By that I mean, a left which is social-democratic, liberal, humanist, anti-fascist, secular, internationalist and having some real links with an effective labour movement. I am talking about an idealised left, of course, untainted by Leninism or nationalism and which would find the current alliance between Trotskyist-Stalinist groups and Islamists to be unthinkable.   

This is, sadly, a fantasy, but one which hopefully illustrates some of the elements that are sorely missing in these depressing times. If there was a left in Palestine: 1.    It would, of course, support the key national demands of the Palestinians – for Israel to return to the borders of 1967, for a two state solution, a negotiated agreement on Jerusalem etc – for the creation of an independent Palestinian state. 2.    In doing so it would oppose the deliberate targeting of civilians by terrorist groups and instead seek support with those it share common ground with in Israel and the rest of the world. 3.    It would have been agitating for the authorities in the Palestinian territories to develop the local economy and essential social services such as schools and hospitals. 4.    It would be campaigning for labour rights in the Palestinian territories and strongly protesting the union busting harassment of Hamas. 5.    It would seek to work together with Israeli trade unions to build positive links between workers in both states. 6.    It would insist on the labour movement being part of any negotiations about the future of the region. 7.    It would oppose any attempts to turn Gaza or any other part of the future Palestinian state into an Islamist entity, promote a secular political system and promote and defend basic liberties. 8.    It would seek the support of the international labour movement for its goals – work with international bodies such as the European Union to promote investment in the region and support for the infrastructures of a nascent state. 9.    It would draw on the concrete experience of national democratic movements, in South Africa, Spain, Ireland and so on, who have managed to put behind bitter hatreds and built functioning democratic societies, making peace with their erstwhile enemies. 10.    Through its political activity it would create a generation of leaders capable of becoming future statesman of a new, free and independent Palestine. If there was a left in Israel: 1.    It would also support the key national demands of the Palestinians. 2.    It would stridently oppose terrorism and defend Israel’s right to peaceful existence in the 1967 borders. 3.    It would promote means to support the development of economic prosperity in both Israel and Palestine. 4.    It would offer solidarity to the Palestinian labour movement as well as fight for the rights of Israeli labor. 5.    It would make clear that it is in the interests, material and otherwise, of ordinary Israelis for there to be a successful Palestinian democracy as neighbour. 6.    It would insist on trade union rights being part of any settlement for Palestine. 7.    It would promote the full integration and full rights of Arabs in Israel. 8.    It would be a full part of the international labour movement, promoting engagement of trade unions and labour parties with the peace process. 9.    It would oppose all manifestations of chauvinism, religious sectarianism and racism. 10.  Through this process it would create a generation of left-wing politicians, capable of entering into genuine peace negotiations and recreating the original democratic socialist spirit of Israel. If there was a left in the rest of the world. 1.    It would use all its power to support those in Palestine and Israel who seek a peaceful, two-state solution. 2.    It would give solidarity to both the left in Palestine and the left in Israel and the trade union movement in both states. 3.    It would diplomatically and politically use its power to oppose the attempts of ultra-nationalists and religious fanatics, operating in the west, to undermine any peace plan. 4.    It would make clear the democratic left’s opposition to military solutions and to terrorist actions and in favour of peaceful political solutions. 5.    It would make the case for a ‘Marshall Plan’ style mass investment in both Palestine and Israel to boost the economic and social structures needed for a sustainable peace and reject boycotts and calls for isolating either state. 6.    It would use its influence in bodies such as the European Union and United Nations to support such a plan and the main demands of its comrades in the Middle East. 7.    It would make clear that racism of any kind, is always inexcusable and to be opposed. 8.    If the peace process came to a halt or was derailed, it would take to the streets to urge support for those working for peace and to oppose those resuming or seeking to resume hostilities. 9.    It would use its influence, where in government, to support those states in the region playing a part in the peace process and to isolate rejectionists. 10.    Through economic and social initiatives it would seek to break down barriers between Israel and other countries in the Middle East. This is pipe-dreaming of course; idealistic, I know; but isn’t that the tragedy of the state of both the Middle East conflict and the left in the world, that such a list of, what would once have been considered standard positions, seems nothing more than wishful thinking? Instead we have a world of Hamas and Likud and of an international left which marches with anti-semites, glorifies terrorism and declares its solidarity with Islamism – the main obstacle to peace.

The post Imagine There Was a Left… appeared first on Jewcy.

The only positive aspect of the operation so far has been the welcome destruction of Hamas operatives, munitions and structures and this, it should be stressed, is no minor matter. Despite the bluster in this Hamas statement , the Islamist terrorist group have received some real blows – the elimination of key personnel, the loss of many weapon stations and arms. It remains to be seen whether their ability to launch rocket attacks at Israel will have been completely eliminated by the end of the hostilities but it is hard to imagine how the IDF will be able to declare victory on that front. One rocket fired, maybe a few days after a ceasefire, would be enough for Hamas to crow that they are still in business and for the rest of the world to declare Israel’s efforts, and the loss of life, to have been futile.

Even removing Hamas from power would not stop them from operating, in their usual, thuggish. bandit style, under a new Palestinian authority in Gaza or even under a fresh occupation. Hamas are going to be around for some time yet.

The tragedy of Israel is that, it is going to face violent opposition to it’s existence for many, many years to come for the simple fact that a Jewish state surrounded by Jew-hating Muslim Arabs has little chance of living in peace. The phrase ‘two state solution’ is redundant. Don’t get me wrong — two states are necessary, just and right and Israel should act to make them happen, but they are not a solution to Israel’s security problem, merely a possible start. Gaza has already given us an indication what kind of ’solution’ an Islamist Palestinian state would be.

The only hope Israel has of ever being secure, ever being confident that it can just get on with life without facing suicide bombers and rocket attacks on kindergartens, is if Islamists depart from the political scene in the region and any objective observation of the politics in that region indicates that is not likely to be happening in the near future.

Islamism is clearly going to be around for sometime — so it is worth studying the ideology, the history and the structures. We better had do because there seems to be no sign that it is going to be definitively defeated in our lifetimes. It took over 70 years for the menace of Bolshevism to be totally finished off in Europe and while there are no iron rules in these matters, it is worth remembering that the first Islamist revolution came just 30 years ago.

Many on the ‘Eustonian’ left, myself included, held out a hope that a liberal, democratic, secular, alternative would emerge in the Middle East in opposition both to Arab dictatorships and Islamism. The first sign that we might have over-estimated the strength of democratic forces came in Iraq, a country with a strong secular tradition. The overthrow of Saddam resulted in a bitter and violent battle involving varying degrees of Islamist organisations, ranging from relatively moderate types willing to govern under occupation to the Mahdi Army through to the extreme of Al-Quada. There were few signs of liberal democrats enjoying real support and the socialist left, which had some history in the country, also turned out to enjoy only a pitiful level of support outside of the stronghold of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Throughout the region it is clear that the main opposition to dictatorships – in Egypt and Syria for example, comes not from enlightened liberals but from even worse Islamists. In the Palestinian territories, the Arab-nationalists of Fatah were defeated not by progressives but by genocide-seeking Islamist terrorists.

Inside the Muslim communities in Europe, the horrors of Islamist terrorism in previously unimaginable locations such as Madrid and London, have not resulted in an awakening of a new, progressive voice among Muslims to challenge the extremists but have instead seen the continued rise of Islamist groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Those honourable attempts to challenge the extreme-right, whether it be from ex-Islamists or from ex-Muslims turned secularists, welcome though they are, are tiny and insignificant compared to the street-mobilising ability of the MB affiliates.

Disgusting and treacherous though the far-left’s alliance with Islamism is, the ex-Marxists are at least right in their belief that Islamism is a growing movement which, like them, is opposed to western democracy. Those who dismissed the blast of Islamist noise after September 11 as something that could be dealt with by a combination of good police and intelligence work and some gentle political appeasing, have been proven to be woefully optimistic.

All the indications, in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, suggest that Islamism, in both terrorist and less violent agitational form, is in the early stages of a rise in fortunes. The question then, is what can be done about it?

The depressing conclusion I have reached is that, western governments are going to have to start thinking of strategies to deal with Islamists in power given that there is no sign that radical Islam is going to fade away. This is going to have to involve a degree of pragmatism in the short term and some smart subversion in the longer term.

There is clearly a temporary, tactical need for western governments to continue giving limited support to strategically important non-democratic governments, such as Egypt’s, so as to avoid the nightmare scenario of a pro-Hamas state on Israel’s border at a time like this, for example. Likewise, unsavoury elements in Pakistan’s and Afghanistan’s current governments are preferable to Taliban-AQ elements taking control of such a sensitive region. In short, the cold-war ‘our son of a bitch’ approach, is, on occasions, a short-term necessity. The neo-conservative, liberal internationalist hope of a democratic revolution in the Middle East and wider Muslim world, remains a hope, but nothing more.

Longer term though, how can the position and strength of Islamist forces be weakened in Muslim majority countries? Support for liberals and reformists is important but it should be clear by now that it is not enough given their weakness. There clearly needs to be a massive change in the cultures in those countries to weaken the appeal of political Islam – that is going to take several generations and some intelligence from the west as we contaminate their cultures with some of the fruits of freedom, the temptations offered by liberty, which the Islamists, enemies of modernity, fear so much. There needs to be some imaginative thinking on this front.

Perhaps the only cause for optimism is the case of Iran where, 30 years after the revolution, many young people in Tehran are clearly bored with and sick of the Islamist state. It took such a short space of time for a generation to emerge which prefers freedom to the slavery of political Islam but it remains to be seen how long it takes for them to carry out a democratic transition in that country. Perhaps that is going to be the model, if there is to be one, of change in the Muslim-populated world – the Islamists come to power, prove to be brutal and repressive but ultimately useless in delivering to the needs of the population who gradually lose faith in them. The key will be to effectively deter the Islamist states from expansionist or nihilistic violence while fostering and nurturing the internal opposition. Which sounds, I have to admit, a rather similar strategy to the cold war.

The best case scenario would obviously be for these societies to leap the Islamist stage and go straight from dictatorship to democracy but there are few indication that is likely to happen.

Israel’s struggle, whatever you think of the tactical rights or wrongs of this particular battle, is our struggle because we cannot allow Islamists to defeat a liberal-democracy. Even if there are limitations on what we can do to defeat Islamists within non-democratic Muslim societies, we have to draw a clear line when they try to take our side on. There is also, clearly, an anti-fascist responsibility to stand by Jews when they face murderous Jew-haters.

But while Israel is fated to face the brunt of Islamist hatred for years to come, it won’t only be Israel that has to learn, in the absence of choice, to reluctantly to live with, deter and cleverly try to subvert Islamism until that wretched, inhuman creed follows its totalitarian cousins fascism and communism into the historical dustbin.

The post Learning to Live with Islamism appeared first on Jewcy.

I've been contemplating socialism and the left in some of my posts here and so this passage from Muravchik was interesting:

I kept wrestling with the central mystery of socialism. How could something that desired to make things better have instead made things so much worse? Was it that socialists were bad people? From my own experience I am still convinced that most people who embraced the idea of socialism did so from a humane feeling – they wanted the world to be kinder and gentler. Yet socialism's most important results were quite the opposite. Of course, social democrats did things to humanise society when they were in government, but the overall record of socialism, when you add up both sides of the ledger, is quite appalling. 

I concluded that the central problem is asking politics to do something it can't do – to provide the 'leap' that Marx wrote about. This ambition departs entirely from the realities of human existence, which is imperfect and tragic. Life may not be nasty and brutish but it is short and it will always have its share of sadness and disappointment. Religion offers answers to both the shortness of life and the disappointments it contains – whether or not you accept the truth of any particular religion or religion per se. Politics can't do that. If you understand that, you feel a certain constraint on what you seek to achieve in politics, which at the most can offer amelioration. But the socialist thinks that through politics you can transform human life itself. Michael Harrington – a leader of mine back then whom I admired – once wrote that socialism would create 'an utterly new society in which some of the fundamental limitations of human existence have been transcended.' [5] But no political system can do that. Worse, once you say it can you have a logically sound utilitarian argument for killing some people in order to get there. If those people are standing in the way of the new, higher, happier level of human existence, well…

By the way, if you are not familiar with Democratiya – a free-to-read, online journal of what could loosely be called 'Eustonite Internationalists' then take a look through their latest edition – including a speech from Tony Blair – and also their archive which is full of interesting and serious material.

The post The Neoconservative Persuasion and Foreign Policy appeared first on Jewcy.

Because, in his search for blame, Chavez points the finger at almost everyone except himself. Unable to accept that maybe, just maybe, people felt that term limits are a sensible part of the checks and balances of a democracy, unwilling to consider that his demagogic rhetoric about no-voting "traitors", "fascists" and "mental retards" who were "voting for Bush" smacked of both desperation and lack of respect for the Venezuelan people, Il Presidente is now pointing the finger closer to home.

"Chavez, who met government advisors and military commanders outside Caracas to wait for the results, said congress hindered the plan's passage by splitting it into two blocks, the Caracas- based daily reported, citing the unidentified witnesses. Chavez also said his Venezuelan Unified Socialist Party lacked leadership, Nacional reported.

So congress and the party to blame – hmm, when a generalissimo starts to attack his own party and a congress it controls, you sense that there may be trouble on the horizon.

And of course, it is not just his closest political allies who are to blame: "Maybe the nation needs to mature more before we construct socialism," he said.

In both cases, Chavez, who has followed the classic authoritarian-demagogic approach of creating an external foreign threat, a fantastical fear of invasion, is indicating that only he is capable of carrying the country on the path towards ‘socialism'. The party and congress can't be trusted and the people are immature – no wonder he finds it so important to centralise power in his own hands and keep it until "until the last bone of my skeleton dries up."

The danger in all of this is, of course, that after a period of licking his wounds, Chavez comes back determined to press on with his authoritarian agenda (he has already said the proposals are halted only "for now") but also with little or no respect for his allies who he now views with suspicion, especially as some key figures switched to the No vote during the campaign. 

Chavez certainly believes he represents ‘the people" (in the crude communist sense of the term) and it is only a short step from his current rhetoric to start to view any political obstacles as "anti-people".

Add to the mix an opposition emboldened by their triumph and increasingly led by the radical and active student movement (as opposed to compromised old-school politicians) and there is potential for some very hot days indeed in Venezuela. 

Those who view Chavez's reluctant acceptance of the ‘No' as proof that he is a democrat and not a dictator are only half right – he is still not yet a dictator.

(Footnote: One wonders what contortions the Cuban media had to go through in reporting the Chavez defeat. After all, the line from US sympathisers "Look, he is a democrat!" doesn't quite work as well in Cuba does it? "It was a 'veni, vidi, vinci' of dignity and ethics," said Castro. Well Fidel, when are you going to offer the Cuban people a vote on, well, anything?)

The post Chavez – Is the Worst Yet to Come? appeared first on Jewcy.

In my first two posts of this series, I tried to defend opponents of violent jihadism and supporters of the Iraq war from the charge that they had abandoned the values of the left and indeed attempted to make a case that tackling Islamofascism and tyranny are on the contrary, authentic leftist positions to take.

I promised that my next post would look at the broader issue of why a left is still necessary. Clearly this is a topic more suited for a lengthy polemical book than a blog post (Yes, I am open to offers….) so what follows is a brief and simplified attempt to make the case that in the modern world, the values of the left remain absolutely essential if the combination of chaos and dynamism that prevails is to meet with a progressive response.

The first thing that has to be said in any attempt to state the case for the left in 2007 is – forget the far left. Leninism is dead, Trotskyism is dead, Stalinism is dead, Maoism is dead, the concept of ‘socialist revolution’ is dead and the idea of a planned socialist economy is dead. And to that one should add a long overdue – thankfully.

Millions of people were murdered, perished or were incarcerated as a result of ‘socialist experiments’ in the last century. Millions more had their lives and their family’s lives wrecked by communist dictatorships and in countries now described as ‘formerly communist states’ the impact of over four decades of totalitarianism are still felt.

That tiny minority of oddballs who continue to believe in the ‘dictatorship of the proleteriat’ and other euphemisms for state terror should be as unacceptable to democrats as far right-wing opponents of liberal democracy – what is amazing is that they are still regarded as acceptable leaders for ‘peace movements’ and labour movement organisations.

But, of course, while Marxist inspired revolutionary socialism was a horrendous catastrophe, social democracy (or democratic socialism if you prefer) came out of the last century with a pretty good balance sheet. Western European welfare states were inspired by and largely created by the social-democratic parties of the labour movement. The health care systems, the universal education systems, the progressive housing solutions, the victories in terms of wages and work conditions for millions of European workers are a credit to the social democratic project. It was never plain-sailing of course and there were times when the tide turned against social democracy (the era of Kohl-Reagan-Thatcher) and there were times when one wondered if anything would remain of the core aims of social-democracy (the era of the third-way).

But on the whole, social-democrats can be justly proud of the achievements of their parties in the past century. In countries where social democracy took root, real acute poverty is a thing of the past even though great inequalities of wealth remain. Likewise the values of social liberalism also can look back on great progress – great steps forward have been made in gender equality, gay rights, racial equality and religious freedom.

Together social-democracy and social-liberalism have improved the lot of millions of people and won real and lasting victories – if one steps away from the disasters of revolutionary socialism, reject it utterly, then the left has actually enjoyed enormous success – successes which of course need to be defended, expanded and improved upon. But while social democracy in Europe has been able to make headway in the main goal of taking the benefits of a capitalist economy and using the state to more broadly distribute the resources available and has, through regulation and intervention, been able to force capitalists to pay better wages and offer better working conditions, on a global scale poverty remains at an intolerable level with millions living in starvation conditions.

And while liberal democracy reigns across the continent of Europe – no longer restricted only to the western half – large parts of the world remain in the grip of tyrannies or face threats from violent totalitarian movements. It is no coincidence that many of those parts of the world where poverty remains acute are also countries where democracy has yet to be able to take root. And there, surely, lays the answer to what the purpose of a modern left should surely be – defending and expanding on the gains of the victories of social democracy in the west, tackling the scar of global poverty and pushing for the expansion of democracy internationally. In an era of rapid globalisation, the moment seems perfect for the western left to make a real effort to globalise its values.

Yet at the same time, when one reads the debates over the past decade, a lack of confidence in the core values of both liberalism and social democracy emerges which hinders the ability of the democratic left to take on the tasks facing it. Cynicism about the value of democracy as opposed to an enthusiasm to spread it globally and cultural relativism rather than international solidarity risk making the left into a club of parochial critics. An unwillingness to tackle economic questions and a Luddite anti-globalisation stance rather than a concerted effort to create a social-democratic world, leave the left looking like a snooty western elite who wash their hands with some charity rather than address the need to shift globalisation in a progressive direction aimed at eliminating poverty.

The democratic left has much to be proud of (including its opposition to the anti-democratic left) but it must leave behind the cynicism and nihilism that has infected it in the past decade or so and confidently take on a new role as champions of a progressive globalisation and the internationalisation of democracy. In my final part of this series I will sketch out some rough ideas for how that might start to take shape.

The post Is It Still Possible to Be a Leftie? (Part Three) appeared first on Jewcy.

OK, still here? Right, England has entered one of its periodic crises after the national soccer team failed to qualify for next summer’s European Championships. The qualification process ensures that the top 16 nations in Europe gather together in Switzerland and Austria next year for a big tournament which is second only to the World Cup in terms of interest and status. England, who invented ‘Association Football’ aren’t among those 16 after finishing behind Croatia and Russia and on the same points as that powerhouse of European soccer –Israel. (I don’t need to explain to you why Israel have  play in Europe rather than in competition with the other Middle Easter countries which they would almost certainly win).    

 It is 41 years since the England team last won a prize – the 1966 World Cup – which was the only time the tournament was held in England. Unlike most major powers in the game, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy etc, England have never actually won away from home turf. But, we invented the game, we have the ‘greatest league in the world’ and most English people really believe they, their clubs, their players and their fans, represent the genuine, authentic heart and soul of the game. 

There is no way of comparing this trauma to anything in US sports – if I must try and tempt you with an analogy – imagine that baseball really went global, there was a World Series befitting of the title and the US didn’t even make the play-offs, finishing behind Honduras and South Korea after losing to Venezuela.       

No country in Europe likes their soccer team to not qualify for the Euro finals but in England, the failure provokes deep reactions which tell us a great deal about the tortured sense of identity in the country.      

 First of there is the sense of entitlement that is lost by actual competition – the English assume their place is at the top table for reasons of tradition and history. But unlike bodies such as the United Nations and The Commonwealth, European soccer is based purely on merit and not on heritage. No-one is silly enough to suggest England should qualify automatically (as they do for the UN Security Council) so the response is a vicious search for blame. As usual, and as in most sports, the coach is the first scapegoat. Steve McLaren was sacked before his bosses had even digested their bacon sandwiches the morning after the defeat to Croatia. Then there are the search for the ‘deeper causes’ of the defeat and here the deep pains of English identity start to emerge.    

One of the most popular ‘root causes’ identified this time around has been foreign players in English football. The Premier League (EPL to those Americans who take an interest) is packed with players from all over the globe and none of the elite teams are coached by Englishmen. Liverpool is owned by Americans and coached by a Spaniard. Chelsea is owned by a Russian and coached by an Israeli. The argument goes that because there are so many foreign players in England – English boys don’t get a chance. The argument is utter nonsense for several reasons – primarily because England had similar disappointments in the seventies and eighties when there were hardly any non-British players in the top league.   

Nonetheless, the argument is based on an essential truth – the ability of England’s Premier League to market itself globally, in a similar fashion to the NBA , has generated a huge amount of income which the clubs have invested in buying up foreign players. The result is a championship which is based on the core values of modern globalized capitalism – it is deregulated, internationalised and the team with the most money available usually wins. Imagine an NFL where a previously unheard of Russian billionaire could buy up, say, the Cleveland Browns, purchase Tom Brady and half the current New England Patriots team along with the best players from all the other teams and win the Superbowl easily every, single, year. You can’t do that in American sports because of the regulations – the draft, the salary cap, the rules on ownership etc  – it is a curious state of affairs but compared to the laissez-faire capitalism of English soccer, American sports are almost socialistic.

The English are pretty happy with this state of affairs for their league – they are sports fans, they support their teams in a tribalistic fashion and so no-one amongst Chelsea’s supporters ever complains about a loss of identity given their club is in Russian hands and they only have a couple of English players in their starting line-up – if the Blues win, the Blues fans are happy. The  problem comes when you get to international competition between nation states where the rules are very different. You can’t trade your citizenship, the coach of the national team can’t buy anyone and it doesn’t matter how much money your organization has – selection is restricted to people who are citizens of the country. National team soccer is the last survivor of the old amateur values – you play for honour and pride – not money. You represent your country and not your employers. You are expecting to give your all for glory and not for the next big contract deal.    

And this is where the global success of the English soccer brand falls down – the results show that the players aren’t really good enough or they haven’t been coached well enough and the normal rules of the market – buy some better players – don’t apply.    

So the England players are blamed for not caring enough and the system is criticised for being out-dated – and there are some valid arguments that I shan’t trouble you with here about what precisely, technically is the problem with homegrown English footballers.     

But the big picture is that soccer, like other sports, is transforming itself and globalizing itself in a way which leaves the old nation state framework looking increasingly like a sideshow. On a week to week basis fans, owners and coaches don’t care about nationality – they want results and entertainment. Most of the time, the English enjoy the chance to watch top international performers either in the Premier League or the Europe-wide Champions League. The pangs of pain only come when cash no longer can talk – when soccer enters a timewarp and we go back to an era when the rules are different. The pain is enhanced because the English like to think they represent the old values of the game when in fact they epitomize the modern transformation of the sport into a global entertainment and marketing industry.   

There are no signs that the trends will change – if anything they are likely to intensify –  and so the English will slowly have to get used to the fact their national team is mediocre but they have the most marketable professional league in the world. And in this respect England will become more American.    

There are no nation-state battles in American football or pro baseball and the Olympic competition in basketball and hockey is a sideshow for anyone who seriously follows the NBA or NHL. Americans are lucky in that so few countries play baseball or football – they can simply enjoy the NFL and MLB without worrying about what the rest of the world is doing. The English are going to have to learn to do that –  not to care about nation-state competition – and that won’t be easy for a people who remain attached to tradition while being at the vanguard of tradition-smashing global, capitalized sport.

The post The Soccer Dialectic appeared first on Jewcy.

Who says we aren’t lefties anyway?

I want to try to deal quickly with the accusation – so frequently heard and read – that no-one who supported the Iraq war can still be considered a left-winger or a real liberal. Despite the frequency with which this jibe is heard, it doesn’t stand up to even the most elementary consideration – and here then is an elementary consideration.

Most liberals supported the US’s armed interventions in Balkans without considering themselves to have crossed over to the right. Perhaps that was helped by the fact that many conservatives were opposed to those interventions and that the President at the time was Democrat Bill Clinton. Yet, most liberals accepted that the armed force of the United States can be used for a good cause.

Next up was Afghanistan, where many liberals were willing to support the overthrow of the Taliban regime, a manhunt for terrorists, a US led occupation and the attempt to ‘enforce democracy’. This time the President was George W Bush, but that fact didn’t lead the liberals to announce themselves converted to right-wing Republicanism – they supported a just war, even when they found themselves on the same side as Bush and the neo-cons.

Yet when it comes to Iraq, where of course there was a much bigger split in opinion over whether it was a ‘just war’ or not, anyone who took the position that the armed removal of the Saddam dictatorship was desirable is now accused of having sold out to Bush and forfeited any right to consider themselves ‘of the left’. The actual core case of liberal and left supporters of the Iraq war – that the Saddam regime was essentially fascist, totalitarian and murderous and its overthrow would be an act of liberation – is rarely addressed. Very few in the anti-war camp are willing to even consider that there may have been a left-case or simply be a disagreement over whether or not Iraq could be considered a just war or a different view of the wisdom of the timing or circumstances of this particular war. For the bulk of the anti-war movement, we are now beyond the pale, sell-outs and neo-cons. We have ‘lined up behind Bush’ or become ‘cheerleaders of US imperialism’.

That so many of the people uttering these clichés were themselves with Bush over Afghanistan or supportive of ‘imperialist bombs’ falling on Belgrade does not seem to register. It seems we are guilty by association with an incompetent right-wing administration. Guilt by association is always a weak piece of rhetoric and its facile nature is shown by the fact that it only seems to work one way. The anti-war left do not consider themselves to be tainted by the fact that right-wing isolationists, nationalists and downright fascists were also opponents of the war. Nor does it comprise a sell-out that while Kurdish socialists welcomed talk of liberation, Saddam himself praised those who took to the streets to oppose his removal.

It is very tempting to look at this ‘argument’ and shrug one’s shoulders and say “Who cares what they call us?” It is tempting for liberal-hawks to disassociate themselves totally from the modern left and leave the ‘left-right’ labels for the last century. But that would be a mistake for two obvious but crucial reasons.

Firstly, despite the domination of the Iraq issue over political discourse in the past few years, being left-wing or liberal isn’t just about foreign policy. To put it bluntly – Michael Moore is full of shit when he talks about Iraq or terrorism but he is right about healthcare. Bush may have been right about Iraq but he is wrong about most other things.

Secondly, in the struggle against violent Islamism and for the expansion of democratic rights globally, the right aren’t doing a very good job and an alternative approach is sorely needed. The constituencies in the Middle East who offer the best chance for progressive change – human rights activists, women’s groups, student movements, liberal intellectuals, the labour movement – are all natural allies of the left and they have been betrayed by the anti-war movement and ignored by the pro-war right. In the next two parts of this series I want to address those two reasons and move the argument away from why we are still lefties to why it is still necessary to be a lefty.

The post Is it Still Possible to be a Lefty? (Part two) appeared first on Jewcy.

The post The Only Game In Town? appeared first on Jewcy.

I suspect it might be men in particular who have a problem about leaving behind the passions of our youth. We can't let go of our favourite bands from our teens, we still take an odd pleasure in eating the candy we enjoyed as a kid, we have ever-lasting soft spots for those early girlfriends and spend an inordinate amount of time watching and talking about games.

But when it comes to politics, surely a grown up affair, we really should be able to cast off much more easily our youthful attachments, shouldn't we? Yet, when it comes to ideology and allegiance, it is hard to throw out every little pamphlet from the wardrobe. If you were a teenage Trot, a youthful commie, or an adolescent anarchist, you have probably found yourself caught in the trap – the past six years have been hard for anyone who still identifies themselves as a lefty but maintains a commitment to the core principles that were supposed to bind all the 57 varieties of leftism. Yet you can't get let go.

I'm addressing this to the kind of readers who, perhaps with a background in Marxism, or socialism or social-democracy or serious liberalism, have found themselves shuffling away from the ANSWER-led anti-war demonstrations, raising eyebrows at people buying the latest Chomsky Self-Help Guide for Lefties, shaking their head at those who have failed to take clear sides in the conflict against Islamism and sighing when hearing those who have allowed their opposition to the Iraq war to lead them to ignoring the need for solidarity with Iraqi democrats.

I'm talking about the kind of people who found much to appreciate in Paul Berman's thoughtful and informative Terror and Liberalism or in the more strident arguments of Christopher Hitchens about the struggle against Islamism and the bankruptcy of the anti-war movement. I am talking about those of you who get labelled 'neo-con' by old comrades and aren't really sure whether to simply embrace the presumed insult or to fire back with a list of their leftist credentials.

Because the dissenting voices that have emerged on the left in the past five or six years have been fairly confident in asserting that, despite supporting 'Bush's wars', despite finding Paul Wolfowitz closer to their own views on foreign affairs than John Kerry, despite finding more to nod along to in Commentary than the magazines of the left, they are still the torch-bearers of real leftism and it is the rest of the left who have sold out.

Why do we bother? Are we just clinging to an identity from our youth and denying that old line that "If you aren't a socialist at 18 you haven't got a heart but if you are a socialist at 40 you haven't got a brain"? Are we just trying to deny that we are following the classic path of moving rightward, drifting into conservatism as we mature? Or are we actually on to something, are we really witnessing the separation of the left into two new camps – 'the anti-imperialists' who put the blame for all the world's ills at the door of western democracies and we, the 'anti-fascists' who despite our criticisms of capitalism, recognise the need to take sides against tyranny, theocracy and terror?

In the coming weeks I want to make the case for the re-affirmation of liberal left principles against the crude anti-imperialism (in hard and soft version) that has come to dominate the voice of the radical left. To argue why, despite our embarrassment at those who claim to be the authentic voice of radicalism, it is really the Eustonite, the Bermanite, the Hitchensian, left that is the true torch-carrier of our youthful idealism. I want to argue that there is, in fact, nothing 'right-wing' about opposing tyranny, terrorism and fascism and nothing 'left-wing' about making excuses for tyrants. That it is an agenda of social solidarity and liberalism that has the best chance of defeating reaction across the globe and not isolationism, thoughtless militarism or free-market evangelism. I will make the case that here is nothing in opposing injustice abroad that stops us from making the case for a liberal-left agenda at home. In short, I will argue that not only is it still possible to be a lefty but that, rather, it is more essential than ever.

[Read part two here.]

The post Is It Still Possible To Be a Lefty? appeared first on Jewcy.