|
At the level of emotion & instinct, liberals & socialists have much in common. They differ, however, in their view of how to move towards goals that both recognize as worthy.
Liberals and socialists are in accord, for example, in their gut-level apprehension of what's wrong with George W. Bush. Both see him as a criminal, a gangster, a liar, & a sadistic sociopath. Both perceive that his government is dedicated to the raping & pillaging of the many for the benefit of the privileged few.
The difference between the 2 groups' analyses can be appreciated by dividing what's wrong with Bush into two categories. One category is inseparably bound up with bedrock features of the social order. The other category, meanwhile, is separable from the assumptions undergirding the social system. It can thus be discussed without explicit reference to the structure & characteristics of the existing social order. In particular, features of Bushism that fall into this category can be criticized SAFELY -- ie, without venturing into areas considered taboo in our society; without risking offense to the powerful.
To illustrate: the Iraq fiasco can be criticized on two levels. The "safe" level consists of the following types of criticism: "We should have had UN support before going in. We should not have engaged in unilateralism. We should have verified that our pre-war intelligence was sound. We should have had an exit strategy & a viable plan for winning the peace. We should of course always support our troops, & not put them in harm's way unnecessarily. We should have had reliable estimates as to how much the operation would cost. We should have promptly repaired civilian infrastructure."
All these criticisms are easy to make within the conventional framework of American commentary. All of them have some degree of merit & truth; none would be deemed "shocking" or "controversial." These are the kinds of criticisms that liberals are willing to make. Their charm is that they blame only the GOP administration, while saying nothing at all about the underlying American social order.
However, to criticize the Iraq invasion as a thoroughly predatory & criminal enterprise is to cross the invisible line of taboo. To say that the war was predicated on a massive lie, & executed with the conscious intent of plundering Iraq's oil wealth to win billions for Halliburton, Bechtel, & US oil companies -- this is an entirely different type of criticism. To say that the military-industrial complex has become so malignant a force that its requirements now dictate foreign policy -- this is no longer "safe" criticism. To say that the US media were fully complicit in promoting the US regime's pro-war propaganda, & that this can be understood as relating to favors that the media giants receive from the Bush administration -- this, too, is the kind of criticism that socialists will make, but most liberals will shy away from.
The difference is that while "safe" criticism contains some limited elements of truth, it runs away from the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that atrocities like the Iraq war are in many ways direct consequences of the very structure of our society. (The Bush presidency itself is also a direct consequence of the structure of our society.) A capitalist society will always be characterized by an unequal distribution of wealth. This inequality will tend to increase over time, as wealthier citizens learn to use their wealth to buy political power; then use that power to rewrite laws to secure themselves yet more wealth. Such a society will always wind up with a tiny elite class that owns the government & uses it for self-enrichment. The elites will always try to appoint barbarian thugs like Bush to act as their sheriff. (He is perfect for the job -- willful, wonderfully ignorant, incapable of shame or reflection, probably unable himself to even know when he's lying.) And when a limitlessly greedy oligarchy sees the chance to use the US military as its own private army, to seize Iraq's oil riches like Al Capone's hitmen seizing a cashbox in a shakedown -- it's inevitable that such a project would go forward, because there's no social force to stop it. No other outcome can be expected from a plutocracy, with all power concentrated in a tiny group at the top.
Criticisms of Iraq-style war drives such as "We should act in concert with our allies" or "We must have an exit strategy" etc are feeble & ineffectual because they avert the eyes from the heart of the matter. They are scared to go where the truth lies. They are "Antiwar-Lite." In contrast to these easy, risk-free & feeble types of criticisms, full-bodied opposition to the Iraq war must encompass the category of criticism that looks directly at the aspects of our social order that made the war inevitable.
Taboo or not Taboo, that is the Question...
The line that demarcates taboo in society is interestingly positioned. It sits where it sits, because as long as one remains on the safe side of it, one is not challenging the fundamental character of the prevailing order. When one crosses the invisible line, when one violates unspoken taboos, it is BECAUSE one is now challenging some fundamental interest of the existing order. That's why the room suddenly grows quiet when you cross the line -- everyone knows immediately that you're challenging something powerful; that you've stepped onto dangerous terrain.
To stay forever inside the invisible line of taboo -- to stay always on its safe side -- is to surrender to the status quo. It is synonymous with an implicit promise to refrain from challenging privileged elements of the established order. Conservative interests are quite pleased with the status quo; indeed, they largely define it.
Liberalism, on the other hand, is predicated on the idea that society's current structure is just about right; & that all we really need is a bit of tweaking. This is why most liberals find it easy to voice the "Antiwar-Lite" arguments, yet studiously avoid the more penetrating category of antiwar arguments -- the ones that bring into question basic features of the social order.
This is why Democrats have so often let Bush off the hook (failure to fight the stolen election, failure to press for 9-11 &WMD investigations, etc). They do not want to "destroy" him. To be sure, they would like to defeat him in an election. But they have no interest in supporting any process which will bring him down in a way that shakes the basic power structure of US society. They do not want any exposures of anything that might irreparably discredit Establishment institutions in the public mind.
Liberals are those who want a better world, but are unwilling to speak truths that threaten the privileges of the established order. This political stance limits most liberals to a permanent state of weakness -- always feeling, with justification, that they are more compassionate than conservatives; but at the same time, always confined to speaking limited & partial truths. Liberals are unable to expose conservatives for what they really are, because in upholding the norms of the established order; in timorously shying away from any criticism challenging or threatening to that order, they obey limits of speech that conservatives have set for them.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
