FP: Thanks Ms. Burkett. Let me intrude for a moment here, as I can’t remain silent if three members of this symposium base their commentary on the assumption that, as Ms. Burkett says, “U.S. foreign policy was an atrocious tangle of human rights violations, exploitation and oppression for most of the 20th century. And, certainly, neither by design nor by result did these policies liberate anyone.”
As a Russian émigré I can tell you: thank God for Ronald Reagan and the system that he represented for helping to liberate my people by design and by result. The Left can foam at the mouth at these words, but for the Russian people, aside from those masochists who crave the return of Stalinism and further abuse, Reagan’s aggressive anti-communism was a providential godsend because it helped fuel the collapse of a sadistic and vicious empire, and liberated millions of the suffering people under its yoke. I can speak for my whole family and for many of our relatives and friends in Russia, and say what a gift it was to have Reagan help push the Soviet tyranny toward collapse and allow a society to emerge, despite its many problems, where people are no longer terrified to say what is on their minds and do not have to fear the Gulag Archipelago for their views and beliefs.
For most of the 20th century, America confronted two despotic tyrannies, Nazism briefly and the Soviet Union over the long haul. And in confronting those barbarous systems, and precisely by design and by result, it liberated millions of the humans beings that suffered under them.
The U.S. supported the forces of freedom and democracy in the Cold War, facing an enemy whose ideology sacrificed 100 million human lives on the altar of ideas in the 20th century. Yes, there were instances in which America supported some undemocratic regimes in its confrontation with Soviet barbarity, but there are instances in war, politics and life where imperfect situations must exist and imperfect decisions and alliances made. But nowhere can one say that there was ever any moral equivalency in these conflicts. By the very existence of its IDEAS, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet empire necessitated aggressive expansion and domestic terror wherever their influences rested. This cannot be said of the American Idea, and it is precisely why in myriad places under American influence (i.e. Western Europe, Japan etc.) democratic and individual freedom reigned and material prosperity soared.
The Left supported the Soviet empire over the U.S. precisely because it favors despotism over individual freedom; it hates capitalism and free choice and desires the submission of the individual to a supreme totality. It despises individual success and fulfillment. And it therefore hates George Bush because he represents these values without apology, and he unequivocally does what Ronald Reagan did: label the totalitarian enemy that the Left admires for what it is: an Evil Empire. And he is ready to go to war with it to protect the lives and freedom of millions.
Islamism, like its cousins Fascism and Communism, is despotic totality seeking to submerge the individual and to sacrifice human life on the altar of utopian ideals. The Left is always instinctively charmed by this impulse, and it explains why it supported and/or made excuses for Stalin’s, Mao’s and Pol Pot’s killing fields in the 20th century, and why today it picks bin Laden over George Bush, because it will always give its support to the adversary of capitalism and democracy. President Bush represents, without apology, the support for individual freedom and the free market of economics and ideas – the anathema of the Left. He is willing to go to war with evil and call it by its name. That's why the Left so furiously hates George Bush.
Well, I guess it’s hot in here now. Mr. Frank go ahead.
Jensen: It’s always hot in Texas, especially if one dares to challenge the right-wing orthodoxy.
The claim that the Left “hates capitalism and free choice and desires the submission of the individual to a supreme totality” is nonsensical. I don’t “hate” capitalism. Again, this constant talk of why the Left “hates” certain ideas implies that the Left can manage only irrational emotional responses rather than rational political analyses. I think capitalism is an unjust system that concentrates wealth and power in anti-democratic fashion, creates indefensible suffering, and undermines the solidarity that makes human life meaningful. Capitalism offers people choices in some realms, but blocks other choices. To suggest that anyone who is anti-capitalist desires submission to a supreme totality is, frankly, rather silly.
The claim that the United States liberated Afghanistan is asserted but unsupported. The United States has installed a puppet government that requires U.S. protection to survive. We can assume that any future government that might reject U.S. control will meet a predictable fate. This is the typical conception of democracy for U.S. policymakers. Yes, women are better off with the Taliban out of power (though in some parts of the country their situation is largely unchanged) but that hardly means their future is secure. There are lawful ways to try to help people in other countries that could lead to long-term stability. The United States did not pursue such a course. Instead, it cynically used the condition of women in Afghanistan for rhetorical cover to pursue a war to expand its dominance in that region.
But, more to the heart of the discussion of Bush and the U.S. empire: I always find it interesting that the millions of dead produced by U.S. interventions in the developing world after WWII can be brushed aside with such statements as “there were instances in which America supported some undemocratic regimes in its confrontation with Soviet barbarity.” This repeats the fiction that when the United States went about the business of undermining independent development in Latin America, southern Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia that it actually was confronting Soviet tyranny.
True, some of the regimes the United States attacked did receive aid of various kinds from the Soviet Union, but that hardly proves the central myth of the Cold War: That U.S. policymakers were fighting for freedom rather than simply acting as great powers tend to act -- to extend and deepen their control over regions with strategic or economic value. The pattern is clear: Nations that attempt an independent course of development outside the U.S. system are targeted and, when possible, crushed, with little regard for the level of violence employed or the suffering caused. That was true both before and after the fall of the Soviet Union. In that project, there has always wide bipartisan support from both major political parties. One of the central tasks of the Left has been to counter the self-serving rhetoric of a benevolent empire and ask the U.S. public to hold our own government accountable to the law and minimal moral standards.
Frank: First I think it is repulsive to think the Left "supported and/or made excuses" for the crimes of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. I think this is unfounded and a broad based fantasy the Right would like to believe. Perhaps sections of the sectarian Left did, or continues to defend Stalin or Mao, however by and large this couldn't be further from the truth on the whole. Nobody in their right mind (and certainly nobody on the Left I know), of any political stripe, would defend these criminals. Many, including your beloved Noam Chomsky, have chastised the U.S. for indirectly backing the racist Khmer Rouge. And before Pol Pot came to power in 1975, let's not forget Kissinger's orchestrated secret genocidal bombings of Cambodia. But I digress.
Comparing Bush to bin Laden is disingenuous. Bush, even if some of the Left says so, is not Hitler. As Paul O'Neill said of Bush; he is blind, apathetic, and mute. "Just a hearing aid shy of being our political version of the Who's Tommy, minus the power chords," says my friend Jeffrey St. Clair. I totally agree. Bush is easy to dislike. He admits to never thumbing through the daily newspapers. He comes across as a prosaic toddler when unable to read from a tele-prompted script. Many simply don't like a president that comes across as dumb.
This is greater than Dubya's mental capacity however. This is about America's role in the world. I am with Jensen when he says he doesn't hate Bush anymore than he hated Clinton or Bush Sr. for their crimes against humanity. Where was the Right when the Left was denouncing Clinton's UN supported sanctions on Iraq? Save the Republicans now questioning Bush on Iraq, or Pat Buchanan -- why aren't more conservatives against Bush for lying about WMDs?
As per Flynn's reflection of Bush's token gestures to some liberals - that is hardly a reason to admire his administration.
What about the illegally detained at Guantánamo? Cheney's secret energy meetings? Bush's ties to the corrupt Enron? Halliburton's gouging of the US taxpayer and the company's ties to Cheney? What about the reports, even in the mainstream press, that women in Afghanistan are running back to the Taliban for protection? What about the fact that opium production is again in full swing in the country? This is not to say the Taliban was virtuous, but can we really call this liberation? Where was Bush when feminists were trying to draw attention to the atrocities there? Have we only escalated the violence in Iraq? Why hasn't Bush or a representative of his administration attended every funeral of dead US soldiers? Is Iraq secure? Was there an exit strategy? Why is it costing more than Bush said it would? Has he hidden information on the harmful effects of the debris from Ground Zero?
These are just some of the important questions that must be answered. This has nothing to do with Bush being a conservative. It has everything to do with freedom. The freedom to ask serious questions of those whom we pay to represent us. It is our duty as Americans. I'd be doing the same under any administration.
Flynn: 1. Noam Chomsky never "supported and/or made excuses" for the Khmer Rouge, but actually "chastised" the folks who did so? Mr. Frank, are you lying or just ignorant?
Chomsky served as an apologist for the Khmer Rouge. Want proof? Read Chomsky's infamous June, 1977 review in The Nation of three books on Cambodia. He begins by discussing the "rewriting of history" in the West to invent "tales of Communist atrocities." He then tells the reader that reports of killing fields in Cambodia should be looked at in that light. He notes that supposed experts "concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and of unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing." Translation: The Khmer Rouge is not engaged in mass-killings and the U.S. is responsible for them. That's typical of Chomsky's bad logic. "The 'slaughter' by the Khmer Rouge," Chomsky and co-author declare, "is a [Robert] Moss--New York Times creation." It's nice to see that Mr. Chomsky now professes the truth that Pol Pot engaged in a slaughter and not merely a "slaughter." It would have been nicer had he professed the truth when it really mattered.
2. Burkett writes: "As per Flynn's reflection of Bush's token gestures to some liberals--that is hardly a reason to admire his administration." I'm glad we agree that Bush's pursuit of liberal policies is not a good reason to admire his administration. But "token" gestures toward liberalism? The prescription drug plan is going to cost more than $500 billion over ten years. That's a pretty big token.
3. Mr. Jensen mocks the notion that he hates capitalism, and then goes on to describe it as "an unjust system" and "anti-democratic"; that it "creates indefensible suffering" and "undermines the solidarity that makes human life meaningful." Mr. Jensen: if you really believe all that nonsense and you don't hate capitalism, then maybe you should.
4. Mr. Jensen contends that the Bush administration "cynically used the condition of women in Afghanistan for rhetorical cover to pursue a war to expand its dominance in that region." No "rhetorical cover" was needed to invade Afghanistan. A terrorist network based in that country carried out attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Americans were nearly unanimous in supporting the invasion. Stop falsely rewriting history. Leaving Mr. Burkett's bizarre fixation on "the harmful effects of the debris from Ground Zero" aside, the significance of 9/11 was the lives that it stole from us. I'd love for Afghanistan to become a stable democracy, but that's not the reason we invaded. We invaded to bring the conspirators behind 9/11, and their network, to justice, and to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a staging ground for future attacks. This is a noble goal in itself.
5. Ms. Burkett and Mr. Frank's belief that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy is one of oppression, human rights violations, and explotation is a projection of the attributes of our enemies upon us. After we defeated Hitler and Hirohito, who specifically has stood in the way of our supposed military campaigns to impose oppression and violate human rights? Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Maurice Bishop, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and Osama bin Laden.
One can argue about whether embarking upon some of these wars were in America's national interest. It's ludicrous to suggest that they were fought to crush human rights or support oppression. If that were really our goal, we could have achieved it by simply leaving these contemptible men to their own devices.
Burkett: So much to respond to, so little time. . .
I think that Jensen's final statement about a central task of the Left being "to counter the self-serving rhetoric of a benevolent empire" is the right place to begin because it strikes to the heart of what so many believe is the Left's "knee-jerk anti-Americanism." It often feels as if this has become the Left's PRIMARY task. What of its others? What about the task of thinking internationally, of criticizing fascist regimes in the Muslim world - and not just those who are allies of Bush? What about holding other governments accountable? Are the only "crimes against humanity" the Left worries about those committed by Bush?
It certainly feels that way given the amount of Leftist ink devoted to Bush versus the ink devoted to the Sudanese, for example.
The Left concentrates so much energy on berating the U.S. government that it winds up sounding like apologists for governments that are, by every measure, far worse. I'm certainly not asking that the Left cease and desist in attacking Bush on specific policy grounds. But these days that's not what happens. He is WIDELY compared him to bin Laden. He is painted to be the worst, most dangerous force on the planet. That's not simply disingenuous. It's simply not true.
One parenthetical note: Yes, my statement about Afghanistan was asserted, not supported. I'm simply reporting what I saw in that country both before and after the U.S. invasion. And your support for an opposing view is what?
*
To continue reading this symposium, click here.