"Liberals on Terror" -- David Corn responds to Peter Beinart

[IrateCitizen]

Liberals On Terror
December 09, 2004

Do liberals need to stake out a position on Islamic extremism? Yes, particularly if we want to run for political office. TNR editor Peter Beinart suggests in this week's magazine that liberals should join in World War IV. Corn argues the liberal position should challenge—not embrace—the idea that Islamic militants pose an existential threat to the United States.

David Corn writes The Loyal Opposition twice a month for TomPaine.com. Corn is also the Washington editor of The Nation and is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).

As a columnist and blogger, I generally do not obsess (in print) over what other journalists are writing. I do make an occasional exception—say, for William Safire. But a few days ago, Peter Beinart, the editor of The New Republic , sent me an e-mail and asked for my thoughts on his cover story, “An Argument for a New Liberalism: A Fighting Faith.” Well, Peter, since you asked….

Beinart, in an ambitious (6,200 words!) fashion, has set out to define what makes for a good left, and for him there is one—and only one—ultimate measure: devotion to the war on terrorism. “The recognition that liberals face an external enemy more grave, and more illiberal, than George W. Bush,” he writes, “should be the litmus test of a decent left.” And guess what? Most present-day liberals fail his test. By most liberals he means Michael Moore and MoveOn—which he depicts as leaders of a “soft” left reminiscent of the lefties of the 1950s and 1960s who did not define themselves first and foremost as anticommunists. In fact, Beinart is attempting, in a way, to reprise the bitter catfight that dominated (or, to some, consumed) the left in the post-World War II decades, during which anticommunist liberals battled with leftists who were communists or who were sympathizers or who were willing to work with communists or who were not willing to mount witch-hunts to toss commies out of their organizations.

Beinart’s heroes are the members of the Union for Democratic Action, a liberal outfit that banned communists from its ranks and renamed itself Americans for Democratic Action. Its leaders included John Kenneth Galbraith, Eleanor Roosevelt and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. The ADA declared that vigorous opposition to communism—an ideology “hostile to the principles of freedom and democracy”—was the first duty of liberals. Beinart approvingly quotes the columnists Joseph and Stewart Alsop who proclaimed that “the great political reality of the present” was “the Soviet challenge to the West.” At the time, other liberals—such as the editors of The Nation and The New Republic —eschewed militant anticommunism

I’m not interested in replaying the fights of the 1940s and 1950s. It’s clear that some on the left were slow (or unwilling) to see the evils of the Soviet Union. But the direct threat to the United States and its citizenry was certainly exaggerated by the anticommunists of the Cold War years. Beinart gripes that “three years after September 11 brought the United States face-to-face with a new totalitarian threat, liberalism has still not ‘been fundamentally reshaped’ by the experience.” He hails many on the right for dropping their isolationism and embracing George W. Bush’s war on terror. But American liberals, he writes, care more about health care, gay rights and the environment and have no “passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda—even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions” and would “reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.”

READ THE REST HERE: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/liberals_on_terror.php

[sandnsea]

1. Fighting a smarter war

I do think the Democratic Party needs to confront terrorism. At the same time, we must look at the mistakes we made in fighting communism when we went along with the Republican agenda and "put the struggle against communism at the heart of a new liberal worldview." One of the sad results was the Vietnam war. N Korea has been alienated from the world community, the people of that country have suffered horribly and we are now faced with a nuclear threat. The fight "against totalitarian Islam" has put us in the same situation with Iran.

We spent massive amounts of money on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; only to spend more amounts on destroying them. And then turn around and begin another era of nuclear weapons building under Bush. We are told the cold war is over, but with Putin in charge, is it really? If we didn't have the bogeyman of terrorism, would we simply find ourselves enthralled in a heightened sense of animosity towards Russia? Eisenhower also warned about the military industrial complex, have we succumbed to it?

John Kerry put terrorism at the center of his campaign as well. Those of us who followed the campaign closely understood that he intended to fight terrorism in a similar manner that we fought communism. Not through massive military spending, which did not win the Cold War; rather through "calls for civil rights and civil liberties". We win these wars not through might in the end, but by pulling people to our side because of our ideals.

[DinahMoeHum]

5. In similar vein, Vietnam was a tragic distraction from the Cold War

as Iraq is now a tragic distraction from the "war on terror".

:smoke:

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. David Corn = Patriot / Peter Beinhart = Hatriot

[ewagner]

3. Thanks

It was a fairly long read but well worth it.

I took some exceptions to Peter Beinhat's article yesterday although not for the same reasons as Corn does. My opinion is that we have to bring the debate over terrorism (Islamic and otherwise) back to the basics and steer the conversation away from the the premise that military might is the only tool for engaging the threat.

Oh well,.....I'm used to being a voice in the wilderness.

[StClone]

4. Why play offense ?

In a few years Defense will not be the big deal it will be Health Care, Economy (jobs, debt) and fair elections.

[Metrix]

6. I ignore TNR

Halliburton Deals Recall Vietnam-Era Controversy
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1569483

The Power of Nightmares
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

I think Beinert is just carrying water for that other "I" country in the Middle East, and that the WOT is largely manufactured, even though US actions may now be inspiring isolated acts. Remember Rumsfeld et al exaggerated the "Soviet threat" the last time they were in the administration. Now Russia is getting stronger and we're on the brink of financial collapse.

[Briar]

7. Hear! Hear!

The Cold War and Viet Nam, The "war" on terror and Iraq, they're exactly the same con trick played by the same forces for the same reasons.

[KoKo]

8. David Corn is on the mark with this article. Some of us have been

critical of Corn in the past...but this article appropriately casts Beinart's article in the spotlight...And he tears it apart. Beinart's article is another in a long list of columnists, pundits who want the Democratic party to be "navel gazing, and flogging our selves in repentance for not seeing the Great OSAMA TERRORIST THREAT. Beinart urges us to go back to the "Cold War Mentality" and open our eyes to the NEW ENEMY!

Go Away Beinart....I lived throught he Cold War and know that the Repugs kept that stirred up so they could build the Military/Industrial Comples out of our salaries. We had a brief respite when the Berlin Wall came down...but the Repug Cold Warriors were at it again...working behind the scenes to get us into another Vietnam and then onto WWIII all to line their pockets. Anyone who can't see this...is inexperienced or a total idealogue...Beinart and others pushing this are both...UGH!!! UGH!!

Good for you DAVID CORN! Thanks!

[teryang]

9. Terrorism is the manufactured product of state sponsors

The manipulative goals of the string pullers are always more significant than the apparent actions of terrorists. These are merely the stage actors for the mythology the power brokers need to spin in the media to achieve their political objectives. They are usually three or four times removed from the nameless power brokers who set "them" in motion by manipulating security safeguards or simply by having proxies, surrogates or accomplices facilitate their objectives. Anti US terrorism is largely of the intelligence service manufactured variety. Much of the terrorism in Iraq is probably generated by our side or by our "allies." The systematic killing off of intellectuals in Iraq is one such example.

The intelligence services of the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan play a far greater role in terrorism than the proponents of Islamic totalitarianism would have us believe. But there are real terrorists in the world. Syria and Iran have terrorists networks too, of course. Their object of attention before Iraq was primarily undermining Tel Aviv. Now we have unwisely sought to dishonestly generalize that fray to a universal level by invading and occupying Iraq.

Without the cover and rationale of terrorism, states would be limited to the ponderous motions of conventional military movements. Those are not subject to deep cover or plausible denial. Critical observations of the movements of missiles and armies are not susceptible to charges of spinning conspiracy theories about bogeymen. Well that truth cannot be concealed indefinitely as shown by the WMD fiasco. The "war on terrorism" knows of no such limitation. It is always there to fall back on, regardless of reversals in the field.

The first echelon of terrorists are those who are wronged or consumed by the need for revenge. The second are those who like to play god and are willing to work for anybody and seek personal reward from conflict. These are the professional sociopaths who believe they are manipulating the manipulators. Higher levels involve the house of mirrors for corrupt machiavellians, the intelligence services of the aforementioned nations. The real target isn't Washington or the Pentagon, it's the totalitarian objective of complete and total power which mythology of millenarian conflict entails. The totalitarians are already in the executive offices of our nation and our allies. Ground zero isn't the WTC, it's your wallet and your freedom, in that order. Their intelligence services and their terrorist pawns are their tools.