BLOGGITY-BLOG


Entrance: Stage Left
June 21, 2006

From an interview with Paul Berman, author of Terror and Liberalism. You may read the entire interview at

http://www.democratiya.com/interview.asp?issueid=5

 

"...there is a clique with a style and that style is marked by ruthlessness.  [That is, the] 'romance of the ruthless' ... It was visible in Central America during the Reagan administration – the expectation that a small number of people could be very effective is they acted ruthlessly enough; an over-reliance on military force and proxy armies, a tendency to an apocalyptic hysteria about the danger that Communism in Central America presented to the United States, and so on.

 

Rodak.jpgThis ruthless style has contributed to the gigantic errors that have been committed in Iraq. When you belief that if a small number of people act ruthlessly then a larger force is not necessary, it leads you to say 'let's not send a large number of troops but let's not tie the hands of those we do send'. That is, you send too few troops on the one hand and practice torture on the other. Neoconservatism is in this respect compatible with the errors of 'military transformation' theory. And yet ... some of the leading neocons have been loudly and insistently arguing against the application of military transformation theory. So there you are. Neoconservatives exist; but there isn't much of a consistent doctrine.

 

Another element of neoconservatism—or maybe just of right-wing republicanism—I have always found very unattractive is a PR approach to debate. Debate is manipulated. Reagan's administration engaged in all kinds of propaganda machinations. The same approach was exactly what we saw in the build up to the Iraq war – the emphasis on WMD on the one hand, and the supposed conspiracies between Saddam and Bin Laden on the other hand. Instead of laying out the whole complex issue of strategic and humanitarian and ideological issues that was really behind the war, the administration chose to present arguments based on manipulations that could make an easy 30-second sound-bite on the TV news. This conformed to ways the Reagan administration used to operate - sometimes with the same personnel.


There are 8 Comments for Entrance: Stage Left

Did you happen to watch "Frontline" last night? Not anything new, really, but what made it interesting was how it made a narrative of the run-up to war. Pretty creepy.
But as to the neocon's habit of arguing from soundbites, I suspect that it's more a part of the I'm-a-leader-and-you're-a-peon mindset. There really is an arrogance to these people, a sense in them that they're chosen by God and you're not. Obviously -- they're rich, after all, what more proof does one need?
A true ironicalism, though, is that conservatism has been much better at having ideas and arguing them effectively than has the traditional Left. The politicos don't use these arguments with the public, obviously, but in their own little world of The Standard, etc, they have some pretty complex arguments.
from E Bennet over 2 years ago
I think it is imperitive that we understand the classic meaning of "Left". The term has been misused and abused for decades. Right wing Republican ranting aside, true Leftism has not had a significant presence in America since our Daddy was a toddler. Liberalism is not Leftism. Not in the classic meaning, anyway. Of course I'm aware that language grows and fluxuates. Afetr all "Liberal" meant something entirely different in the 18th and 19th centuries. But "Left" was applied to Progressivism as a hyperbolic aspersion in FDR's time, sort of the way people throw around "Fascist" in a grossly exagerated way nowadays. My point (and I think we're saying the same thing)is that Liberalism under the banner of the Democrats is flabby and generally devoid of principals and proposals... other than "vote for us simply because we're not Republicans". Sorry, folks, that's not good enough. Liberalism (once Progressivism) more or less worked for a large swath of the 20th century keeping capitalism under control. But for 2 decades or more, begining with the Reagan Revolution Capitalism has been allowed to be Capitalism. We have a redux of the infamous "Guilded Age". Progressivism has failed. But maybe it was an unnatural thing, a clockwork orange so to speak. Maybe capitalism would inevitably not be controlled. Maybe we should try Socialism. It has never been tried before -- so hey, it just might work. But to do that we have to change America into a multiparty state -- no middling task, that.
from Beefer over 2 years ago
We can't seem to do paragraph breaks in the comments -- bummer!
from Beefer over 2 years ago
Ha-ha.

I can break my paragraphs.

You have to use html code, I discovered. (Really, don't ask how I know this. A most unpleasant work-related story.) I can send you a simple guide to the coding if you'd like.
from E Bennet over 2 years ago
As to the substance of the Right/Left thing, I think we're saying the same thing.

Usage changes, and maybe we should simply abondon the Right/Left thing entirely. I mean, why keep looking back to Progressivism and/or the Left if it hasn't served us well recently? Abandon the term "socialism" while you're at it -- too much baggage goes with it. We need a new title.

That's your first assignment, a new name for what at present I'll call Goldarish.
from E Bennet over 2 years ago
I mean Goldarism.

I don't like that I can't re-enter a comment and correct typos.
from E Bennet over 2 years ago
By the way, I thought the Rodak photo was a nice touch, no? I also meant to say that Neocon should not be used interchangably -- not that you have, but people do. Yes, send me that HTML info. Hopefully I can master it.
from Beefer over 2 years ago
... Neocon not interchangably with Conservatism, i mean.
from Beefer over 2 years ago

Add A Comment

Name:
Email:
URL:
Message:
Powered by MosaicGlobe.