Michael Pugliese wrote:
> Heh, I'll be coy and divert that query and ask what
> was, "anti-Sovietism"? Another time, I'll answer
> that, as there are many types of anti-Americanism,
> some more than justified, others incredibly ignorant,
> obscurantist, demogogic and incoherent.
Then why not use the words "ignorant, obscurantist, demogogic and incoherent" instead? What does anti-Americanism ad? Take sanctions. Like Raimondo, I disagree with Rahul's about-face on sanctions after the war, and think the term "genocide" was overwrought. But I opposed them. That doesn't mean I believe America is the root of all global ills.
Anti-Americanism is far too often a pejorative for anti-imperialism, the more severe foreign policy uncle of being "politically correct". This a time when saying the US should use torture is to ask "hard questions" of or "rethink" US power, whereas questions of that power's legitimacy are evidence of anti-Americanism.
In Raimondo's piece, which does make some solid points about a UN occupation, anti-Americanism is apparently a crime of the Left, not paleocons or nationalists on the European right:
> Anti-Americanism is the anti-interventionism of
> fools. And it is rooted in anti-capitalism. [thus,
> Common Dreams are "Commie Dreams"]
And internationalism is among it's motives:
> The sheer absurdity of the left-turnabout on
> sanctions underscores the inherently nonsensical
> internationalism that is the emotional and political
> core of left-consciousness. Workers of the world,
> unite: militant idealists who find such slogans
> attractive are likely to find irresistible a crusade to
> "make the world safe for democracy." What is their
> chief concern? Not America, not their home city,
> town, or state, but the world! The evil of war requires
> a large canvas. Dangerous idealists are nearly always
> global in their aspirations.
And as is so often the case with an anti-anti-American piece, Raimondo closes with:
> But one important point needs to be made. As the
> embodiment of the one and only successful
> libertarian revolution in history, the United States
> is by its very nature a potentially liberating force
> in the world. The idea that no good could possibly
> come of this war is obviously wrong. But it is not
> far off the mark, either, and needs only to be
> amended: Nothing good for the U.S. can come of
> this war. All the benefits, such as they are, will
> be reaped in Iraq, by the Iraqis, while we pay and
> pay, in human lives and treasure looted from the
> private incomes of Americans. We spread liberty
> – or some deformed version of it – abroad, and
> nurture tyranny at home: that is the price of our
> rulers' internationalism, and we'll be paying it for
> some time to come.
Notice that? "the United States is by its very nature a potentially liberating force in the world". That's classic nationalist bullshit, and that's the very Americanism nullified by the prefix.
The few dolts who literally read the US as the first cause of despotism and oppression the world over are like batteries for the automatic hammer of anti-anti-Americanism that never yields to the rest of us. They are neither limited to nor representative of the Left.
I've meet Rahul in person a few times over the past few years. He's an often sensible guy, neither ignorant, obscurantist, demogogic nor incoherent. His politics are basically straight-up Chomsky. Of course, David Horowitz proclaimed Chomsky the "ayatollah of anti-American hate". The word excites David about as much as "Treason!", and isn't so different in meaning for him, either.
-- Shane
________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!