumption press doing their job there is no hope whatsoever of getting a look at the cheap plastic gears and tin frame of the jack-in-the-box residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The European press seems to be providing a far more in-depth coverage of the war than the US media. The vaunted Arab coalition is extremely shakey. Even moderate Muslims are out on the streets demonstrating against the US. Ominously, Al Qaeda's message of hate seems to have found many receptive ears there, and the govenments of the region appear unable to offer an alternative, more moderate vision. Does W. understand this or even care? Does the mainstream press report this? Complex situations, especially when it involves "foreign" countries is an anathema to the sound bite, Lee Greenwood listenin', flag wavin' pickup truck drivin' culture that passes for US democracy in October 2001.
Sadly, I fear that we're in for a massive right-wing, conservative revival. It's unbelievably depressing and demoralizing. We hole-up in our little on-line bunkers and lament the end of liberalism. Unfortunately it's all we have right now. No one else is listening. No one else seems to even care about listening.
Bob D.
------------------------------------------------------------
Hurray for our side!!!
I just want to savor that once again....like fine wine.
Of course. The main problem with socialism is that it requires a police state.
This is obvious. And easy. But somehow many people can't seem to comprehend it.
Yes.
Imagine how fine if we should witness the collapse and end of "Liberalism" and of the Democrat Party as we know it.
On the other hand, a collision with reason has never bothered the Left and its so-called "thinkers" before.
The boomer commies have taken over many universities and now they find themselves in big trouble. Great!
Good Point. Socialists are always people who expect to be the police when the new order is established. They are scared shitless at the idea that the common folk might have a say in anything.
Exactly.
Just like the pigs in Animal Farm.
These are the same people who have always been around and, unfortunately, always will (barring a miracle). The Democrat Party abounds with them. That's what the Democrat Party is.
NAILED!
We told 'em and we told 'em, but we were labeled as part of the problem and summarily dismissed.
Liberals are, as far as I'm concerned, a form of terrorist in their own right! Their methods are not as overt as the hisbella or al quada (sp?); their victims are the farmers at Klamath Falls, the lumber industry in the far NW, landowners holding land on which feces of a suspected protected rodent might live, etc.
Liberalism with it's heinous tool of political correctness is every bit as insidious and destructive in the long run as the scum who strive to murder "infidels" with suicide attacks!
You get the point, tho, right? LOL!
These are the same folks who have militantly squashed anything even marginally conservative and non-PC on college campuses for years.
So Willy Clinton is like a bear???
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.