[lbo-talk] Liberalism and preemptive evil

[Carl Remick]

>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Carl Remick wrote:
>
>>[A couple of items here about Peter Beinart, champion of a  resurgent 
>>liberalism that recognizes the evil of the new  totalitarianism emanating 
>>from radical Islam, which requires  liberals to take all actions necessary 
>>to combat this evil "even  when their moral purity is compromised in the 
>>effort."  Beinart is  an excellent example of what irredeemable assholes 
>>liberals are,  and he is a timely reminder that liberalism remains perhaps 
>>the  greatest lasting threat to peace and democratic values the world  has 
>>known.]
>
>I'm confused. If Beinart says that liberals have lost the world  because of 
>their intense squishiness, how is liberalism the prime  threat? Isn't 
>Beinartism a greater threat?

Beinart himself is a liberal -- a proud avatar of what the Sun article I 
clipped identifies as "the much besmirched Cold War liberalism of President 
Truman, George Kennan, Hubert Humphrey, and others."  What Beinart inveighs 
against is the liberalism that, according to the Sun, is "what Arthur 
Schlesinger Jr. once called 'doughface liberalism' ... liberals [who] oppose 
terror and totalitarianism but recoil against taking any necessary steps to 
defeat it, fearful that their moral purity might be stained in the process." 

  It would be accurate to view these as two different isotopes of 
liberalism.  The Cold War variety is by far the more stable isotope.  
Doughfaced liberals are highly unstable (witness the Iraq war) and 
constantly at risk of casting off their scruples and decaying into Cold War 
liberals red in tooth and claw.

Carl