On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Nathan Newman wrote:
> Yet when Austria elects a racist xenophobic party riddled with
> ex-Nazis to government, we are supposed to advocate "mockery" as the
> solution, rather than mobilization of political tools to isolate the
> country?
There are, of course, no ex-Nazis in this government. Ex-Nazis are all too old for that. There was, however, an ex-Nazi in Bruno Kreisky's socialist government, which is still generally considered one of Austria's best.
I think liberal and leftist Austrians tend to think of Haider the same way that liberal and leftist Israelis think of Sharon or liberal and leftist Americans think of Jesse Helms -- awful, and yet part of the landscape. And I'm completely unconvinced this isn't something they should tackle themselves.
If denouncing from the outside were helping progressive forces in Austria, or weakening rightist forces, then it could conceivably be supported. We might then argue about other aspects of intervention and symbolic politics. But when such intervention clearly does the opposite of what we want, then I don't see how it can be defended. Defending something that is counterproductive because it is morally pure seems like the opposite of everything you have ever argued for in the realm of domestic politics.
And frankly, I don't think this is that morally pure. When Austrian denounce Haider, and more power to them, it's a means of remembering and of coming to terms with their history. But when we denounce him it's a means of forgetting, of trying to make our own evils seem pale by comparison. After all, we think a guy that dropped napalm on village children is a war hero because he suffered afterwards. It's jawdropping gall for the US to say that Haider's comments that some SS members had honorable intentions are so awful we can't bear the sight of him.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com