The Foreign Policy of the American Left

I.

What does the American left believe about world affairs? Everyone knows what the American left believes about domestic affairs. The left believes that social conscience ought to be elevated into policy; extreme inequalities of wealth and social advantages ought to be narrowed; trade unions ought to be encouraged; idiotic bigotries ought to be combated; the rights of women, promoted; the rivers and forests, protected—and thusly, across a liberal and social-democratic terrain. Who opens a school, closes a prison, said Victor Hugo; and the American left agrees. But foreign policy is another matter.

It is difficult even to describe the texture of left-wing thinking on the topic. Michael Walzer has brought out a book called A Foreign Policy for the Left, in which he argues that, when people on the American left contemplate domestic affairs, they do so in a thoughtful, sober, and serious manner—or, at least, they make what Walzer considers to be an honest effort. But when those same people turn to world affairs, they slip into a different habit of mind, as if sliding from one lobe of the brain to another. The intellectual discipline loosens. The spirit of thoughtfulness fades, the information thins out. And downward plunge the well-meaning and otherwise upright leftists into the cups of faraway fantasy and political inebriation.

Naturally these habits and traits do not adhere to every last person with a left-wing orientation. The American left has its learned specialists on world affairs, who maintain their political commitments and, even so, remain sober, studious, lucid, grave, and admirable. But the broad left-wing public, as Walzer pictures it, attaches no particular importance to the upright specialists and their teetotaling expertise. The left-wing public prefers, instead, to adopt foreign-policy opinions merely by invoking a tiny cluster of assumptions or beliefs, amounting to slogans or prejudices, which are deemed to be true, and therefore stand in no need of specialists and analysis.

Walzer pictures the cluster of assumptions and beliefs as a default setting on a computer, which goes automatically into operation as soon as the machine is booted up. The question of world affairs arises, and the left-wing public responds by thinking: “Everything that goes wrong in the world is America’s fault.” No elaboration seems required. From that one assumption follow all the others. The assumption about everything being America’s fault carries the implication that American power, in addition to being sinister, is limitless; and the further implication that everyone else’s power adds up to naught. Alternatively, the assumption carries the implication that, even if American power does have limits, America’s arrogance does not. And, by failing to recognize the limits of its capabilities, arrogant America wreaks its damage by clumsily staggering from blunder to blunder. Less power for the superpower should be the left-wing goal, and more power for powerless international institutions. Whenever a terrible emergency becomes visible somewhere around the world, the responsibility for dealing with it should fall to the international institutions, and not to the unilateral, uncontrolled, piratical, and imperialistic United States.

It may be that, as Walzer observes, no one on the American left actually puts any faith in the abilities of the United Nations or the International Criminal Court or any other international institution. Yet the American left, in its default mode, looks to the U.N. and the ICC anyway, and this is odd. Walzer detects a touch of make-believe in the left-wing enthusiasm for those particular institutions, which he describes as a “politics of pretending.” A politics of pretending implies a dishonesty. In Walzer’s analysis, a streak of dishonesty, too, figures in the left-wing default.

Sometimes a broad public on the American left gazes upon authoritarian political movements and dreadful dictators in distant corners of the universe and likes to imagine that, far from being authoritarian or dictatorial, the movements and the dictators are boldly progressive, superior perhaps even to the U.N. and the ICC—though Walzer suggests that, in their inner thoughts, a great many people do know better. But they go on proclaiming their political fantasy, anyway, which amounts to an additional twist on the “politics of pretending.”

There is the spectacular instance of left-wing delusion about the Islamist political movement—the left-wing supposition that something has got to be progressive about the Islamists, even if the Islamists appear to be medieval reactionaries; and the further supposition that Islamism’s enemies among Muslims and non-Muslims alike must surely be the actual reactionaries, even when the enemies appear to be liberals and progressives. Here is a “politics of pretending” in a double-twist pretzel version. Walzer’s chapter on this theme, “Islamism and the Left,” brings him to the edge of his patience, though not beyond (given that inexhaustible patience appears to be a philosophical principle, for him).

Only, why would large numbers of idealistic-minded people on the American left want to engage in this sort of foreign-affairs make-believe? What is the appeal in it? The appeal is to avoid thinking about the world beyond the United States. The same American left that puts serious thought into social and economic conditions at home cannot be bothered to put any thought at all into problems and conditions abroad. “Leftist inwardness” is the spirit. It is a provincialism that calls itself idealism.

tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/275223/american-left-2-foreign-policy

Plenty more to read on the link

The premise of this article is ludicrous...

There is no genuine "left wing" in mainstream American politics, these days..

There is the moderate right/centre right dominated by the Democrats, and the far-right occupied by the Repib's.

And where both of these parties are fundamentally "free market"/capitalist-oriented. With the Democrats being much more socially-minded, with regards to healthcare, welfare, education and environmental protections..

The genuine "left-wingers" in the Democrat Party, along with a handful of Greens, and a minuscule Labor Party with zero representation, make up far less than 10% of the political scene over there...

Hilarious

So according to Wolf, people like Ben, Quill etc are not left wing. Even though they constantly remind me daily that they are and the Democrats are.

You see the left cannot counter the points made in the argument, they go straight into denial mode

Now that is priceless and shows wolf did not grasp an actual point made in the article

I'd like to meet these American lefties who apparently believe that there's something progressive about ISIS and al-Qaeda. I suspect that there's probably a pot of gold nearby, leprechaun-style.

This lefty would ask that simply because we know how America has toppled democracies across the world, don't assume that we think America is the cause of every problem in the world.

However, it is plain that America could be doing a lot more to help solve climate change and to foster peace than it's currently doing.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:I'd like to meet these American lefties who apparently believe that there's something progressive about ISIS and al-Qaeda. I suspect that there's probably a pot of gold nearby, leprechaun-style.

This lefty would ask that simply because we know how America has toppled democracies across the world, don't assume that we think America is the cause of every problem in the world.

However, it is plain that America could be doing a lot more to help solve climate change and to foster peace than it's currently doing.

I would for one like you to be honest when reading an article and he certainly did not read it all

We often see the left blame the US for all the worlds problems including Islamism, which is as far as I am concerned, self flagellation. Its basically excusing these problems, which have been around long before the creation of the United States.

Now the article ws very clear on the left doing good domestically and if you want to talk about climate change, what on earth does that have to do here, on what is being said?

The point being made is on Islamism, of which ISIS and Al-qeada are the extreme forms of this

Plenty of Islamists are not ISIS or Al-qaeda, but hold very poor views on women, homosexuals etc.

For example we see some on the left like screaming banshees wishing to boycott Israel and this even includes homosexuals doing this. Even though Israel is the only Middle East Country with rights for homosexuals. You do not see them advocating for the same of any other Middle east country and there is a reason for this. They themselves see Arabs as inferior and do not want to seem, like they are being prejudiced towards Arabs. Thus make them it a victim group. This is the growing problem with identity politics, when they should see Arabs and Middle Eastern countries like anyone else. Israel is not immune to criticism, but it seems Muslim countries are by the left

We see this evident with the likes of Lindar Sarsour. The so called advocate of women's rights. Who stands up for antisemities like  Louis Farrakhan. Of which many on the left also defend this openly antisemite.

Recently she defended a New Muslim Democrat elected. Who whilst before election said she was against boycotts, now has done a volte face on this. People called her into question for not being honest during her campaign and what did Linda Sarsour say?

That Jews had duel loyalty, something very much antisemitic itself

This is the problem with the left, where they then defend someone like this who backs sharia law, which completely discriminates against women and then she claims to champion womens rights?

Hence the view of the left is to allign with such Islamists, through a prism to not see themselves as racist, but in the same breath happy to discriminate against Jews.

You prove what is the glowing example of what is wrong on the left

However there is a shinning light here. Some on the left are starting to wake up to this

In wake of Farrakhan controversy, Teresa Shook writes that current leadership has permitted hatred of Jews and bigotry to become part of the movement

Women’s March co-founder Teresa Shook called on its current organizers to step down Monday, saying they “allowed anti-Semitism.”

In a Facebook post, Shook said Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez “have steered the Movement away from its true course.”

“In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs,” Shook wrote.

timesofisrael.com/womens-march-founder-calls-on-leaders-to-resign-for-allowing-anti-semitism/

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking

Okay show me all the points in the article that is cherry picking?

Being the fact I know you never read this all or can prove I am cherry picking

Lets see you present your case?

I offered evidence, that the left in an example and continued example defend Islamists in the US

That is not cherry picking

For example a great number of people follow these leaders of the womens march and support them. To the extent that now some on the left are speaking out against them.

And you are the person who cherry picked some phrases Republicans in history, yesterday, to present an argument the Republicans have always been racist

Priceless

I think everyone seems to nutpick, especially on this and other forums. It suits their beliefs ergo it helps them continue to stay on the team that they chose.

One needs to be able to stay independent and then they can see things more clearly. The left and the right have huge problems within their thinking. The truth and the way forward seems to be somewhere in the middle (in most areas of politics).

eddie wrote:I think everyone seems to nutpick, especially on this and other forums. It suits their beliefs ergo it helps them continue to stay on the team that they chose.

One needs to be able to stay independent and then they can see things more clearly. The left and the right have huge problems within their thinking.  The truth and the way forward seems to be somewhere in the middle (in most areas of politics).

I agree both have problems, but this was about a specific problem that seems to occur from the left

I dont dare claim all of the left, but a significant number

My view is the left and right need to work more together for a brighter future for everyone, but are decidedly becoming more fragmented

All American lefties have to do these days, to nut pick the right, is quote the President of the United States verbatim!

Yes left and right working together instead of assuming their way is the only way. That’s why it’s never worked and never will.

People choose a team and then their brains sort of start to seal shut.

eddie wrote:Yes left and right working together instead of assuming their way is the only way. That’s why it’s never worked and never will.

People choose a team and then their brains sort of start to seal shut.

Actually it times of great peril, both left and right have worked together and very well.

That is the problem, it takes an outside threat for this to happen

When they should be able to work, without that outside threat

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:All American lefties have to do these days, to nut pick the right, is quote the President of the United States verbatim!

How dare you. I mean, raking leaves in forests to stop wildfires; that's some pretty solid wisdom from your fair Prez

Yesterday, the founder of Women's March, Teresa Shook, issued a blistering critique of the current leaders of the organization and their tolerance for antisemitism:

Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez of Women’s March, Inc. have steered the Movement away from its true course. I have waited, hoping they would right the ship. But they have not. In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti- LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs. I call for the current Co-Chairs to step down and to let others lead who can restore faith in the Movement and its original intent. I stand in Solidarity with all the Sister March Organizations, to bring the Movement back to its authentic purpose. As Women’s March founder, I am stepping up to bring focus back to the Unity Principles on which our movement began, and with the support of all of those who marched and have continued to march, I pledge to support grassroots, decentralized leadership promoting a safe, worldwide community devoid of hate speech, bigotry and racism.

Predictably, Sarsour and Mallory and the rest issued their own statement accusing Shook of trying to fracture the movement that she herself founded.

But it was a comment from Mercy Morganfield to Shook's post that really identified the specific outrages that Bland, Mallory, Sarsour and Perez do:

As an African American and past president of the DC chapter’s Women’s March. I agree with you, Ms. Shook. I’d repeatedly denounced Tamika’s anti-Semitic rhetoric in public and in private. I was shushed by Bob Bland as she protected Tamika. I was shushed by others who didnt want their criticism to reflect badly on women. But not only have they not held up the Unity Principles, they refused to give the chapters any accountability for the money they receive in donations and grants. The travel with a glam squad. They employ The Nation of Islam as security detail. They fly their family and friends everywhere. They stay in 5-Star hotels. They pay themselves a monthly stipend. They refuse to show financial records when asked. They want to trademark the name Women’s March although most of the original marchers have left. They are not only non-inclusive of certain segments of women but Tamika and Linda have betrayed all women by their subservience to radical religious beliefs that do not believe in equal rights for women. Tamika wrote about “enemies of Jesus” just as any right-wing anti-semitic establishment would write. All six should step down. It is a board of six friends and zero accountability. The four mentioned and two more friends. No involvement of state chapters who actually do all the work. I don’t think they will resign, not as long as millions of dollars are available for their personal use. This happens when four tokens are chosen. They were handpicked to make the movement look less white. That is not intersectionality. That is tokenism. And tokenism attracts predators.

Practically every sentence here is a bombshell, and I see no reason to doubt any of it. The accusation that the current board of the March is siphoning funds for their own use is something that needs to be investigated.

But within the tsunami of complaints is an accusation that would explain why the leaders of the Women's March do not want to repudiate Louis Farrakhan and instead try to downplay his obvious hate.

They have a financial relationship with him.

The Women's March is paying an antisemitic, anti-gay, anti-white, misogynist hate group - while at the same time pretending to adhere to Unity Principles that are against everything Nation of Islam stands for.

Morganfield's post is not getting the same press as Shook's, but hopefully today she will be interviewed and her accusations investigated by the media.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2018/11/womens-march-hires-nation-of-islam-to.html

Thor wrote:Hilarious

So according to Wolf, people like Ben, Quill etc are not left wing. Even though they constantly remind me daily that they are and the Democrats are.

You see the left cannot counter the points made in the argument, they go straight into denial mode

Now that is priceless and shows wolf did not grasp an actual point made in the article

Ben, Quill and Lurker are not politicians, are they ???

And where exactly are those politicians on "the left" who represent the genuine left wing and moderate voters..

Bernie Sanders and a handful of like minded "socialists" and real world envonmentalist on the fringe of the Democrats;

A Greens party that only has a handful of politicians in their camp..

Like I said earlier, they hold far less than 10% of the seats over there -- None of them are currently in any position to sway policy, despite the ongoing scaremongering from those right-wing propagandists you keep on digging up.


And where is that mythical "left wing" of American politics that your bullshit article alludes to Dodge ???

As Ben suggested above there -- it simply doesn't exist, except in your beloved propagandists' fetid imaginations..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thor wrote:Hilarious

So according to Wolf, people like Ben, Quill etc are not left wing. Even though they constantly remind me daily that they are and the Democrats are.

You see the left cannot counter the points made in the argument, they go straight into denial mode

Now that is priceless and shows wolf did not grasp an actual point made in the article

Ben, Quill and Lurker are not politicians, are they  ???

And where exactly are those politicians on "the left" who represent the genuine left wing and moderate voters..

Bernie Sanders and a handful of like minded "socialists" and real world envonmentalist on the fringe of the Democrats;

A Greens party that only has a handful of politicians in their camp..

Like I said earlier, they hold far less than 10% of the seats over there --  None of them are currently in any position to sway policy, despite the ongoing scaremongering from those right-wing propagandists you keep on digging up.


And where is that mythical "left wing" of American politics that your bullshit article alludes to Dodge  ???

As Ben suggested above there --  it simply doesn't exist, except in your beloved propagandists' fetid imaginations..

The article is not claiming only politicians but people on the left

You do realise this and yet again you do not tackle a single point of the article

Its yet more denial

So read the article in full and then come back with an actual counter on the points made

As all I see the left on here do, is being in denial, think the left are infalliable, attempt to deligitimize anyone that is critical of leftist views, move the goal posts and do everything other than, to actual talk about the points of the article in question

Thor wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thor wrote:Hilarious

So according to Wolf, people like Ben, Quill etc are not left wing. Even though they constantly remind me daily that they are and the Democrats are.

You see the left cannot counter the points made in the argument, they go straight into denial mode

Now that is priceless and shows wolf did not grasp an actual point made in the article

Ben, Quill and Lurker are not politicians, are they  ???

And where exactly are those politicians on "the left" who represent the genuine left wing and moderate voters..

Bernie Sanders and a handful of like minded "socialists" and real world envonmentalist on the fringe of the Democrats;

A Greens party that only has a handful of politicians in their camp..

Like I said earlier, they hold far less than 10% of the seats over there --  None of them are currently in any position to sway policy, despite the ongoing scaremongering from those right-wing propagandists you keep on digging up.


And where is that mythical "left wing" of American politics that your bullshit article alludes to Dodge  ???

As Ben suggested above there --  it simply doesn't exist, except in your beloved propagandists' fetid imaginations..

The article is not claiming only politicians but people on the left

You do realise this and yet again you do not tackle a single point of the article

Its yet more denial

So read the article in full and then come back with an actual counter on the points made

As all I see the left on here do, is being in denial, think the left are infalliable, attempt to deligitimize anyone that is critical of leftist views, move the goal posts and do everything other than, to actual talk about the points of the article in question

Which is EXACTLY why the Article is a meaningless piece of Drivel to Attract Dickhead Right wing wankers without a life and tiny penises 

Wolf clearly address all the points 
that the Premise is Faulty and therefore all the points INVALID 
as anyone with a Brain can See

veya_victaous wrote:

Thor wrote:


The article is not claiming only politicians but people on the left

You do realise this and yet again you do not tackle a single point of the article

Its yet more denial

So read the article in full and then come back with an actual counter on the points made

As all I see the left on here do, is being in denial, think the left are infalliable, attempt to deligitimize anyone that is critical of leftist views, move the goal posts and do everything other than, to actual talk about the points of the article in question

Which is EXACTLY why the Article is a meaningless piece of Drivel to Attract Dickhead Right wing wankers without a life and tiny penises 

Wolf clearly address all the points 
that the Premise is Faulty and therefore all the points INVALID 
as anyone with a Brain can See

So yet again the left try to deligitimize and not actually adress a single point

Next

There is nothing there to "deligitimise" Dodger...

IF you want to agree with a bunch of idiotic lies from some unqualified far-right propagandist masquerading as somebody who actually knows something..

Then it is up to you to argue in favour of his stupidity.

As I read the OP article, it had a lot to say about the liberal side, but it was addressing the right.  As Hegel once said, you never grasp the meaning of something until you contrast it with it's opposite.

Here's what the article says:

Didge wrote:The left believes that social conscience ought to be elevated into policy; extreme inequalities of wealth and social advantages ought to be narrowed; trade unions ought to be encouraged; idiotic bigotries ought to be combated; the rights of women, promoted; the rivers and forests, protected—and thusly, across a liberal and social-democratic terrain. Who opens a school, closes a prison, said Victor Hugo; and the American left agrees. But foreign policy is another matter.

So, if this is the left, what is the right?

On foreign policy, each case is individual and no such common, humanitarian theme is out there.  I've just finished reading Woodward, Robt., Fear: Trump in the White House (2018).  Those who criticize Obama on foreign policy, ought to take a look at how the right does it.  It's ad hoc decision making at its worst, with the last voice heard being the only thing remembered.

There is no consistent theme; often one value, chosen in one situation, is completely contradicted in the next.  Trump believes South Korea should pay for American troops, even though their presence there keeps the ICBM's from flying out of Pyongyang and at us.  Yet, we stay in Afghanistan, twiddling our thumbs, precisely to keep another 9/11 from happening in America.

God only knows what input went into the Republican administration's decision to start a war with Iraq.

Frankly, I'd say the left--the Obama administration--is the only element that has shown some common sense in this century.  And that common sense led us to the only relative peace and quiet we've had around the world.  Is that bad?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

There is nothing there to "deligitimise"  Dodger...

IF you want to agree with a bunch of idiotic lies from some unqualified far-right propagandist masquerading as somebody who actually knows something..

Then it is up to you to argue in favour of his stupidity.

And what about the bunch of idiotic lies from some unqualified far-Left propagandist masquerading as somebody who actually knows something?

Both sides have 'em.

Even Australia seems to have its share.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

There is nothing there to "deligitimise"  Dodger...

IF you want to agree with a bunch of idiotic lies from some unqualified far-right propagandist masquerading as somebody who actually knows something..

Then it is up to you to argue in favour of his stupidity.

And what about the bunch of idiotic lies from some unqualified far-Left propagandist masquerading as somebody who actually knows something?

Both sides have 'em.

Even Australia seems to have its share.

No...hate to contradict you once again, Fred, but both sides do not lie.  Only the right  has the malady of mendacity.  

Look, Fred, let’s go back to basics: politics is about interests.  Take a look at the interests of both sides.  The right emphasizes the individual.  Individual rights, individual property, individual wealth.  The interests of the individual are focused on the self, so self-ish-ness becomes the common standard of the right.  Thus, selfishness becomes the core interest of the right and self-interest becomes the goal of the right.

The interests of the Left were always the common interests.  French communal interest was the basis of the Paris Commune.  The Democrats of the US were born in a wave of agrarian populism.  Labor formed the basis of the UK's LW political group.

Eventually, we end up with common interests forming the basis of the left; and self-interests forming the basis of the right.

But there is a massive flaw in the foundation of the right.  This flaw manifests itself in a dilemma.  The individual is an unstable element in a democratic society.  In a democratic political system, the currency is not wealth, or accumulated power, but votes, and votes means numbers.  But the right is dedicated to the individual, not numbers.

Self-interest, you see, creates competition, which eliminates people as they climb the ladder of self-described success.  The more people who achieve success according to self-interest, the fewer votes your cause receives.  Political success dwindles as the pool you represent diminishes.

What do do?  You must divert attention away from your defining issue.  You must create specious issues that distract voters.  Look over there; don’t look over here!  You emphasize social and racial issues.  You raise the dilemma of abortion or immigration.  You start wars.  You get people excited about white supremacy, because it turns their attention away from their poverty.  You invent a philosophy that is quite the reverse of charity: give to the rich…and it will trickle down.

Well, Fred, you can see that such a program is going to need a lot of lubrication.  That's where the lying comes in.  You've got to tell a lot of lies to start a war.  You've got tell a lot of lies to justify a massive tax cut for the rich.  You've got to tell a lot of lies to demonize the helpless women and children who are coming to your border to ask for asylum.  In fact, the whole program of the right is lies: lies upstairs, lies down below, lies to the front, and lies to the back, etc.  Because, the simple fact is that the whole program of the right is adverse to the people from whom they need votes.  The political existence of the right depends upon lying about it's very interests.

So I am still waiting for someone to actually read the article in full and make a counter to the countless points

So far Quill has replied to one single paragraph, with yet again astounding nonense

Where this is about a view on how the US is perceived to be at the fault of everything foreign policy wise. Then goes into his usual tirade about Trump

Only Ben made a half hearted attempt and then tried to shut me down, accusing me of cherry picking. Which was absurd, even more so when he did this very thing claiming the republicans have always been racist, using quotes by some Republicans

I guess the left simple do not want to again take on views that are critical of them

Again

As all I see the left on here do, is being in denial, think the left are infalliable, attempt to deligitimize anyone that is critical of leftist views, move the goal posts and do everything other than, to actual talk about the points of the article in question

As look what Quill did. He asked about the "right" to immediatelly side step the issue at hand about the left.

Clearly he does not want to venture down a road, that may have him look with a skeptical mind at his own beliefs

One word for that

Dogmatisim

I guess none can answer the points

Hey ho