Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>
> There's more to say but I'm out of petrol.
Let's see if I can take another couple of steps (forward) with this. First, I have to say that this is one of the most confused pieces of thought/writing it has been my misfortune to read in a while. So confused that it defies a systematic critique.
At the deepest level, the writer confuses the sense of liberalism as a capitalist economic program (that opposes state intervention and places its faith in free markets) with liberalism as a political/social ideology that depends upon state intervention (in a class society) in order to support equality of opportunity and the achievement of a meaningful and free personhood. It is true that there were several historical junctures where these two forms of liberalism forged an uneasy but dynamic and sometimes progressive alliance, but that time is now past and in its neo-liberal form the freedom implied in "liberality" means nothing more than freedom of capital with everything serving this... in order for "freedom" and "democracy" to exist generally. Just as in the past empires were forged to bring the natives into the light and grace of god (wink); they are now forged in order to bring the natives into the light of democracy (that is, free markets). The U.S.S. Enterprise boldly goes where no man has gone before.
Having confused these two things, nothing else really makes sense to this author nor can he make sense of much. I found myself thinking "Say what!!!!" after each paragraph, so.... There is also the nonsensical, misleading mushing of "liberal," "leftist," "radical," "Trotskyist"....
Now I'm just going to point to a few things for a look-see, which stood out for me; I do think the "fear of the liberals" is an interesting slant and that this essay speaks a truth -- though obliquely and despite the author's intentions:
"The faith of [liberals and leftists]...is no longer guided by the light of justice but by the darkness of evil."
This does describe political strategy for the last twenty five years and is true in different ways for liberals and neo-liberals: that is to say neither can actually point to a positive social project because this is not possible under capitalism -- therefore, the bogeyman must be brought forward because fear is a time-tested way of linking people and of making them obey.
"Today's liberal believes there is only evil, and progress is measured by the distance we put between ourselves and that evil."
See my comment above; but actually this better describes those leftists whose mode of political action becomes the cultivation of a pure life, who can afford the luxury of doing nothing, and who dare call it virtue.
for leftists in the sixties..."the goal was to eliminate or overcome fear...this required not only courage, but also an idologically grounded hope for progress. Without an answering vision of social justice, no one would make the journey. Many contemporary liberals have given up that hope, turning what a previous generation saw as an impediment into a path. Fear is no longer an obstacle but a crutch, a negative truth from which liberalism derives its confidence and strength."
Fair enough, but it implies that the leftists of the sixties are the liberals of today. This may be true in some cases, but it may be truer and more important to say that the (neo)liberals have grafted the radical rhetoric of quasi revolutionary times unto a regressive political and social program.
"When policy in the Balkans was driven by moral motives, it was often driven by narcissism. We intervened not only to save others, but to save ourselves, or rather an image or ourselves as defenders of universal decencies."
See my comment above. He confuses what the ruling class dic (mass bombing) with how it was rationalized in terms of an old rhetoric of innocence and liberation.
"Bosnia became the latest bel espoir of a generation that had tried ecology, socialism, and civil rights only to watch all these lose their romantic momentum."
Say what???? Is he talking, say, about Bill Clinton here. Was old Bill a disillusioned fighter for eco, socialism, and civil rights? WHO is he talking about?
"...they export a revolution not in order to save it but in order to evade it [at home]."
Say what? They may be talking about "exporting a revolution" but all they're doing is waging criminal wars.
"Since the 1960's, liberals and leftists have been beaten at the polls and routed in the streets."
Huh? Notice the conflation of liberals and leftists and notice the hopeless confusion of the assertions here. What exactly does it mean to say that liberals and leftists were "routed in the streets"? This is all utter nonsense. Moreover, and most importantly, if they were so soundly defeated, WHY was it necessary for the neo liberals to cloak their regressive policies in the "revolutionary" rhetoric of the sixties? If in fact no one believed in a just social order anymore, why was it still necessary to pretend that this is what we were aiming for?
Aaaaaagh. Anyway. I'm going to stop here because it's like fighting with pudding.
I've got a Narayan novel waiting for me.
Oh, but wait, I was intrigued by "fear of the liberals." I think there's a grain of truth in that. If by "liberals" we mean those people who are sufficiently well educated to claim to subscribe to a progressive social and political agenda in the abstract (independently of where their kids go to school), I would say that yes, they are afraid; they are afraid because we are down to brass knuckles and what is required is not just pretty ideals and clean hands but a lot of very hard work and personal risk in a world in which you are either "with the program" or close to or on the sidewalk. What is required is that they ally themselves with people who are poorer, more desperate, less educated, and somewhat skeptical of the liberal's superiority.
Joanna