Euston Manifesto comment Macleans article by Andrew Potter

[Sothy]

http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/columnists/article.jsp?content=20060731_130905_130905

"The purpose of the Euston Manifesto is, essentially, to save the left from itself."

worth reading btw as it points that their is a growing concensus for liberalism to move beyond the extreme liberal/green meme trap that is discussed on this site a lot.

[Dialectic]

worth reading btw as it points that their is a growing concensus for liberalism to move beyond the extreme liberal/green meme trap that is discussed on this site a lot.

Haha, and by "a lot" you mean by me, and to a lesser extent, by you :P

(I'll read the article soon.)

[Dialectic]

What a terrific article! This is a lucid argument coming from a clear second-tier cognitive structure. It targets EXACTLY the pathologies of the Greens/ liberals/ leftists/ Mean Green Meme.

And as the article mentions, and as Wilber and other high-performance/ high-end cognitive people have been saying, this type of thinking is on the rise, and both this article and the Manifesto itself are excellent indicators of this.

I'm gonna cut/paste the whole thing here so we have it after they take it down.

July 24, 2006

Saving the anti-war left from itself

In the 'jihad vs. McWorld' model, terrorism is just an extreme bit of culture jamming

ANDREW POTTER

Have you heard the latest out of England? A commitment to the institutions of democracy. No excuses or apologies for tyranny. A two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. An affirmation that the United States is a great country and nation.

These notions may seem common sense, bordering on banal. Yet they have caused quite the ruckus within the British and North American left. They are key tenets of the "Euston Manifesto," a statement of broadly left-liberal principles cooked up last spring by a collection of London-based journalists, activists and academics. First published in the New Statesman in early April, the manifesto was officially launched on May 25 (and is available online at eustonmanifesto.org).

The purpose of the Euston Manifesto is, essentially, to save the left from itself. It is an attempt to draw a clear line between the social-democratic liberal left and the anti-war left, the latter of which has, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, made common cause with tyrants, excused terrorists, and -- in some cases -- sold out the rights of women to reactionary theologians, all in the service of a single-minded opposition to the United States. Enough, write the authors of the Euston Manifesto: "We must define ourselves against those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic 'anti-imperialism' and/or hostility to the current US administration."

While it has been greeted with considerable hostility by the anti-war left, the manifesto now has more than 2,100 signatories, and it has attracted the support of some very heavy hitters, including Julie Burchill, Michael Walzer, Paul Berman, and McGill sociologist Morton Weinfeld. Yet it is worth retracing some steps, to see how the Anglo-American left got itself into a situation where it became necessary to affirm a commitment to freedom of thought and to stress that the United States is indeed a democratic country.

By the time of 9/11, decades of countercultural politics had conditioned many people to see just about every major political problem as a consequence of mass society. Since the sixties, the left has been committed to the idea that a repressive and hegemonic System -- variously understood as Capitalism, Empire or Patriarchy -- is the single greatest threat to global freedom. This led to the widespread adoption of a "jihad versus McWorld" intellectual template, which explained the attacks of 9/11 as a natural and somewhat justifiable reaction to globalization. Its greatest folly was that Islamic terrorism, while deplored, was interpreted as an extreme form of culture jamming, with suicide bombers being merely the most committed members of the anti-globalization movement. The left followed a similar path of thought when it came to understanding the American desire to topple Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in Iraq: the invasion was immediately linked with a dystopian narrative of suburban excess -- it was about providing a steady and cheap supply of oil to fuel the gas-guzzling SUVs that symbolize all that is odious about American consumer comfort.

Out on the partisan playing field, importing the countercultural schema served to turn the debate over how to deal with Islamofascism into yet another skirmish in the culture wars. This was most obvious in the U.S., where the presidential election of 2004 quickly degenerated into another national referendum on the Vietnam War. But this way of thinking has also spread to the U.K., as that country tries to come to grips with its own suicide bombings, with the added complication that the 7/7 terrorists were homegrown boys.

In her new book Londonistan, Daily Mail journalist Melanie Phillips tries to explain how London came to be the major organizing centre in Europe for radical Islam. Playing up the culture wars theme, Phillips contents herself with blaming the usual countercultural villains: feminists, multiculturalists, university professors, and so on. While it is certainly true that many people in these groups have been dangerously sympathetic toward Islamic fundamentalism (especially since 9/11), Phillips has no real explanation for why this is the case. All she offers is the weak and superficial claim that they share with the terrorists a hatred for the decadence of Western capitalism and freedoms.

Shallow as these claims are, they are unanswerable by the anti-war left. Why? Because Phillips is simply engaging the left on the terms of debate set out by the left itself. In the current culture war, if you're not on the side of McWorld, you must be backing jihad.

It is to the credit of the authors of the Euston Manifesto that they reject this Manichaean view. In a sense, they constitute a revitalized, 21st-century version of what the old French socialist LÈon Blum called the "third force": a collection of social democrats, trade unionists, and like-minded people who would marginalize the radical left by staking out a position that was firmly and unapologetically liberal.

The Euston Manifesto has a number of flaws. Some of the principles, such as the vague and woolly-headed commitment to "equality," bear all the signs of negotiation and compromise. Others, such as the pro forma criticisms of the WTO, the IMF, etc., suggest that the authors have not yet made their peace with the market economy -- a key element of liberalism as it is traditionally understood.

Still, that the manifesto exists at all is a hopeful sign, not only for the left, but for anyone who believes that liberalism is the West's great political gift to the world. It is a sign of the ongoing crisis on the left that the manifesto was even necessary, and that it remains the subject of vicious debate.

To comment, email letters@macleans.ca

[poisenedrice]

Sorry for polluting the discussion, but would someone mind giving me a short primer on cognitive structures and these color codes used to describe them? Sorry, I would (and tried to) read the thread that describes Integral Theory in detail but 10-12 work days really can shorten a guy's attention span.

[Dialectic]

Very short version:

People and societies develop. They develop along many lines: for example, physically, cognitively (the ability to see other people's points of view), sexually, morally, artistically, mathematically, etc.

Phases of development are universal and cross-cultural, when you're looking at the deep structures. For example, fundamentalist Christians, and Islamic militants, Maoist rebels, though very different and probably blood enemies, are all working from the same moral and cognitive space: ethnocentric mythic membership.

A summary of the phases of moral/ cognitive development:

Beige: Survival. Food. Post-puberty, sex.

Purple: Magic. Animism. Mountain gods, closet boogiemen, monsters under the bed.

Red: Tribal. Foraging. The only people who matter are blood. Street gangs, African warlords, Mafia.

Blue: Mythic. I'm American and I love America. The Japanese are superior and destined to civilize the barbarians of Asia. If you're not Christian, you're going to hell. God save the Queen.

Orange: Rationalist. Capitalism will save us all. I believe in science and technology. I'm a materialist and proud of it! Only that which can be objectively observed exists.

Green: Postmodernist. Values are relative. You can't judge me. Don't label me. Don't oppress them with your ideas of what you think is right. Everyone deserves a voice.

Each of these levels has good healthy manifestations, and each of them has bad and really fucked-up manifestations. I've mixed both in my examples above.

Note that each level is more "inclusive" and compassionate and enlightened than the last.

Also, keep in mind these "levels" are fluid and are better thought of as "centers of gravity" and "orienting generalizations." They're not rigid and should not be treated as such.

So this article is talking about how fucked up a certain segment of Green postmodernists has become, and how we actually HAVE TO MARGINALIZE THEM to continue to develop in a healthy way. It doesn't mention how fucked up some of the Blue and Orange folks have become because, well, any left-winger, healthy or otherwise, can see that as self-evident.

And this is why he refers to a crisis in the Left. Unless liberals can get their shit together, Conservatives and Capitalists of all stripes are just gonna continue to steamroll over them. Hell, Greens won't even admit that this hierarchy exists. It's "oppressive" and "modernist" and "absolutist" and "elitist" and every other liberal charge you can think of, except they kinda don't acknowledge that they treat their own stances as better than everyone else's, which makes them "oppressive" and "absolutist" and "elitist" and all that.

This is why encouraging development beyond Green (to Beck's "Second Tier") is so important. We don't even have that many solid post-Greens on this board (less than 1% of the world's population!), though the number has been slowly increasing.

[Sothy]

btw, Andrew Potter has a PhD in philosophy from the University of Toronto...so he definitely has done some reading in his day (he is also currently teaching at Trent University in Ontario...at least a web search shows that).

if you do a search on the Macleans site you can see other articles that he has written for them, they are great IMO (pointing out the problems (back in 2004) with protesting the Rupublican conventions, Michael Ignatieff's stance on the Iraq war, etc.).

I'm definitely going to keep up on his articles.

[maogirl]

agree, great article. thanks, sothy.

*hides copy of "jihad vs mcworld"*

um, but totally unrelated, you'd be surprised how many good-looking pakistani boys you'll meet in london if you carry around a copy of that book.

[Sothy]

that would be an awesome book to take out of the public library...

oh, modernism (ie. the media constantly referring to the forces of modernism in the Islamic World), starts at "orange"...cause that's where rationality starts (so their culture war is between there is no hell vs. you are all going to hell).

Post-modernism starts at green (and our culture wars are a fight between the shift from modern (orange) to post-modern (green) values in a mass sense), but "yellow" (2nd tier) is also post-modern. So post-modernism is, obviously, a great thing. But like all movements, it starts out rough. As such, I am a (healthy) post-modernist. 8-)

(a good 25 percent of the US population is said to be at green vs. 10 percent worldwide...so, hey, you can see why the greens have the numbers in the States (vs. some other countries) to influence the majority).

[MATHABA]

i think this is BS.
is this the view of the old liberals, the old Jews who were always leftist but pro-Israel? that is what i suspect. i think this is wimpy liberal hogwash.
they are people who are hurt by what the right accuses them of. some idiot on AM radio says that all liberals support bin laden and these people get hurt and react by turning against the "bad leftists" who arent such wimps.

[poisenedrice]

^Well the article wasn't really about certain liberals getting their feelings hurt per se. Rather, it was about how there are a lot of liberals (who the author describes as the anti-war left) who have taken postmodern thinking to an extreme, ie "we can't judge Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists, we can't force our values onto them".

In a general sense, postmodernism is an enlightened perspective because we all have different perspectives on the world. However, reality doesn't always fit neatly into the worldviews that people hold - some perspectives are fundamentally immoral or wrong. Killing innocent civilians is wrong. Trying to destroy every Israeli down to the last man, woman and child is wrong. Wrapping these destructive behaviors in religious ideology does not change it. That is why the author was taking these liberals to task, because they have taken their perspective to an extreme where no one is ever accountable for their actions.

On the flip side, the author was also critical of members of the right that criticize the anti-war left, because their analysis is coming from an Orange level cognitive structure, which incidentally is less enlightened than postmodernism. This is why equating those who oppose the war in Iraq with terrorists is not only a shallow analysis, it is a criticism of a position that they cannot understand because they have not reached that state of enlightenment yet.

Keep in mind I myself haven't fully understood the article yet. Still trying to fully digest Integral Theory.

[Dialectic]

Good explanation, PR! You've demonstrated a very clear understanding of the basics.

think this is BS.
is this the view of the old liberals, the old Jews who were always leftist but pro-Israel? that is what i suspect. i think this is wimpy liberal hogwash.
they are people who are hurt by what the right accuses them of. some idiot on AM radio says that all liberals support bin laden and these people get hurt and react by turning against the "bad leftists" who arent such wimps.

Mathaba, you've grossly misinterpreted this article, and it's evident you've put very little thought and analysis into your post, which is unacceptable in this forum. PR explains what the article is getting at nicely above. If you wish to continue to participate in the Integral forum, I ask you to please give due consideration to your words and write from your highest (wisest, most reasonable, most enlightened) self.

The Left is in crisis because it's been hijacked by liberal extremists, and this has been happening since the 70s. It's been especially evident in the last few years in the Democratic party, where they can't seem to stand together or get their shit together and offer any real resistance to the numerous Republican power-plays that have happened over the last few years.

There is also a SIGNIFICANT contingent of the Left who, as the article says, are dangerously sympathetic to Islamic terrorists and are inclined to bash America and call it a fascist police state any chance they get. This article speaks against those people.

PR, I won't go into this too deeply here, but another interesting thing to note is that once you've reached cognitive/ moral green, where you're sensitive to contexts and relative values, it becomes much more difficult to make meaningful judgments and take strong stances (except for the meaningful strong stance that there is no meaningful strong stance). As such, an intense narcisissm can set in at Green, where you basically pick your values arbitrarily; Green, then, can actually mimic the behaviour of any of the preceding levels, through strong REACTIVATION of those values, which may lead to true regression. This is, for example, why so many hippy sensitive white folk get into magical concepts that come from purple/red like astrology and tarot and divination, even though these have zero predictive power (using them as metaphors for self-exploration is just fine, but that's not what a lot of them are doing).

There is a high probability that Green groups lose the cohesiveness of the levels that come before them, because they can't agree on anything and get anything done in a strong directed way, being generally anti-hierarchical, anti-marginalizing, and anti every -ism you can think of; they make sure, however, that everyone's voice is heard and respected, but can't go much further than that due to philosophical and moral limitations.

[cattygurl]

Don't know if this is appropriate here, so please split the thread if I'm out of bounds.

Fisr of all, Macleans is not considered "neutral" as a publication, it is considered one of the more neocon biased publication, especially after Kenneth Whyte took over. That does not mean that the article does not present salient insight, but that the viewpoint is going to be likely presented in a certain fashion that favors the bias.

One of the issues I have with many right-leaning publications is the play on the overhyped stereotype of the anti-war left as being a simple-minded anti-American Americans. The fact remains that even within the anti-war left, it's a small minority that is vocal- that sees simply along the lines of McWorld vs Jihad. The vast majority of people I have talked to that are anti-Iraq War are against it for multitudes of other reasons, not out of a simple hate for America and a fondness for Islam or anti-globalization. In fact, he's turning the talking point for the right into the left- which is a simple us vs them mentality- and I believe, inaccurate. One of the best talking point of the right is to distill any complex situation into a simple, easy to digest, us VS them type dialogue, and I think this is one of the examples of such.

The left followed a similar path of thought when it came to understanding the American desire to topple Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in Iraq: the invasion was immediately linked with a dystopian narrative of suburban excess -- it was about providing a steady and cheap supply of oil to fuel the gas-guzzling SUVs that symbolize all that is odious about American consumer comfort.

There are definite military benefits and also financial reasons to topple Saddam's Baathist Regime- while there isn't necessarily any of the corporate benefits that fall upon taking over and "spreading democracy" to other troubled hot spots in the world with far worse human rights violations. The issue that the anti-war people had with the Iraq War was because Iraq was never shown to be a threat to the United States, and one of the most obvious reasons was the undeniable corporate benefits (Cheney's links to Halliburton and their no-bid contracts, being one) that were clearly involved in the motivations for going to war. While the left does talk about choosing and raising fuel efficiency for cars, most talk about the connection between the environment and SUVs more. While there is talk of societal excess, it's not a simple "go to war to feed SUVs" mentality that he portrays.

In fact, most people that are active politically on the Left do love America, and do feel that it can be a great nation, but that government must be watched closely, rather than to assume that it will remain such simply on its own accord. Also, the US is seeing a crisis in terms of voting scandlas and irregularities. When a country is happy and willing to ignore serious voting problems, it cannot be called a great, democratic country.

This was most obvious in the U.S., where the presidential election of 2004 quickly degenerated into another national referendum on the Vietnam War.

His hint here is that it was a partisan left that had brought up the Vietnam War issue during the Presidential Campaign, when actually, it was the left that tried to speak based on the talking points of the right (praise war service), and failed miserably. The problem with the mainstream Left is that it's sadly trying to mimic the right and failing miserably, rather than being bold and differentiating themselves from the right.

And this is why he refers to a crisis in the Left. Unless liberals can get their shit together, Conservatives and Capitalists of all stripes are just gonna continue to steamroll over them. Hell, Greens won't even admit that this hierarchy exists. It's "oppressive" and "modernist" and "absolutist" and "elitist" and every other liberal charge you can think of, except they kinda don't acknowledge that they treat their own stances as better than everyone else's, which makes them "oppressive" and "absolutist" and "elitist" and all that.

I believe the crises in the Left has to do with their ability to spin (not good), as well as the move to become more conservative, which alienates the large progressive voters, while underwhelming and underimpressing the conservatives. I think many people do understand the importance of hierarchy- meaning important, core values. We just have a large group in the Left that is trying too hard to be the Right, rather than being extreme jihadist.

I'm not saying that there aren't fucked up elements on the left, and the left definitely needs to get their shit together. However, I think the simplification and stereotypical portrayal of the anti-war movement is a disservice and also inaccurate. The article is not without interesting insight, but I believe that it's based on an inaccurate premise- which is that the extreme Left is taking over the Left, which is not, at least politically speaking (or otherwise), true.

[Dialectic]

Don't know if this is appropriate here, so please split the thread if I'm out of bounds.

No worries, I appreciate the response!

Fisr of all, Macleans is not considered "neutral" as a publication, it is considered one of the more neocon biased publication, especially after Kenneth Whyte took over. That does not mean that the article does not present salient insight, but that the viewpoint is going to be likely presented in a certain fashion that favors the bias.

The types of articles/ thinking that we're aiming to look in this IS forum are not those which are "neutral" or "totally objective" per se, which is an impossibility anyway, but rather, those which have encompassing viewpoints: that is, those which acknowledge that all "sides" of an issue contain some truth, with varying degrees of partial applicability and depth. If a writer or poster demonstrates adequate knowledge of an issue and an appreciation of complexity, and in this case, socio-political trends, and arrives at a meaningful conclusion, we like to have it here.

One of the issues I have with many right-leaning publications is the play on the overhyped stereotype of the anti-war left as being a simple-minded anti-American Americans. The fact remains that even within the anti-war left, it's a small minority that is vocal- that sees simply along the lines of McWorld vs Jihad. The vast majority of people I have talked to that are anti-Iraq War are against it for multitudes of other reasons, not out of a simple hate for America and a fondness for Islam or anti-globalization. In fact, he's turning the talking point for the right into the left- which is a simple us vs them mentality- and I believe, inaccurate. One of the best talking point of the right is to distill any complex situation into a simple, easy to digest, us VS them type dialogue, and I think this is one of the examples of such.

As I tried to explain above, he's using it as a broad term to talk about left extremists, not the majority of the left. Also, anyone who is absolutely anti-war (no war under any circumstances except perhaps pure self-defense) would be considered extreme left for, I think, the purposes of both his discussion and ours. And no, he's not turning the debate into any us vs. them mentality. I'm not sure where you're getting that from, especially since his discussion specifically focuses on the fractured complexity of the left.

There are definite military benefits and also financial reasons to topple Saddam's Baathist Regime- while there isn't necessarily any of the corporate benefits that fall upon taking over and "spreading democracy" to other troubled hot spots in the world with far worse human rights violations. The issue that the anti-war people had with the Iraq War was because Iraq was never shown to be a threat to the United States, and one of the most obvious reasons was the undeniable corporate benefits (Cheney's links to Halliburton and their no-bid contracts, being one) that were clearly involved in the motivations for going to war. While the left does talk about choosing and raising fuel efficiency for cars, most talk about the connection between the environment and SUVs more. While there is talk of societal excess, it's not a simple "go to war to feed SUVs" mentality that he portrays.

What people in the left often forget, is there is also a MORAL justification for taking out Sadaam, namely, he killed over a hundred thousand Kurds. Add to that the strategic military and economic motivation, and there were very good, justifiable reasons for going into Iraq, though it was executed horribly, what with the lying and manipulation. At the same time, what else could the conservatives do? The UN and the left would not have allowed an invasion for any reason except for a direct attack by Iraq on someone, and ultimately, Saddam is an eviler bastard than Bush could ever be.

In fact, most people that are active politically on the Left do love America, and do feel that it can be a great nation, but that government must be watched closely, rather than to assume that it will remain such simply on its own accord. Also, the US is seeing a crisis in terms of voting scandlas and irregularities. When a country is happy and willing to ignore serious voting problems, it cannot be called a great, democratic country.

He's not referring to "most" of the left. He's referring to a certain portion which very much does exist. Also, yes, the US is experiencing a pathological conservative regression at the moment; yet here we are, saying anything we want on the net, getting fat, watching movies, criticizing anyone we please, not waking up every day afraid of getting bombed and shot up and dying of heat, thirst, or drought. And though this doesn't describe everyone in the country, it describes a heck of a lot you, moreso than in any other country. Hmm ....

His hint here is that it was a partisan left that had brought up the Vietnam War issue during the Presidential Campaign, when actually, it was the left that tried to speak based on the talking points of the right (praise war service), and failed miserably. The problem with the mainstream Left is that it's sadly trying to mimic the right and failing miserably, rather than being bold and differentiating themselves from the right.

I'm not sure that he's implying they brought it up, but I think his point has merit in terms of what the debate turned into. Also, the left knows that if they try a bold differentiation, they will lose votes. Please understand that the "left" exhibits, generally, a higher level of development than the right. 10% of the world, and 25% of the US, appreciates contextualism, liberalism, multiculturalism, whatever you want to call it. The other 90% of the US and about 70% of the world do not: they appreciate God, money, family, and consumption. Who is catering better to their needs?

I believe the crises in the Left has to do with their ability to spin (not good), as well as the move to become more conservative, which alienates the large progressive voters, while underwhelming and underimpressing the conservatives. I think many people do understand the importance of hierarchy- meaning important, core values. We just have a large group in the Left that is trying too hard to be the Right, rather than being extreme jihadist.

I'm not saying that there aren't fucked up elements on the left, and the left definitely needs to get their shit together. However, I think the simplification and stereotypical portrayal of the anti-war movement is a disservice and also inaccurate. The article is not without interesting insight, but I believe that it's based on an inaccurate premise- which is that the extreme Left is taking over the Left, which is not, at least politically speaking (or otherwise), true.

I don't think he was simplyfing or stereotyping; he was talking about a certain type of liberal who is contributing to the fractured nature of the left, something the writers and signers of the Euston Manifesto would agree with. Even this discussion is a sign of it; what is very obvious to Sothy, mg, and I, is deniable and even absurd to you, mathaba, and perhaps wuwei. That's a serious issue, isn't it?

[cattygurl]

The types of articles/ thinking that we're aiming to look in this IS forum are not those which are "neutral" or "totally objective" per se, which is an impossibility anyway, but rather, those which have encompassing viewpoints: that is, those which acknowledge that all "sides" of an issue contain some truth, with varying degrees of partial applicability and depth. If a writer or poster demonstrates adequate knowledge of an issue and an appreciation of complexity, and in this case, socio-political trends, and arrives at a meaningful conclusion, we like to have it here.

I don't disagree with this. I'm only saying that as with any publication, those that are right leaning tend to express things from that point of view and vice-versa. Again, it's not to say that the article isn't inherently salient because of the bias of the source or publisher- whether they be from the right or left- but that it's something to be considered as a generalization when reading ANY publication.

As I tried to explain above, he's using it as a broad term to talk about left extremists, not the majority of the left.

I don't think he was simplyfing or stereotyping; he was talking about a certain type of liberal who is contributing to the fractured nature of the left, something the writers and signers of the Euston Manifesto would agree with. Even this discussion is a sign of it; what is very obvious to Sothy, mg, and I, is deniable and even absurd to you, mathaba, and perhaps wuwei. That's a serious issue, isn't it?

If that's the case, he uses broad sweeping statements: "These notions may seem common sense, bordering on banal. Yet they have caused quite the ruckus within the British and North American left. " While there has been some discussion about the Manifesto, more among the academic circles, I don't think the major concept has been a huge issue with the mainstream left.

I think my POV may be somewhat different from those that live outside the country, but some mainstream and many right-wing constantly accuse all liberals of being left-wing extremists, with very little moderates. So, coming from that environment- I admittedly am very sensitive to the portrayal of the Left as it comes from the right. Also, ever since key legislation starting with the Reagan era, there has been an explosion of bias (more to the right) and lack of accountability is a broad spectrum of the media.

Yet it is worth retracing some steps, to see how the Anglo-American left got itself into a situation where it became necessary to affirm a commitment to freedom of thought and to stress that the United States is indeed a democratic country.

Even this discussion is a sign of it; what is very obvious to Sothy, mg, and I, is deniable and even absurd to you, mathaba, and perhaps wuwei. That's a serious issue, isn't it?

To a degree, I do think that it's important to stress a commitment to freedom of thought and a democratic country, because those fundamental ideals are being slowly ripped away in American politics. I think it's a different view for those living outside of the country vs those that actually live in it. The problem is that for those living in the US, it is slowly but surely walking away from the Freedom of thought/speech and democracy- so to assert that America as it is and where it's heading- even on domestic issues- has a commitment to democratic ideals is to ignore the problems we are facing at home, not just internationally.

What people in the left often forget, is there is also a MORAL justification for taking out Sadaam, namely, he killed over a hundred thousand Kurds. Add to that the strategic military and economic motivation, and there were very good, justifiable reasons for going into Iraq

I'm going to have to disagree on that on several different levels, but it's not quite on topic so we can discuss this in another thread if you're interested.

My point is simply this-if I wasn't clear before- that the importance and the power and the hyping of the extreme left is played up at the ignorance and denial of the moderate left in most media, so it's tiresome for some of us to hear another article about the extreme left, and insuating that they have enough power or clout to make a *real* difference overall in the political scheme. I also disagree that the Manifesto is a symptom of a crisis. When the Right decided to write up a Contract with America, very few ppl on the right saw that as a crises, but more a call and a revitalization. I also don't agree that debate over the Euston Manifesto is also a sign of problems. I believe that the Left has a lot of problems with cohesion and it ALWAYS will, but I believe that the differences within the left can be a source of our strength if harnessed properly- which I feel it is not. I don't feel that the manifesto is a way to save ourselves from each other, but more or less a healthy attempt to clarify matters, just as the debate surrounding it is also another sign of health.

Also, yes, the US is experiencing a pathological conservative regression at the moment; yet here we are, saying anything we want on the net, getting fat, watching movies, criticizing anyone we please, not waking up every day afraid of getting bombed and shot up and dying of heat, thirst, or drought. And though this doesn't describe everyone in the country, it describes a heck of a lot you, moreso than in any other country. Hmm ....

You don't live in the US, D. Yes, it's true that the majority of the population are doing exactly that- but we are also seeing rights ignored, denied and stripped away. Should we wait until this country is a fascist nation, or should we speak up before things get worse? I prefer the latter route of action, and consider that to be a smarter and moral course of action.

[cattygurl]

Let me just add that I find the article to be an interesting and valuable.

If I have to distill all my writing on 2 hours of sleep yammering into one sentence, I fundamentally feel that the Euston Manifesto and the surrounding debates is a sign of health, rather than a sign of crises.

One more:
The Euston Manifesto is a sign of the Left, IMHO, buying into the notion of the boogeyman extreme left- as a powerful minority (politically, it is not at all)- in the US political sphere (can't speak for those outside the US).

[Sothy]

edited for more info/clarity

btw, neo-conservative Canadian thought is different than in the States IMO or at least how it is put to use...hell, all three major parties in Canada actually had neo-liberal platforms during the last election (yes, I'm serious).

I vote that people stop using the "neo" label myself...

for more up to the date information about Andrew Potter you should check his website: http://www.braininavat.ca/

he is also the co-author of a book (which I have not read) called the Rebel Sell. The book criticizes both the right and the left...there is a link to a description of it off of his site.

(and yes, Potter has written for the "dreaded" National Post. But, remember, any author that is analyzing both (all?) sides is worth reading IMO...and like I said, the "neos" in Canada aren't necessarily "neo" in the USA...and vice-versa...some of your democrats are actually conservatives up here!)

[Sothy]

shoulda made it a new post...edited my short answer into a slightly longer answer that doesn't address much :) Just there in case people want to read more...(ie. I gave a link!)

[Dialectic]

Let me just add that I find the article to be an interesting and valuable.

I'm glad to hear it!

If I have to distill all my writing on 2 hours of sleep yammering into one sentence, I fundamentally feel that the Euston Manifesto and the surrounding debates is a sign of health, rather than a sign of crises.

It depends on what you mean by this. It is a sign of health in that it functions, in my opinion, as something of a wake-up call to the Left. It is, however, also an indicator of pathology in that this wake-up call is necessary at all.

Now, if you're saying that debate is a sign of health, then yes, I agree with you. At the same time, one of the ear marks of being something of a Leftist extremist is endless debate: it's like a meeting where everyone gets the chance to express his/her thoughts/feelings, no matter their level of expertise or commitment, takes five hours instead of one, and doesn't come to any meaningful resolution. Everyone recognizes everyone else's individuality and uniqueness, but no one can come to a meaningful general conclusion.

This, incidentally, is a big problem in academia and politics/ advocacy. I understand your criticisms of the article, saying that it's too broad, and that it makes too many generalizations, and the Left is composed of many sub-groups of many different opinions.

One more:
The Euston Manifesto is a sign of the Left, IMHO, buying into the notion of the boogeyman extreme left- as a powerful minority (politically, it is not at all)- in the US political sphere (can't speak for those outside the US).

[Dialectic]

Let me just add that I find the article to be an interesting and valuable.

I'm glad to hear it!

If I have to distill all my writing on 2 hours of sleep yammering into one sentence, I fundamentally feel that the Euston Manifesto and the surrounding debates is a sign of health, rather than a sign of crises.

It depends on what you mean by this. It is a sign of health in that it functions, in my opinion, as something of a wake-up call to the Left. It is, however, also an indicator of pathology in that this wake-up call is necessary at all.

Now, if you're saying that debate is a sign of health, then yes, I agree with you. At the same time, one of the ear marks of being something of a Leftist extremist is endless debate: it's like a meeting where everyone gets the chance to express his/her thoughts/feelings, no matter their level of expertise or commitment, takes five hours instead of one, and doesn't come to any meaningful resolution. Everyone recognizes everyone else's individuality and uniqueness, but no one can come to a meaningful general conclusion.

This, incidentally, is a big problem in academia and politics/ advocacy. I understand your criticisms of the article, saying that it's too broad, and that it makes too many generalizations, and the Left is composed of many sub-groups of many different opinions. I agree with this. Indeed, you made the same criticism of the brief Wilber summary of Integral Politics I posted a while ago; Wilber, in fact, goes into much more depth into "types" of Left and Right orientations (like, for example, "Order" and "Free"), as well as developmental levels, and he has worked closely with several influential political theorists and advisors, including Drexel Sprecher, Lawrence Chickering, Jim Garrison, Don Beck, and Jack Crittenden. They've worked with Clinton, Gore, Blair, and even George W., as well as consulting with retired statespeople, like Mikhail Gorbachev. Their models of political dynamics fit quite well with that of Wilber, and they all agree that it is okay to make broad generalizations, as long as one realizes that they are broad generalizations.

Another problem with extreme Left thinking is the refusal to make broad generalizations; knowing every inch of the terrain is okay when one is dealing in tactics and specifics; but to formulate strategy, one must take a bird's eye view, or one will not be able to formulate strategy at all. These people, and the person who wrote the article, is taking the bird's eye view. Without it, we wouldn't be able to say anything, except in cases of extreme specialization, which is what has occurred all over academia. Super-specialists are good; generalists who can work broadly across several domains are good too, and, I believe, will be of increasing importance in the future.

One more:
The Euston Manifesto is a sign of the Left, IMHO, buying into the notion of the boogeyman extreme left- as a powerful minority (politically, it is not at all)- in the US political sphere (can't speak for those outside the US).

The "extreme left" is no boogeyman: it exists, and it has dominated academic discourse for three decades, and it has had a massive influence on politics. Regardless of how much political/ economic clout the actual extremists wield, which I agree is probably not much, their ideas are still heard by millions over multiple generations, and more people buy into them than you might think. I have either personally encountered, or heard trustworthy accounts, of extreme left thinking in schools, social advocacy, unions, and even the U.N. in New York.

[Dialectic]

You don't live in the US, D. Yes, it's true that the majority of the population are doing exactly that- but we are also seeing rights ignored, denied and stripped away. Should we wait until this country is a fascist nation, or should we speak up before things get worse? I prefer the latter route of action, and consider that to be a smarter and moral course of action.

It's true that I'm not a U.S. citizen; it's also important to note that I, and most Canadians, are not too far from the U.S., and our familiarity with America eclipses America's familiarity with us. The same is true with pretty much all countries in the world, though they'll have a more distorted view depending on geographic distance and level of development. Canada is also massively influenced by the U.S. on all levels: media, culture, economics, education, everything.

Also, I did live in Atlanta for a while when I was young, and while I was growing up we made regular trips into the States probably two or three times a year. My family and I have good friends there as well as relatives, and I've made quite a few trips on my own as an adult on both business and pleasure, so I do have an idea of what various parts of the U.S. are like.

You and I agree that speaking up is a fine thing to do. But screaming about a fascist police state, about an apartheid, about new Inquisition, which is what extreme liberals are doing, I think we can agree that that's a bit much, isn't it? And to denounce America's democracy after a mere few years (or perhaps decades, depending on how cynical you are) as no longer great or functional seems a bit exaggerated to me.

To a degree, I do think that it's important to stress a commitment to freedom of thought and a democratic country, because those fundamental ideals are being slowly ripped away in American politics. I think it's a different view for those living outside of the country vs those that actually live in it. The problem is that for those living in the US, it is slowly but surely walking away from the Freedom of thought/speech and democracy- so to assert that America as it is and where it's heading- even on domestic issues- has a commitment to democratic ideals is to ignore the problems we are facing at home, not just internationally.

Remember also that the extreme left has also done it's own stripping away of freedom thought and speech. Overall, however, freedom of expression has never been freer or more accessible in the U.S. (and indeed, the world) than it is now. And again, I say with confidence that it's all fine and good to criticize the administration's policies and how the system functions. There really is no problem with that. It's only when one loses perspective on one's privileges and opportunities, and starts spitting what comes close to paranoid hate everywhere that there's an issue.

I agree that the Republicans are up to some bad shenanigans, and that the electoral system needs some monitoring and changes. I also agree that the Administration is doing a lot of ethically questionable stuff in their "War on Terror." But to denounce the entire U.S. because of it, as many extreme leftists are doing? That's going overboard. It's the country that enabled them to think that way, after all. It's the country that allowed, indeed, nurtured and encouraged those values to be instilled into them. The system can't be that broken.

Finally, don't forget that conservative Christians feel like they're being oppressed, marginalized, and constantly attacked, too. That says something about whether freedom of expression is actually being eroded.