These three blogs have all drawn attention to the dichotomy between the strange habits of angry Left-wingers online as reported by The Washington Post and the tone and content of the Euston Manifesto. There is something deliciously satisfying about seeing the wilfully stupid wax hysterical at the thought of a few people meeting in a pub, writing down what they think about the world, and then asking some other people if they’d like to talk about it. Though, yes, occasionally there’s a twinge of pity for those driven mad by being caught on the wrong side of history—as you’d feel watching a rabid dog chew at its own leg.
16Apr06 — 22
Here’s an amusing example.
There is something deliciously satisfying about seeing the wilfully stupid wax hysterical
i agree.
so, by all means, please continue your hysterical waxing.
I’m doing music shop posts today, but you could try this:
or this:
or this:
The real problems with the Euston Manifesto are
1. It is list of desires such as the rule of international law and support for democracy which are then contradicted by support for the illegal actions of Bush.
2. A refusal to engage in debate, linked to this is an attempt to paint all critics as stupid or rabid or racist or anything apart from discuss the issue at hand.
3. I really fail to see in what way you are a pro war left wing group. What is the basis for this?
I am open to discussion and changes of opinion, and am genuinely curious particularly about point 3 but i really can’t listen to any more name calling.
happy monday
david
1. There isn’t a single point in the document where we express support for any action by (presumably George W.) Bush. Even those of us who opposed military intervention in Iraq believe, however, that the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime should be welcomed and we say so.
2. I’m debating with you right now (having just finished writing a patient email reply to someone whose first criticism of the document was that a signatory, Marc Cooper, is “a phoney”).
3. That’s good. We aren’t “a pro war left wing group”.
All cleared up and no name-calling required.
Happy Monday to you too.
i suppose it would be crazy to ask if you can refute the statistics in your first quote. i don’t know WTF the second guy is saying at all – seeing as he’s going on about politics in a country of which i am, ahem, not a citizen. but the third guy’s written a whole lot of right.
your manifesto is nothing but wankery: a sustained attack on an army of strawmen. you rail at your imaginary “Left” for page after page, all the while while decrying “The Left”‘s politization of things. idiocy.
the fact that your “manifesto” reads like a puffed-up PNAC statement makes your line above about “the left” being on “the wrong side of history” even more hillarious. those guys haven’t been on the right side of a damned thing.
and, if you knew anything about the US, you’d know that the word “manifesto” is still very much associated with that crazy terrorist, the Unabomber. good word choice… if you want your first impression to be that of a crazy person! and to top it off, the Unabomber’s own “manifesto” is much more interesting reading – since Ted Kozinski was actually insane and not just a pathetic armchair imperialist.
Thank you, cleek, for making the case about the sorry state of contemporary Left-liberal debate better than any of us ever could. I salute you and your fellows on the Web. You’ve helped to make it a stunningly successful four days—for me and for all the other wankers.
so, let’s sum up: no, you can’t counter the statistics in the first quote; no, you can’t defend yourself against the third quote; and no, you can’t defend yourself against the accusation that the bulk of your “manifesto” is a strawman argument. furthermore, in all the boards you’ve been posting at today, not once have i seen you defend anything in your screed, even when presented with substantive arguments – instead, you simply moan about name-calling and incivility while tossing out your own silly generalizations – more strawmen. yes, Kettle, that’s one black Pot.
and people are supposed to take you seriously when it comes to foreign policy ?
Compare my response to david clayton with my response to you. Can you not see the futility of debating the merits of a case with someone who has already dismissed it as “nothing but wankery”?—just as an invited essayist at the Guardian’s “Comment Is Free” site begins by saying that every word of the manifesto is a lie. What kind of logical argument can I offer to someone who starts from that premise? What is there left to discuss?
hmm
1. the logic of supporting the overthrow of saddam is dangerous as it should be a function of international law to do this not individual nations.
“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.”
Will you say the same about the fall of the regime in Iran? or any other country that Bush decides is worthy of another illegal invasion. And given the approach of the Bush regime how are you going to persuade them to start using international law?
2. In this document you criticise the left for “anti-americanism” but even you say
“That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people.”
well i am not prejudiced against them. I just want america to start upholding international law instead of ignoring it when they feel the need. I would like to see america as a force for law and democracy not just the armed wing of international capitalism. I can’t see this happening under Bush.
3. I thought you couldn’t be left wing. So is this an attempt to establish some new political position?
The document says nothing about Iran.
And the American people are fortunate enough to live in a country where their president’s term of office is limited by the constitution.
We disagree.
Yes, and to reaffirm some old ones.
The document is an acceptance of the benefits of the illegal invasion of iraq. I was asking if you will hold the same position after another illegal invasion of Iran, or anywhere.
The fact that Bush was elected does not mean that he is any less contemptuous of international law. Neither does your point really answer mine as i was criticising the the way america conducts itself.
Is there not a contradiction between being left wing and excuse making for the bad behaviour of this Bush regime in the last few years?
that’s a cop-out. defend your screed or disown it.
What kind of logical argument can I offer to someone who starts from that premise? What is there left to discuss?
more cop-out. that Guardian piece is followed by dozens of comments, many of which are perfectly legitimate criticisms. and no, your responses here aren’t very good either.
some criticisms you’ve been busy not answering:
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
who are these people? you give no examples in your text. i don’t know of any, and i don’t feel compelled to try to prove your point. conclusion: strawman.
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…
which you write in the middle of a screed against,that’s right, political opponents at home.
….and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi “insurgency”.
again, who is observing this “tactful silence” ? lefty American bloggers everywhere decry the loss of American life every time we lose one of our countrymen to this stupid war. of course the Iraqi insurgency is to blame – and lefty bloggers were predicting this very outcome ever since W’s first hints of invasion. of course there was going to be an insurgency, a terrorist field day, and very likely a civil war. what did we get for the prediction? scorn from the likes of you.
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.
again, who’s dishing out anathema and excommunication here? you are, of course.
and that’s just two paragraphs!
while not every word in your screed is a lie, the bulk of the assertions and insinuations are dishonest, unsupported or outright strawmen.
Even if I considered western military action in Iraq illegal, should I wish for the return of the Ba’athists?
And I am saying that the document takes no position on that loaded question.
And anyone who signs the manifesto is also free to do so. We certainly do.
That’s another loaded question. I don’t excuse “bad behaviour” whoever is responsible, but neither do assume that my position on the political spectrum and/or the identity of an actor in question should determine my view of the goodness or badness of his or her actions. One of the reasons I contributed to the manifesto was to reassert the importance of distinguishing between doer and deed.
I owuld be interested to hear arguments that the invasion of Iraq was legal. The UN certainly didnt think so at the time.
The point about Iran is loaded but is at the heart of this debate. We opposed the iraq invasion and said it would go wrong. We are now invited to acccept the fait accompli and look to move forward. Well i find it hard to move forward if we have to accept the possibility that the usa could repeat the Iraq trick and that we will be accepting another fait accompli. Unless international law is respected by america we are oging to get a lot more chaos. Living in Dewsbury I don’t have to fo far to see this. The actions of America have effects on the streets of the north of england as well as many other places.
And i dont judge actions on the basis of politics. The american treatment of their prisoners is despicable because of the way they are treating them not because they are american. BUT it also undermines their claim to be a democracy which in turn weakens their global position. This does not mean that the other leaderships are not badly behaved – many are – but we have a right to expect america (and Britain) to behave in a legal and democratic way. Under Bush they do not.
So, in short, if Al Gore was in power the streets of Dewsbury would be safer?
too late to be doing this but……
Anthony, the behaviour of America affects what happens on many streets. Whether Gore would make a difference is difficult to say, but it is the role of the left to oppose illegality in international relations. Unilateral action does not help.
Rob. It was a thought out response. You might not agree and it might be crap but i had thought about. Images of shackled prisoners in cages given no trial and all the rest of it allow those who really are anti-american to persuade other people they are right. Democracy is not just voting it is also the rule of law.
Secondly the comparison to make is not Kosovo but Gulf War one. I wasnt comfortable with that but did support it. But think of the difference. An international coalition reacting to a clear breach of law and the whole lot with UN support. Compare that with the recent mess. Maybe it is possible to construct an interpretation of the events that would allow legality to be claimed. I am not sure but, make the comparison to the first war. The lack of clear legality again gave strength to many anti-american groups. Bush is playing a dangerous game in his assumption that he does not need international legal justification to do what he wants because, like it or not, it fans the flames of many violent groups in many different places.
So there are no self defined liberals and socialists who uneqivocally support the ‘insurgency’ in Iraq? try these, and they’re just for starters
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/08/why-i-hate-liberals.html
“Why hide behind official misrepresentations about the Iraqi resistance working for a “fundamentalist ideology” when you know damned well they’re fighting a guerilla war against an occupying enemy?”
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14
“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.”
I could find you several (hundred) from Georgy boy and the rest of the StWC leadership, but George himself has said that he isn’t a liberal, it’s just that no one believes him.
[…] The United Nations or the United Nations Charter, the bedrock of the present international humanitarian law, is mentioned nowhere in the manifesto. So in what way and by what means do they propose to reform “international law” to allow humanitarian intervention? Such action is illegal under the present regime. And that’s why the failure to consider the centrality of the UN or a replacement body is such an unexpected lacuna. “Internationalist politics” must be based on some international organisation; only one body exists to deal with the issues raised by this part of the manifesto and that’s the UN. And the idea that the Charter of the UN is likely to be amended, in the way the signatories require, is fantasy. Intervention would only be undertaken by powerful individual states or powerful groups who would be free to define the “common life” as they wish. Even torture, murder and slaughter are words not without their own definitional difficulties. We have seen just how Blair and Bush have lied about the WMD in Iraq, and how the US Attorney General has refined the meaning of "torture". And what on earth is meant by “minimal” in “minimal sense"? And what evidence is to used to confirm the precursers for intervention are present? And a start- list of those states that almost certainly fall within Euston’s sights: China, Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe. I hope the signatories who appear not to have grazed in knee in battle to be first in the queue to join the fray. Some hope! This part of the manifesto appears to have been the result of too much boozing in that pub where the authors met. But reading this by one of the boozers, they did not mean to be taken too seriously. Comments » […]
“Though, yes, occasionally there’s a twinge of pity for those driven mad by being caught on the wrong side of history—as you’d feel watching a rabid dog chew at its own leg.”
It’s that sort of pompous Alan Duncan style arrogance that puts some folk off the EM. Its pretty supremely arrogant assuming one is one the right side of history (and others not) when the history is not even written – and you’re not even an historian!
Like I wrote, I couldn’t make it up:
Gray:
Gray:
🙂
Yes, but in my defence I was just talking about a little web project, not the great sweep of history that you were talking about.