Will Hutton (Londion Observer): Euston group offers new direction for left

[Jack Rabbit]

From the London Observer (Sunday supplement of The Guardian Unlimited)
Dated Sunday April 23

Why the Euston group offers a new direction for the left
A disparate set of left-wing thinkers meeting in a London pub has reopened an essential debate on the nature of democracy
By Will Hutton

To be on the left is to be both temperamentally inclined to dissent and to be passionate about your own utopia, which can never be achieved. Condemned to disappointment, you rage at the world, your party and your leader.

Relative peace comes when the right is in power and the left temporarily sinks its differences before the greater enemy. But to survive in office, the left leader must keep utopian factionalism at bay and that means making your followers understand hard realities and tough trade-offs and selling them the ones you make yourself.

Until Iraq, Blair had been pretty effective in squaring away his various critics, but the war has overwhelmed him. Almost every strand of left utopianism has been offended, from human-rights activists to anti-American imperialists, internationalists to straightforward peaceniks. And with Iraq now on the edge of civil war, their every fear and warning has been amply validated. With no strand in the left ready to utter a word in his support, the Prime Minister has had zero leverage to fight back. Down and down he has gone in the eyes of his left-wing critics.

Which is why a small meeting of disillusioned leftist journalists, university lecturers and passionate bloggers in a London pub last year is proving a potentially important political event. Two or three internet bloggers have been arguing strongly for some months that whether it was for or against the Iraq invasion, Western liberal opinion must now stand united behind the attempt to create and entrench the panoply of democratic and human rights in Iraq and be against the religious fundamentalism propelling it down.

Read more.

[Jack Rabbit]

1. The Euston Manifesto

This is the Website of a new democratic progressive alliance. Click on the link at the foot of the preamble to read the rest of our statement of principles.

The Euston Manifesto

A. Preamble

We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not . . . .

B. Statement of principles

1. For Democracy. We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures — freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold.
2. No apology for tyranny. We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand", reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy — regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.
3. Human rights for all. We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context . . . .
4. Equality. We espouse a generally egalitarian politics. We look towards progress in relations between the sexes (until full gender equality is achieved), between different ethnic communities, between those of various religious affiliations and those of none, and between people of diverse sexual orientations — as well as towards broader social and economic equality all round. We leave open, as something on which there are differences of viewpoint amongst us, the question of the best economic forms of this broader equality, but we support the interests of working people everywhere and their right to organize in defence of those interests . . . .
5. Development for freedom. We stand for global economic development-as-freedom and against structural economic oppression and environmental degradation. The current expansion of global markets and free trade must not be allowed to serve the narrow interests of a small corporate elite in the developed world and their associates in developing countries . . . .
6. Opposing anti-Americanism. We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world . . . .
7. For a two-state solution. We recognize the right of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution . . . .
8. Against racism. For liberals and the Left, anti-racism is axiomatic. We oppose every form of racist prejudice and behaviour: the anti-immigrant racism of the far Right; tribal and inter-ethnic racism; racism against people from Muslim countries and those descended from them, particularly under cover of the War on Terror . . . .
9. United against terror. We are opposed to all forms of terrorism. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime under international law and all recognized codes of warfare, and it cannot be justified by the argument that it is done in a cause that is just . . . .
10. A new internationalism. We stand for an internationalist politics and the reform of international law — in the interests of global democratization and global development . . . .
11. A critical openness. Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the "anti-war" movement with illiberal theocrats), we reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left. We reject, similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right . . . .
12. Historical truth. In connecting to the original humanistic impulses of the movement for human progress, we emphasize the duty which genuine democrats must have to respect for the historical truth . . . .
13. Freedom of ideas. We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty to criticize ideas — even whole bodies of ideas — to which others are committed . . . .
14. Open source. As part of the free exchange of ideas and in the interests of encouraging joint intellectual endeavour, we support the open development of software and other creative works and oppose the patenting of genes, algorithms and facts of nature. We oppose the retrospective extension of intellectual property laws in the financial interests of corporate copyright holders . . . .
15. A precious heritage. We reject fear of modernity, fear of freedom, irrationalism, the subordination of women; and we reaffirm the ideas that inspired the great rallying calls of the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century: liberty, equality and solidarity; human rights; the pursuit of happiness. These inspirational ideas were made the inheritance of us all by the social-democratic, egalitarian, feminist and anti-colonial transformations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries — by the pursuit of social justice, the provision of welfare, the brotherhood and sisterhood of all men and women. None should be left out, none left behind . . . .

Read more.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. War party bullshit

"The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted — rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.

This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country. We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one's energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi "insurgency". The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values they profess."

http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=1

[Jack Rabbit]

5. I direct you to my post in the UK forum

There was also some cricism there of the Manifesto as watery stuff. However, I will issue the same challenge to you. Come up with your own statement of principles, offer it to a few hundred souls and see if it comes out any less bland.

Please take you time. I'll be away until about 3:30 pm PST.


This may sound a little bland on your side of the Pond, but as a statement of principles it holds quite a bit of appeal to me as a Yank. Here in America, our main problem right now isn't moving forward to social democracy; we will feel it an accomplishment if we can just rescue what democracy we had before the 18 Brumaire of G. W. Bush. And, btw, when I see stories like this one in today's Observer, I begin to wonder just how far behind us you are on that primrose path to yuppie fascism that Mr. Blair seems to have you.

As a framework for long term action, this may not work very well. As a statement of broad principles and even some short term action, it works for me. Of course, as a Yank, anti-Americanism holds no special appeal to me; I think the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, a marvelous document. I have advocated on the I/P forum a two state solution; there is no workable one-state solution that won't precipitate a major humanitarian crisis. I have argued in other discussion forums that, since Bush is no conservative in the sense that Goldwater was, that we make an alliance with sober conservatives to stop Bush's yuppie fascism. That is no different than the French Resistance making an alliance with General de Gaulle, who was by no stretch of the imagination a political progressive, in order to rid France of Nazi occupation.

The realm of political action is no place for uncompromising idealists. I have never accepted Lenin's fairy tale about the withering away of the state. A political action is made to solve a problem. The action it defined by what is necessary to achieve a desired end and what resources are available. What it is over, the end is never quite the same one that was envisioned in the first place. Consequently, far an ideal world at the end of the action (as Lenin would have it), we have instead a new set of problems that need solving. Defeating Hitler in 1945 gave rise to bipolar Soviet-American power and the Cold War. Ending the Cold War gave rise to American hegemony, neoconservative imperialism and, as a result of the American alliance with right wing Mujahideen, Islamic terrorism. When neoconservatism is defeated, a there will be a new set of issues with which to deal that will grow organically from the waste of the previous struggle.

The question is; what is important? To me, what is important is democracy. Democracy is a state where:

• Citizenship is universal. Each person born within the boundaries of the state is a citizen, as is one born abroad to at least one citizen parent or who swears allegiance to the state in a rite of naturalization.
• Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence public affairs. Every adult citizen shall be enfranchised with the right to vote. Decisions are made by a majority voting based on the principle of one man/one vote.
• Citizenship is inalienable. A guaranteed set of civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs. No citizen may be stripped of his citizenship or otherwise punished by the state for expressing any point of view, no matter how unpopular or even absurd.

We could extend democracy to mean social democracy, in which the state intervenes in the economic realm to assure that a certain equality of social conditions, which in turn assures conditions ripe for this kind of open, civil discourse. But that intervention can still be anything from New Deal programs to government ownership of all means of production.

What I would challenge those critical of the Euston Manifesto to do is to suggest what changes might be made in them. Let's see if we can agree on a set of principles that's better than this one. There only a couple dozen of us to discuss the matter; there were hundreds of voices that were heard to make up the Euston Manifesto. Writing a set of principles by committee is not as easy as it sounds. If the Euston Manifesto seems "bland" to some, perhaps it is because it was arrived at in a democratic process.

[TheBaldyMan]

6. Dear JR, I accept your challenge with great pleasure.

I agree that you deserve at least decent length post of rip-roaring lefty polemic. Could you give me a couple of days for my response ?

I am not a gifted writer so I am forced to re-write most of my stuff several times before I am remotely satisfied with it.

I was thinking of starting a post in the UK forum to allow discussion as to what should go in to a manifesto or a bloggie call to arms. I think there would be a lot of input from the regular posters, I sometimes have the impression we are all fit to explode at the mere mention of Blair and his criminal cabinet. I feel that this would be a creative and productive outlet for our frustration.

I think a few hours is a bit optimistic as your US constiution took decades of wrangling before it came out in it's earliest ratifiable form, I'm willing to give it a try.

on edit: I'll try and get at least a preamble in time.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. OK, Great

Drop me a PM when you're ready.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. They are about as left wing as Tim Russert.

I read their little document. What a pile of crap. Oh sure they wrapped it with all sorts of unobjectionable feel good progressive banalities, but the core of the document is straight war party revisionism: it is John Kerry's 04 campaign theme - we will fight the Great War better than the other side of the War Party.

A bunch of war party leftists/liberals/whatevers have figured out that they got it quite wrong regarding Iraq. Some of them have simply 'fessed up and admitted their mistakes, others are desperately trying to restructure their war party ideology to fit the obvious disconnect with reality. This bunch of asshats is in the latter category.

No thanks, or rather the Euston Group can, as the Brits say, fuck off.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Discussion on the UK Forum

Please click here.

[T_i_B]

8. We live in changed times. The Euston group, alas, does not

Article by Martin Kettle which I think hits the proverbial nail on the head.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1758763,00.html

You will have to read the Euston Manifesto in full for yourself. Likewise the churning arguments that are developing about it on commentisfree.com and other weblogs. You are entitled to ask how much any of this debate, launched in the New Statesman a week ago, actually matters in the wider scheme of things. In one sense, not much. A small bunch of people have got together and written a political manifesto which a number of other people disagree with. Exercises of this kind litter the history of the left - and few of them have left much trace on the rest of the world. They bring to mind a line in Tom Stoppard's play Travesties about a meeting in Zurich in 1917 of an organisation called Social Democrats for Civil War in Europe. "Total attendance: four. Ulyanov, Mrs Ulyanov, Zinoviev, and a police spy."

It isn't difficult to pick holes, including large ones, in the Euston group's work. For something that apparently aims at creating "a fresh political alignment", theirs is a surprisingly loosely drafted document. They have little to say about some very large issues, most notably economics in general and the place of markets in particular. Their agenda only marginally overlaps with what day-to-day politics and government in Britain are overwhelmingly about. Reading it this week, just when our politicians have been saying important things about the health service and the environment, it is striking that Euston says nothing at all about either.

When I started out on this article, I thought that I would be more sympathetic to the Euston Manifesto than has turned out to be the case. Ultimately, that is not because the manifesto has got it wrong on individual questions but because, in the end, it does not really address the kind of society that we live in and the kind of politics that is appropriate to it. One forms no picture of what the good society, as seen from Euston, would look like. I can see why it may choose not even to mention Tony Blair, but the failure even to address what has been happening in this country under a moderate progressive government for nearly a decade is extraordinary.

Instead the focus is all on reclaiming a British left which is obsessed with the past, has nothing important to say about the future, and for which only a small minority are ever likely to vote. But what precisely is the point of that? The anti-war movement was right about the war but wrong about everything else. The debate that counts in Britain today is in the centre, not on the left. The Euston Manifesto half acknowledges that we live in these changed times. But too much of it seems like an argument about the ownership of a corpse.