An antifascist war

[cema]

A friend leaned across a bar and said, "You call the war in Iraq an antifascist war. You even call it a left-wing war—a war of liberation. That language of yours! And yet, on the left, not too many people agree with you."

I am glad I do not have to serve drinks in this journal, anyhow. :-)

Comments

[cema.livejournal.com]

It is actually much more likely for extreme left and right groups to base their views on percieved morality or immorality of activities. People with their views closer to the middle tend to ground their opinions in more rational reasoning.

Yes, seems right.

But why do people choose to be right or left? To what extent is it logical reasoning, parental guidance, peer pressure, genetical predisposition? I think the moral and ethical foundation of this choice is strong.

Keep in mind also that one does not have to share someone's morality in order to either (1) decide if that someone is behaving according to his morality or (2) evaluate how important the question of morality is for the someone.

The question is whether people uttering such phrases really think that thre is nothing but morality behind them. I still think that the latter is more of an RR feature than of local liberals, or left in general.

I am sure that religious people tend to believe what they claim, even if their behavior differs. I do not know how many left liberals believe in what they are saying, but certain groups are full of such people. True, many such groupd tend to the extreme (environmentalists, anti-Zionists), but not all (vegans).

arguments liberals have amongst themselves

Right; I got a little carried away.

My bar for intelligence and common sense for liberals is much higher than for conservatives

Which is based on what exactly?

I explicitely expect liberals to be able to "recognize the possibility of different valid positions"

I think this is not part of any definition of what makes one a liberal. Am I wrong here?

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

Why do people choose to be left or right? Liberal or conservative? Heck, you want me to give you a short answer????

Now, things I actually can answer...

Me:

>My bar for intelligence and common sense for liberals is much higher >than for conservatives

You:

Which is based on what exactly?


I expect higher intelligence from the "good guys" (((-:


>I think this is not part of any definition of what makes one a >liberal. Am I wrong here?


Tolerance certainly is part of my definition of "liberal". And not only mine. ACLU defends the rights of all kinds of bigots, even when ACLU does not recognize any validity of their political positions.

Recognition of possibility of people to have their own systems of values is an important part of tolerance. In my opinion, this is what social liberalism is all about.

It appears that we derive our notions of "liberal" from different sources. You are trying to trace current liberalism from its historical sources. I am looking for an operating definition that is based on today's realities.

[cema.livejournal.com]

ACLU has "civil liberties" in its title. Does it mean you would call anyone who defends civil liberties a liberal?

Tolerance certainly is part of my definition of "liberal".

I used to have a similar disposition. But there are things that hit close, like antisemitism. I suppose the antisemitism of the Right does not surprise you, but antisemitism of the Left does? It used to surprise me, anyway, until I figured out how to deal with those labels.

Recognition of possibility of people to have their own systems of values is an important part of tolerance. In my opinion, this is what social liberalism is all about.

What would have been a liberal position in the American Civil war? Let them have their plantations, state rights, etc? The South had a well developed system of values of its own. But I expect you would rather talk about abolishing slavery?

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

ACLU.... American Civil Liberties Union... Are you seriously suggesting that it is anything but a liberal organization these days?

Yes, protection of civil liberties should be a business of everyone. Yet, somehow, ACLU has the stigma that no conservative would dare approach. So, returning back from theoretical discussion into the area of reality - yes, ACLU is a liberal organization, and its president, one Nadine Strossen is one of the most consistent liberals I have seen in the US public life.

I used to have a similar disposition. But there are things that hit close, like antisemitism.

I am approaching this as two questions: one about what is tolerable,
another - how I would explain intolerance in liberals. First of all, I never said tolerance was absolute. There are clearly different levels of tolerance in different people, and there are some ideas that do not deserve being tolerated. My previous mentions of tolerance were in comparing shades of one color to each other, if you look at the entire spectrum of opinion.

Now, how do I approach antisemitism of the Left? I am deeply troubled by it. I can see very clearly the origins of it in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and the one-sidedness of the desire, in certain circles, to make the plight of Palestinians better, without really understanding the true complexity of things there. Under certain circumstances, such position grows into antisemitism.

Yet, I would NOT here equate all Left with liberals. I have a nice metaphor for the perennial liberal vs. conservative political struggle. Explaining it requires a separate post, and possible some graphical artistry - a picture is worth a thousand words. But in a nutshell the idea is that "liberal" is not an ideology that is constant regardless of the situation in a specific country. In my opinion, liberals, in each case choose positions which, in their opinion, move the country towards a certain "liberal ideal" - the latter being, in a fuzzy form, a constant. Thus you can see liberals in one country advocating one thing, while in another - a completely different one. It's a vector, not a point.

[cema.livejournal.com]

ACLU is a liberal organization in almost any reasonable definition, but my question was different.

I never said tolerance was absolute.

You never said anything about tolerance except that liberals are supposed to possess it.

there are some ideas that do not deserve being tolerated

Isn't the difference between conservatives and liberals more in the realm of what ideas they consider deserving of tolerance?

how do I approach antisemitism of the Left? I am deeply troubled by it.

Aren't we all... Golda Meir reported having been deeply hurt by her fellow Socialists with respect to the question of Zionism; I can only imaging how furious she would be had she seen what is going on these days.

[From the Arab-Israeli conflict] Under certain circumstances, such position grows into antisemitism.

What about anti-semitism of certain key figures of Enlightenment, like Voltair and Marx? Did it not affect the Left, or perhaps aren't there forces in existence now that were also present in earlier times which play out like that?

Yet, I would NOT here equate all Left with liberals.

Certainly, there must be a useful distinction. But what kind? Left vs Right could be reduced to the economical questions; where would the Liberal vs Conservative dichotomy lie then?

a picture is worth a thousand words

Or five hundred double words...

"liberal" is not an ideology that is constant regardless of the situation in a specific country. In my opinion, liberals, in each case choose positions which, in their opinion, move the country towards a certain "liberal ideal"

Were Republicans liberals in the 1860s due to the struggle against the slavery in the US? Were Democrats liberals in 1930s due to the struggle for building a social safety net? Do you call people who want to help Iraqis (or make Iraqis) build a free democratic country liberals? How about the environmentalists? What's your idea of the liberal ideal, in other words?

And, in contrast to liberals, what do you call conservatives? Or do you avoid this dichotomy?

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

I am tired to being constantly pushed to the margins of this discussion.
Here! http://www.livejournal.com/users/cema/126279.html?view=506439#t506439

Civil war

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

One of the principles of liberalism is "Egalite, Fraternite, Liberte".
So, from the ethical point of view, certainly, the right thing to do was to fight for abolition. Not to mention that there are objective economical reasons for why slavery hurts, reasons so deep that South is still feeling them, 150 after the war.

Now, whether or not that was also a reasonable and rational thing to do, depended on a number circumstances. You see, if the federalists did not have enough of manpower to fight the Confederacy, would they stand a chance of winning? Under the historic circumstances - they did and they did.

To summarize: when you are considering whether to do something, you should ask yourself two questions: (a) is it the right thing to do and (b) what is the best way to achieve success....

Re: Civil war

[cema.livejournal.com]

One of the principles of liberalism is "Egalite, Fraternite, Liberte".

Is that one or three? Anyhow, the slogan came from the French revolution. How universal is it?

from the ethical point of view, certainly, the right thing to do was to fight for abolition

And they did. Although it seems to be moral, rather than ethical, but I often make mistakes in these matters.

(a) is it the right thing to do and (b) what is the best way to achieve success

This is rather universal. What were conservatives supposed to do at the time, in your opinion?

Re: Civil war

[email-animal.livejournal.com]

What were conservatives supposed to do at the time, in your opinion?

Conserve. (-:

Re: Civil war

[cema.livejournal.com]

That would be conservants.