There has been some soul searching on the left recently about whether or not the liberals love America. More specifically, whether one can love America while hating everything about her.
Joel Klein of Time Magazine started it all by saying out loud what many professional Democratic politicians have been saying privately for years; that “the hate America tendency of the [Democratic Party’s] left wing’ had made it harder for Democrats to challenge Republicans on foreign policy.â€
Klien specifically mentioned The Nation and Michael Moore in a great blog post at HuffPo entitled “The Crucial Difference Between Liberals and Leftists” which, for obvious reasons, did not sit well with the editor of The Nation Katrina vanden Heuvel who shot back with her own HuffPo piece ““The Crucial Difference Between Joe Klein and Reality.”
This is not just one more obscure lefty debate about some arcane detail of dogma that usually puts most everyone – including liberals – to sleep. It’s a discussion long past due and, from my point of view, is actually encouraging. For in shaping the parameters of the debate, what emerges is a clear separation between those whose vision of what America is all about matches that of the overwhelming majority of citizens and those who, while claiming to “love” America, actually love some other country, unrecognizable to all but the most deluded among us.
We on the right should probably stay out of this discussion – which, of course, is why I’m going to throw my two cents in. For in the end, it explains much of why the classic liberalism of a Robert Kennedy or Hubert Humphrey has become so marginalized and the dominant New Left Stalinists of The Nation , the Greens, George Soros, the Dean/Kerry axis, and the Hollywood elitists have become so important to the Democratic party.
The turning point of course, was Viet Nam. Opposition to that war energized the far left who themselves had been marginalized in the immediate aftermath of World War II as mainstream Democratic and liberal organizations like the ACLU and the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) fought and won internal power struggles against the pro-Moscow wing of the Democratic party. After a brief dalliance in trying to form their own political party in 1948 by nominating and running socialist Henry Wallace for President on the Progressive party ticket, the Stalinists were driven underground during the McCarthy excesses of the 1950’s. (Note: Wallace’s 1948 campaign should be seen as a turning point in American politics with regards to racial equality and applauded if for no other reason than the principled stand taken by the socialists on civil rights).
Viet Nam changed the entire internal dynamic on the left in the early sixties. Opposition to that war began even prior to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1965 among a small cadre of young radicals on campuses who saw the war as an issue to advance a revolutionary agenda. These New Leftists were unencumbered with the pro-Moscow “old left” political baggage and, in fact, had little or no connection with Gus Hall’s Communist Party USA that played such a large role in leftist politics in the 1930’s and 40’s. This group, later designated as “Trotskyites” were out to stop the war but were equally dedicated to overthrowing the establishment and bringing about a socialist revolution. The more rational among them like Tom Hayden and Al Lowenstein (an anti-communist seen by most of his contemporaries as “not radical enough”) wished to do this through the ballot box. Others had no such illusions and sought the violent overthrow of the government.
The Trotskyites, to some extent, eventually absorbed the old pro-Moscow left and this alliance of convenience formed the core of the anti-war left during the period of Viet Nam protests from 1965 onward.
It is important to point out that this group of “New Leftists” were not only opposed to conservative supporters of the war but also the classic liberals who backed the war in its earliest days. These liberals eventually turned against the war both as a matter of principle and politics, but it was they who were most eager to engage the Soviet Union in the Third World in what John F. Kennedy called “the long twilight struggle” against communism.
Our escalating involvement in Viet Nam could be called the greatest liberal impulse of the 20th century as for the first time, America confronted communism not only militarily, but on the battlefield of ideas as well. The New Left coalition opposed this approach because of the large pacifist element in their ranks and also because they hated what America stood for; individual rights and especially free market capitalism. Their vision of revolution did not include such selfish notions of personal freedom or the exploitive capitalistic system. In 1972, they succeeded in momentarily capturing the Democratic party and nominated quasi-socialist George McGovern for President, a disaster of historic proportions for classic liberals who were unfairly connected with the New Leftists in that overwhelming defeat.
In politics, losers don’t get to set the agenda. So while the Trotskyites proceeded to tear themselves to shreds in vicious, internecine battles over dogma and tactics (resulting in the formation of several violent offshoots), the old pro-Moscow left moved to the fore and appropriated much of the rhetoric and slogans of the New Left in a classic case of political absorption. Now in the mainstream of the Democratic party, the 1974 midterms saw many of the 72 freshmen Democratic Congressional candidates who won election successfully appealing to both the pro-Moscow left and classic liberals.
Because this “New” old left supplied the bulk of activists to work on campaigns (and in the years to come an increasing amount of money), the allegiance of these Congressmen turned more and more toward a radical redistributive social agenda and a less bellicose, more accommodating posture toward the Soviet Union. And as politics became more polarized in the 1980’s and 90’s, what was once the far left wing of the Democratic party went completely mainstream, shunning classic post World War II liberal ideals for what became known as “The Third Way” or a kind of democratic socialism as it was practiced in Europe.
Which bring us back to the Klein-Vanden Heuvel imbroglio that has the left in such a tizzy. Klein was trying to draw what I thought was a careful distinction between America as it is seen by classic liberals (who might even be considered “hawkish centrists” in the Democratic party as described by Vanden Heuvel) and leftists who reject the America as it is seen by the overwhelming majority of us in favor of a radically different country they have created out of whole cloth.
They hate the America you and I take for granted. Not the America of Bush or the Republicans. Not the America of most liberals who, while advocating solutions to our problems that we might disagree with nevertheless use basically the same frame of reference when talking and thinking about America as we do. The kind of America that liberals, conservatives, centrists, libertarians, and the rest of us believe in and work to better has at its core a strong, stubborn belief in the innate goodness of America and its people and a faith in the American “system:” free markets, free labor, and free men. While not a prerequisite, most of us also believe in American exceptionalism – whether that belief has a secular or religious foundation – that we are different from other nations on earth.
The leftover Stalinists and Trotskyites from the 1960’s that Klein was attempting to separate from the classic liberals might talk about being patriotic Americans in the same way that David Duke says he’s not anti-black, just pro-white. The Stalinists live in a country so radically different than the one you and I inhabit that they can’t for the life of them imagine (like Duke and other hatemongers) why anyone thinks them anti-American. They start from the premise that America is evil, “essentially a malignant, imperialistic force in the world and the use of American military power is almost always wrong,” as Klein so aptly points out. It doesn’t stop there, of course. They believe our history is a sham, our myths, destructive, our families, dysfunctional, and our educational system, laboratories for engineering social change.
It is perhaps unfair to say that this is the dominant culture in the Democratic party. But I believe it accurate to say that the majority of its activists and many of its big money contributors ascribe to this notion of America. Klein was correctly pointing out that this is the Democratic party that is successfully portrayed by Republicans as “mainstream” despite their small number because of how vocal and organized the Stalinists are compared to the rest of the party, particularly more moderate groups like the Democratic Leadership Council.
Is it unfair for Republicans to do this? No more so than it is unfair when Democrats try to portray the Republicans as a party of religious fanatics whose neoconservative leadership is the personification of evil. Politics is a full contact sport and trying to delineate what is “fair” or “unfair” is an exercise in futility.
On the other hand, it is unfair of us on the right to confuse the anti-American left with the mindless anti-Bush sentiment that prevails in the Democratic party. The question that has always troubled me is has this Bush Derangement Syndrome actually led Democrats to giving the appearance of anti-Americanism in their opposition to the war? The “Bush lied” meme has been a godsend to many Democrats who initially supported the war but, like their ancestors during Viet Nam, have since had a change of heart and have latched on to the idea that Bush tricked them into that support. And while their opposition obviously gives aid and comfort to the enemy who see their only way to victory in waiting until the political will for the war in America to evaporate, does it reflect political calculation or anti-Americanism? Or is it just one more unconscious manifestation of a virulent hate of the President?
It may be totally unnecessary for the Democratic party to sort this out since the Republicans seem intent on doing everything they can to lose control of the House and the Senate next November. But if the party cannot take advantage of such a deeply wounded opponent, what then? Will the majority of patriotic, America-loving Democrats be able to marginalize their crazies? Or will the Republicans continue to be successful in portraying the Democratic party as made up of radical, anti-American leftists?
This is a debate that bears watching. At stake is the future of both parties and a possible realignment with a decidedly more leftist tilt to our politics.
11:40 am
You mean some liberals hate America? Nooooo
When a liberal like Joe Klein is posting stuff like this.
What I actually said was “the hate America tendency of the [Democratic Party’s] left wing” had made it harder for Democrats to challenge Republicans on foreign policy.
Wait a minute. Did…
1:35 pm
Left wing liberals don’t hate America. They just love themselves.
2:22 pm
The right has many of the same issues that the left does. The main difference is that they get less exposure in the media than the lefties do. The left certainly has a socialist “hate America” wing (and think it’s unfair to call them Stalinists. Stalin was more interested in power and control over his people than he was in Communism. He simply used communism to further his own ends, and would have made an excellent Fascist.). However, the right has it’s own wing and radicals that are just as scary as the leftists. They don’t hate America, but their idea of what America stands for is far different from the average American. The most prominiment group in this category are the radical old testament evangelicals who are best represented by Pat Robertson. Just as Democrats with Presidential aspirations bring our their leftist talking points, Republican’s do the same on the right to show the “base” their socially conservative credentials.
This creates a lot of frustration for those of us (and I would wager a majority of Americans) in the center. The two parties have done an exceptionally good job at preventing competition, so centrists, like me, are forced into a choice between a candidate nominated by radical leftists and one nominated by religious idealogs. In that environment, the more centrist candidate (or at least the candidate who appears more centrist) is usually the one that wins the general election. The nomination process in this country is broken because minorities in each party and tiny minorities of the general population determine the candidates.
I agree with what you’ve said almost 100% on the Democrats and their radical left wing. I hope you’ll consider writing a similar article on the right.
3:19 pm
While we’re digesting this excellent thread see this plea from an Iranian girl to the Blogos.
RBT
*****
Lose the Army of Davids ! ! !
Now Please!
Anyone reading this thread should go immediately to Atlas Shrugs and see this plea from an Iranian girl in the comment thread that has more collective wisdom than all of the LL and MSM combined!
RBT
6:05 pm
The Democrat Party is suffering from Activist Cancer. The question is, do they have the strength and will for the cure (killing it off before it kills them.)
They better act fast because elections tend to make the cancer spread.
7:41 pm
Andrew: Keep telling yourself lies as you did in your first words in your post. Your Middle of the Road whinning is as usual. Yeal, you think that with your brains and thoughtfull diliberations with yourself that you and your like minded thinkers could be great leaders, if only given a chance. If you could you would, you can’t so ergo the whinning!
We have two parties, grow some balls and join one, why you could even improve it! Get in and get your hands dirty
9:52 pm
Andrew,
You have some good points but I simply don’t see the “radical old testament evangelicals” having the influence you think. I know tons of Republicans – Shelby County Alabama is totally Republican (at least for now). But only a few special souls are as influenced by screamers such as Pat Robertson. I think Pat and my State Senator, Hank Erwin, have minds of a like kind – both condemned the Katrina disaster as the punishment of “God on sinners”. Little noticed by either of these bozos is that Al Qaeda said the same thing. What glory. And while I don’t pay attention to Robertson (and most Republicans I know don’t), I’ll be working to see Erwin defeated in this year’s election. By another Republican, of course.
I think nearly all of the “Religious Right” are Republicans for one reason or another – and this is all the liberal left sees. But Republicans are made up of a lot more than the Religious Right.
I’ve always thought that if the Democrats could dump the radical left wing screamers, they might have a more appealing party. But Republicans wouldn’t look any different if the Religious Right were somehow disengaged. We would still be conservative based and the left liberals would still appear to hate America. “Progressives” my ass. Just my two cents.:)
9:53 pm
By the way, excellent post Rick.
11:43 pm
Diamond:
If you don’t think the Republican Party has serious issues and infighting, then keep drinking your kool-aid. You only have to read this blog for some excellent analysis of it. The Republican party of today is no longer fiscally conservative, and only believes in State’s rights unless they violate the agenda of the religious conservative base (in which case they want federal laws or constitutional amendments enforcing their moral views. Furthermore elected Republicans as a group no longer support limited Government and rail against “judicial activism” only when it violates their socially conservative agenda. I could go into all the problems and hypocrisy of the Democratic Party, but the blogsphere has that angle covered ad nauseum.
Let me ask you what party I should join – Here’s my general philosophy: Fiscal conservative, economic liberal (meaning I’m pro markets and globalization), social liberal, pro-limited government, pro-states rights, non-religious, pro-strong military, pro civil/individual rights, and anti-isolationist. In short, I’d probably be a Libertarian if it wasn’t for their crazy foreign policy and their desire to completely dismantle the Federal social safety net. Frankly, the Republican party has strayed way too far from it’s Libertarian roots.
So, no thanks, I don’t want to join either one of the major parties, because neither speaks for me. Why would I join a party to improve it – the idea is to join a party that represents my views. Joining a party in order to bring it around to my point of view is both stupid and pointless. America is the greatest cauldron for the creation and nurturing of ideas – it’s too bad that political thought and ideas are stuffed and funneled into the broken two-party system. It’s not whining, it’s reality. Do you really think that a handful of voters in a handful of states choosing the presidential candidates for the rest of us is a good system?
Tblubrd:
The old-testament religious conservatives certainly do have a big influence, especially in Presidential politics. Why do you think presidential candidates trot out their social conservative values as the primaries near? Take a look at any of the potential Republican candidates for 08. They are all falling over each other trying to appease the social conservatives. And why? Because they have the most money and the best organization of any faction in the Republican Party. Because of that, they get to set the agenda for elections and any primary candidate cannot win the nomination without their support. It’s the same with the democrats – they have to bow to the left-wing radicals to have a chance of winning the nomination. Had that wacko Dean not shot himself in the foot and proved to everyone how unpresidential and unelectable he was, he would have won the nomination. Instead, the second most liberal candidate won. Once the nomination is secure, both the republican and democratic candidates moderate their views so they can win the election. It’s sickening how shallow it all is.
The radical left certainly has a greater voice in the MSM and the religious conservatives don’t get as much positive national exposure, but that limited national exposure does not diminish their influence in the Republican Party. But all that media attention and influence the left-wingers get is also a hindrance in many ways, because their visibility makes them more vulnerable to attack, especially since they are all wealthy and out of touch elites.
6:26 am
“The turning point of course, was Viet Nam.” Right after the 1968 elections. By 1972, the Dem Party would’ve been virtually unrecognizable to JFK.
6:38 am
callamachus recently coined the phrase “American Pessimism” to describe the phenomenon that you discuss. It’s not quite as harsh as ‘anti Americanism’ and may be more accurate- certainly of the Dem Party, as opposed to the Further Left.
7:45 am
Andrew.
Re: “The left certainly has a socialist ‘hate America’ wing (and think it’s unfair to call them Stalinists. Stalin was more interested in power and control over his people than he was in Communism.”
Some people in the U. S. see Stalin as the quint-essential leftist politician. And they know that the “America haters” don’t really hate America per se, but merely hate certain prevailing attitudes of the America people. The Stalin administration’s method of dealing with inconvenient prevailing attitudes was, of course, Mauser pistol shots in the backs of the heads that held them. We’re a long way from the day here when government here controls all economic resources and processes (a pre-condition for the Mauser pistol solution), but it is something to look out for. I’ve voted Dem, worked for Dem candidates, given money to Dems in the past, and I may do so again, but not until I believe the candidate will keep those Mauser pistols beaten into plow shears.
9:06 am
Andrew: Can’t find a team that you would play for? Well then just pick up your ball and go home. Yeal, that’s the ticket, you show’em. Why you are too damn good and smart to join either party, why you are a party unto yourself. Strike up the band!
9:52 am
Well, Diamond, it’s not just me. Since the mid 80’s, voters who identify themselves as Republican have never been more than 34% of the electorate. Democrats peaked at 35%. Independent and non-affiliated voter have constituted the largest block of voters in every single year since 1987. Their numbers peaked at 40% averaged 38% and never fell below 34%. Republicans averaged 29% and Democrats 33% during the same period. Does that tell you anything?
10:09 am
actually it tells me that the people in this country are whimpy little small minded pukes who, gee I don’t know what I want, and for God’s sake, don’t make me choose.
I like people who make the hard choices and sick with it and try to form the party in a direction that best suits them. I can over look crap that one always runs into. You however will throw out the best because it’s not perfect. Does either party really not let you find a home in?
Or is the horror of joining, and maybe joining and having do the work necessary.
10:39 am
You miss the point entirely again Diamond. To me choosing between the two parties is like choosing between a yummy chocolate cake with baby poo for frosting, or and ice cream sundae topped with my cat’s hairballs. Your suggestion that I just eat the poo or hairballs while I try to change the menu doesn’t appeal to me and a majority of Americans.
Why is wanting more that two candidates on a ballot so much to ask?
12:14 pm
“Why is wanting more then two candidates on a ballot so much to ask?”
Well Andrew, I suggest that you keep collecting rocks to throw, that really improves a party.
I can see it now – NEWS FLASH!
2011 Andrew the “Give Me More Not Less” party leader” whines,”why are there only five candidates on the ballot?”
p.s. GMMNL party mission: We need hundreds on the ballot to insure that all voices are represented! We need a true blend of opinion
Andrew, that would constitute eating Hillary, hairballs and poo! More doesn’t always mean better. But I waste my time, no more. bye
2:22 am
Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
9:09 am
[...] Right Wing Nut House, “Anti-American? Or Anti-Bush?” [...]
1:43 am
The Council Has Spoken!
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Arrogant District Refuses To Prote…
10:40 pm
[...] Anti-American? Or Anti-Bush?Right Wing Nut House [...]
10:21 pm
If the evangelicals stay at home in ‘08 (which will happen if a pro-abortion Guliani or similar is nominated), Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.
The GOP cannot win an election without the Biblical Christians (like myself). CNN and other media mouthpeices are “preaching” a phony hippie peace-at-any-price Jesus that is an invention of the secular fundamentalist left to appeal to the marginal Christians. If the left is able to convince some Christians that “Jesus is all about love”, then they could siphon enough votes to carry Ohio and/Missouri and voila, we will have President Clinton II. God help us.