<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV> <H1 align=center>In Search of Michael Walzer by James B. Rule</H1> Michael Walzer's "Can There be a Decent Left?" sends a disturbing message, both about his state of his mind, and the course he seems to chart for Dissent. Despite elements of agreement--for example, on the need for a military response against the perpetrators of 9/11--I find the attitudes, assumptions and directions underlying his statement profoundly disappointing. I can't respond at length here. But let me register a few points in brief. The statement consists largely of sweeping and bitter disparagement of a vaguely defined category identified only as "the left". Members of this "left" are said to consider "any hint of patriotic feeling as politically incorrect". They had "difficulty in responding emotionally to the attacks of September 11", or they even experienced "barely concealed glee" at those hard blows. One would think that the author had special powers to see into the hearts and minds of his political antagonists. In fact, such extremely serious charges should never be made without attribution to specific persons, and without evidence to substantiate such attributions--quotations or observations of specific deeds at specific moments. No doubt some specific advocates of the policies Michael Walzer faults experienced such moral failings. Let him identify them by name. The insinuation that criticism of America's military activities necessarily stems from lack of concern for American suffering or failed patriotism places Michael Walzer in the worst of company. That idea is unworthy of Dissent. In 1995 Timothy McVeigh, with many fewer resources and far less wit than the terrorists of September 11, killed 168 of his fellow Americans. We will never know all the grievances underlying that barbarous act, but they apparently included resentment against some grave abuses of American power within this country--notably, needless killings of unarmed citizens by federal forces. As far as I can recall, no one has held that continued objections to those abuses imply sympathy for McVeigh or his actions. Perhaps there is a lesson here for all of us. And who are "the left" that Michael Walzer disparages? I thought that we of Dissent, too, help constitute the left. Most Dissent editors and writers, as far as I am aware, feel that a military response to Sept. 11 was essential. Those horrific events have certainly brought to light bad thinking and bad politics in some circles on the left--apt targets for critical comment. The same events have also focused attention on many another unseemly reality in all sorts of geo-poloitical quarters--equally worthy targets for our critical faculties, if only we don't relinquish the latter to Michael Walzer's righteous obsessions. You can see that Michael Walzer is losing just those critical faculties when you read his musings as to whether there can be "a decent left in ....the only superpower?". As usual in this sort of overheated special pleading, you lose the argument, if you accept the premises of the question. The questions we ought to be asking include: Do we want to live in a world dominated by a 'superpower'? By any superpower? By the kind superpower being created under our political noses by Bush and company? Doesn't the world deserve better than the sort of high-handed Pax Americana emerging around us? Doesn't Dissent have anything so say about alternatives to never-ending world domination by this sort of power? Particularly disturbing in this lapse of critical instinct is the drift toward support of American unilateralism. In fact, America's ascendancy as the world's Big Enchilada is not the only historic recent development in international affairs. Of perhaps even greater potential significance is the hesitant but unmistakable rise of multilateral, supra-national institutions for resolving grave world issues. We see new forums and organizations beginning to play positive roles in prosecuting human rights violators, fighting climate change and global pollution, mediating and peace-keeping in regional conflicts, and other settings. These efforts, inevitably far from fully satisfactory at the outset, deserve our deep interest and critical support. The Bush administration consistently seeks to undermine or bypass them. So, apparently, does Michael Walzer. I can't believe that "Can There Be a Decent Left?" is written by the same Michael Walzer whose work I've so much appreciated in Dissent and elsewhere--the Walzer of subtle distinctions and humane judgment. I hope that we get the good Michael Walzer back. Otherwise, despite his words to the contrary, I fear that Dissent is becoming a one-note magazine. And if I discern that note correctly, we'll have to change its name. James B. Rule Port Jefferson, N.Y. 6 March 2002 </DIV></BODY></HTML>