Gary Trudeau, Iraq, Liberals in Historical Perspecitve

[Paul <paul_@xxxxxxx>]

I realize it is just a name\category, but I do think that 'Liberalism' (or
center-leftism, if one prefers) in the question of an international empire
has proven to be an enduring and useful category.  Isn't there a clear line
of thought from Gladstone (on India) to Mitterand (who sent in the French
troops to Algeria but with the local Haqis) to the dilemma dividing the
Democrats on Iraq?  The key points of a liberal approach to international
dominance include:
- Maintain the dominance;
- indirect rule with 'generous' arrangements to local elites (if need be,
create those elites)
- use reforms in maintenance of indirect rule/loyal elites.  Particularly
reforms that are financed at the expense of feudal/semi-feudal economic
structures (e.g. land reform), or rentier arrangements (e.g.
corruption).  Enlightenment-era social reforms should also undermine those
'traditional' economies.  Help the poor, but as support for the political
arrangements and mostly financed from rents or wages.
- Avoid wars wherever possible - for moral and practical reasons. (costly,
brutal, and shifts power to domestic conservative opponents).  But fight
them willingly if 'necessary'.
- Be 'flexible' with dominance.  Be prepared to go to 2nd best strategies
(but maintain ultimate dominance).
- Never lose the moral high ground of humanitarian principles and an
enlightened approach.  Emphasize win-win arrangements.  Benefits to the
locals, sharing with other would-be dominating powers to mutual benefit.

[In today's world of spin and 'crossover', Bush often tries to capture
these points in rhetoric but I think it is fair to say that the effort is
pretty thin.]

My comment to Louis would be that he is being too 'generous' to the
pro-Iraq war people he named to call them Liberals (Michael pulled this on
me the other day).  They WERE once liberals.  When the country shifted
right they became, at best, Centrists - prepared to swing back and forth,
particularly on the principle of avoiding "unnecessary" wars.  Why let them
keep their label of 'liberal' when they have betrayed a clear tradition
going back to the enlightenment?

And that is the point about Iraq - it is an entirely illiberal
war.  "Unnecessary" and "unenlightened".
In that sense it is different than Vietnam (although it has killed fewer,
so far, ).  Liberals (as distinct from moderate leftists) were mostly being
consistent in their initial support for the Vietnam war, which was
"necessary" IF Vietnam was to be kept divided and partly within the US
orbit.  Allowing those who supported the Iraq war to call themselves
Liberal is historically untrue (and I would argue tactically unwise, but
that is another question).

Hence the dilemma the Democrats now face. Only the deus ex machina of WMD
('We were told it WAS a necessary war) allows them to a avoid a
Centrist/Liberal split before the election.  And that is why Kerry has such
difficulty with the hypothetical question: 'now that you know, what would
you do'.  To my mind calling these people Liberals only blurs the issue.

What is happening now among the US elite is fundamentally *different* than
cold war liberals acquiescing to 'necessary' wars.  And it is happening in
virtually EVERY element of U.S. relations with the ex-2nd/3rd worlds.  [The
abandonment of liberalism in the international economic realm would be
another discussion.  But it is a point even Stiglitz makes in his book
about the Clinton administration.  Even when 'National Security' is
threatened.  Compare the vast liberal mobilization to 'stop Communism' in
Asia by 'reaching' the poor and 'redistribution'.  It is remarkable that
there has been no such call today for in the Mid-East (not even a serious
effort to see the Mid-East's own oil income redistributed).

Paul

Louis and Jim D wrote:

> > Of course liberals are warmongers. The entire liberal establishment
> is  lockstep behind John Kerry who voted for the war and promises  to win
> it in  speech after speech. That is what is so disgusting about the David
> Corns and Gary Trudeaus of the world. They back the same policies as
> yahoo George W. Bush, but use dovish rhetoric. In the 1960s the entire
> liberal establishment was for a "negotiated settlement" while B52's were
> leveling Vietnam.<
>
> A major problem here is that the word "liberal" is extremely ambiguous.
> Does it include, say, the PROGRESSIVE magazine? all of the folks at the
> NATION? or what? It's an abstraction, not a real-world phenomenon. Not
> that I'm against abstraction, but it's too easy to hate people tagged with
> such labels without being specific. Self-styled "liberals" vary a lot. I
> think it's better to attack the individual positions that "bad" ones hold
> rather than getting involved in personal criticisms.
>
> "Cold war liberalism" (of the sort that Phil Ochs lampooned) is a pretty
> good abstraction to describe the dominant political trend of the U.S. from
> World War II to 1990 or so.  NB: here "liberal" is used in the old U.S.
> sense of typically involving support for labor unions and a welfare state
> of sorts. Hubert Humphrey may have been the exemplar. It was watered-down
> social democracy, reflecting the weak state of the labor movement.
........