Intellectual Conservatism and Class Bias against Soldiers

[William S. Lear]

On Tuesday, May 11, 1999 at 19:40:41 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes:
>Nathan Newman wrote:
>
>>My frustration in these discussions is that basic arguments I make are
>>distorted, not because I think the anti-bombers are of bad faith, but
>>because there is a resistance to any argument that does not follow
>>traditional left orthodoxy.  The lack of understanding (or
>>misrepresentation) of the argument is just the sign of that intellectual
>>conservatism.
>
>Nathan, this is the same trick that Camille Paglia and Hilton Kramer have
>deployed with depressing frequency and success: spinning a conventional
>opinion as somehow freshly transgressive and counterhegemonic. The U.S. is
>the world's dominant power; most of NATO's members are its junior partners.
>They have nothing in common with the PLO or the IRA or any other plucky set
>of initials you want to compare them to. If calling imperialist war a bad
>thing makes me conservative and stuck in some old orthodoxy, so be it.

Well, it's not only that, is it?  I mean, does "the Left" really
support terrorism by the IRA or the PLO??  I certainly do not, and I
suspect most who oppose the NATO campaign on principled, as opposed
to pragmatic, grounds do not either.

This is another slimy trick that Nathan is well-versed in employing.
Avoid actual argument and bring up a surrogate and hazy "Left" with
which to do battle.

Terrorism is never justified.  Every person and group has a right to
self-defense in my book, but not the right to attack civilians.  I
might allow destruction of property (I don't consider the LA riots or
Palestinians hurling rocks terrorism) but killing people is out of
bounds.

Bill