[Peace-discuss] The Nation betrayed

Mon Feb 22 21:09:35 CST 2010

As an example of Berube's serious derangement, the quote below was written by him in the Chronicle of Higher Education, November 29, 2002. This is somebody who is considered an academic superstar. Cary Nelson, one of his local cronies, has a blurb on the cover of Berube's book that Carl referred to. These are both highly respected individuals in "cultural studies."
I think it's important for the antiwar movement to know exactly what we're up against in dealing with liberal academia, among other things. Both Alterman and Gitlin have academic sinecures. We shouldn't be surprised.

DG

"And yet I find that, even as I have deep respect for all the tens of thousands of people who have signed a September "Statement of Conscience," put out by Not in Our Name to oppose war in Iraq, I cannot quite join them, even though I, too, oppose the war (and endorse most of the statement). Partly that's because the statement condemns the U.S. strikes in Afghanistan, which (yes, I know) killed civilians and failed to capture Osama bin Laden, but which also destroyed the Al Qaeda terror camps, brought down the Taliban, and (even more important) slowed down the growing radicalization of Pakistan -- a radicalization that, ideally, should be opposed by all secular democrats. It's on the latter grounds that I supported the war in Afghanistan.
But mostly I cannot sign Not in Our Name's statement because it declares, in its third sentence, "We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers." It's a euphonious phrase, to some ears, but what happens, may I ask, when a "nation" decides that its "destiny" lies in the extermination of a "people"? The sentence reads like a leftover shibboleth from Kosovo, when one wing of the antiwar left devised the argument that the United States and NATO had no business intervening in a matter internal to Serbian affairs. That antiwar faction crafted a new "sovereignty" rationale that, in my opinion, turned its back on decades of left internationalism in order to oppose U.S. military action in Kosovo in whatever terms came most readily to hand.
The appeal to "sovereignty" sounds fine to many leftists when it's a question of defending developing nations from the United States (nations that should be "free from military coercion by great powers"). But should that principle be applied when Saddam Hussein kills Iraqi Kurds? Or when Milosevic kills Kosovar Albanians? Or when Suharto kills the East Timorese, or Rioss Montt the indigenous Guatemalan Indians, or Hitler the Jews? Nazi Germany saw the killing of Jews as absolutely central to its "destiny," but one would not want to have seen a sane and serious left defending the enterprise on those grounds. I would prefer to see great powers exercising military coercion to prevent such nations from determining their own destiny (especially in cases like Suharto and Montt, whose regimes the United States had supported), and I would be all the happier if the great powers did so in my name.
I have dear and trusted friends who tell me that I'm reading the Not in Our Name statement far too closely, that I'm turning into a caricature of a literary theorist parsing the textual resonances and antecedents of a document whose primary purpose is simply to rouse people to action. The charge hits home: Perhaps I am just an armchair activist, sitting at home in my study, jawing over the fine points of texts, when I should be organizing teach-ins and rallies. After all, I know the antiwar movement in the Vietnam era began with a handful of loopy Maoists and did not win the hearts and minds of most Americans until the early 1970s. And we forget all too easily just how courageous it was for Martin Luther King Jr. to declare that he wasn't gonna study war no more at a time when the declaration placed him far to the left of establishment opinion.
But sometimes even armchair activists have their place. I believe the legitimacy of the leading antiwar groups is a real issue, for two crucial reasons. The first is pragmatic: The antiwar movement is never going to be a mass movement if it is led by defenders of Milosevic and the Shining Path. The second is moral: It would be a terrible dereliction of duty if American intellectuals, whether in their studies or on the streets, failed to ask about Americans' rationale for opposing this war."

________________________________
From: unionyes <unionyes at ameritech.net>
To: Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
Sent: Mon, February 22, 2010 7:06:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Nation betrayed

Carl and David,
'
I did some brief research on this Michael Berube character and his new book you mentioned.

What a piece of work ! ( or should I just say what I really mean.... what a piece of SHIT ! ).

Him and that Tim Wise fellow who wrote that stupid article right after Obama's election ( " The Election of Obama and The Rage of the Barbituate Left " ) that I was compeled to answer with my own article.

These two must belong to the same neo-liberal elitist psychophant ( ass kissing )club.
Hoping to obtain praise and fortune from the corporate  ruling class via their attacks upon real champions of the people and anyone who wants more democracy, economic justice, and an end to corporate globalization and imperialism.

I would LOVE to get in this guys face if he ever somes back to C-U to speak publicly !

David J.

----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: "David Green" <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at illinois.edu>; "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The Nation betrayed

> I agree entirely with David on Alterman & Gitlin (and I would add ex-local boy Michael Berube, who desperately wants to get into that club with his new leftist-bashing book, "The Left at War").
> 
> David puts the matter accurately and elegantly: "The ideological distinctions I'm getting at are not fine ones. They're fundamental: principled egalitarianism and democracy on the one hand, unprincipled authoritarianism and elitism on the other."
> 
> I won't go quite so far as he, however, on the question of allies. Include the libertarian right, certainly (and the squeamish reluctance of some liberals to admit that Ron Paul et al. are principled opponents of the war does them no credit), without necessarily categorically excluding the "so-called liberal left."  They have some funny ideas, but they may be educable.  (And that last sentence applies to both groups.)  --CGE
> 
> 
> David Green wrote:
>> Mort, the angst to my anger is that in terms of political strategy, the antiwar left is going to have to realize that its allies are on the libertarian right, not on the so-called liberal left. This becomes more glaringly obvious when you look at the views of someone like Alterman regarding Israel/Palestine. If the purpose of a political journal is as a basis for organizing, then I'm really serious about making these distinctions clear. The record of people like Alterman and Todd Gitlin in the run-up to the Iraq War also makes it clear: they served primarily as leftist-bashers. The ideological distinctions I'm getting at are not fine ones. They're fundamental: principled egalitarianism and democracy on the one hand, unprincipled authoritarianism and elitism on the other.
>>  DG
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
>> *To:* David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
>> *Cc:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>; Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> *Sent:* Mon, February 22, 2010 12:14:30 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] The Nation betrayed
>> 
>> It should perhaps occur to you that perhaps Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill (and others) continue to see the usefulness of /The Nation,/ and that is why they write for it. They are not stupid. As for Cockburn, who knows what goes on in his strange head: He has his own publication, so why continue writing for /The Nation?/  Finally, instead of just lambasting Alterman, it would be more useful if you told why you consider him an idiot. I suggest you subscribe to the English editon of Le Monde Diplomatique. They need support. --mkb
>> 
>> On Feb 21, 2010, at 1:15 PM, David Green wrote:
>> 
>>> After doing some research on the work and views of Eric Alterman this weekend, a regular Nation columnist, I've come to the view that people like Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill should (for good tactical reasons) seriously think about taking their work away from any possible association with this idiot. Hitchens was at least honest enough to become an official neocon. The Nation should not be supported or taken the least bit seriously on the Left, and I suspect Cockburn would rightly agree in spite of his association.
>>>  DG
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>
>>> *To:* Peace-discuss List <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>>
>>> *Sent:* Sun, February 21, 2010 11:16:30 AM
>>> *Subject:* [Peace-discuss] The Nation betrayed
>>> 
>>> The Nation magazine has moved steadily to "the center" from an earlier left-liberal position for some years now. They embraced neo-liberalism in the days of Bill Clinton (delicately referred to as a "DLC Democrat"), and some of us condemned them for doing it.
>>> 
>>> But it keeps getting worse. As Doug Henwood of the excellent Left Business Observer points out, now not only has The Nation "given a column to the execrable Melissa Harris-Lacewell, they've cut Alexander Cockburn back to once a month ... These moves together have the net effect of moving the magazine to the right and reducing the quantity of stylish prose close to zero."
>>> 
>>> With The Progressive joining the Israel Lobby in its condemnation of Norman Finkelstein, the current mode of official liberalism in the US continues on its regime-supporting way, providing only token opposition ("We have free speech!") as the Democrats (and the Republicans) move ever further right.  Toadies.
>>> 
>>> --CGE
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and
>>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>>> believed to be clean.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss 

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100222/99dabb62/attachment-0001.html>