A Letter to the American Left: by Bernard-Henri Levy

[applegrove]

A Letter to the American Left
by BERNARD-HENRI LEVY

THE NATION

Translated from the original French by Charlotte Mandell.

"Nothing made a more lasting impression during my journey through America than the semi-comatose state in which I found the American left.

...SKIP

And I cannot count how many times I was told there has never been an authentic "left" in the United States, in the European sense.

But at the end of the day, my progressive friends, you may coin ideas in whichever way you like. The fact is: You do have a right. This right, in large part thanks to its neoconservative battalion, has brought about an ideological transformation that is both substantial and striking.

And the fact is that nothing remotely like it has taken shape on the other side--to the contrary, through the looking glass of the American "left" lies a desert of sorts, a deafening silence, a cosmic ideological void that, for a reader of Whitman or Thoreau, is thoroughly enigmatic. The 60-year-old "young" Democrats who have desperately clung to the old formulas of the Kennedy era; the folks of MoveOn.org who have been so great at enlisting people in the electoral lists, at protesting against the war in Iraq and, finally, at helping to revitalize politics but whom I heard in Berkeley, like Puritans of a new sort, treating the lapses of a libertine President as quasi-equivalent to the neo-McCarthyism of his fiercest political rivals; the anti-Republican strategists confessing they had never set foot in one of those neo-evangelical mega-churches that are the ultimate (and most Machiavellian) laboratories of the "enemy," staring in disbelief when I say I've spent quite some time exploring them; ex-candidate Kerry, whom I met in Washington a few weeks after his defeat, haggard, ghostly, faintly whispering in my ear: "If you hear anything about those 50,000 votes in Ohio, let me know"; the supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton who, when I questioned them on how exactly they planned to wage the battle of ideas, casually replied they had to win the battle of money first, and who, when I persisted in asking what the money was meant for, what projects it would fuel, responded like fundraising automatons gone mad: "to raise more money"; and then, perhaps more than anything else, when it comes to the lifeblood of the left, the writers and artists, the men and women who fashion public opinion, the intellectuals--I found a curious lifelessness, a peculiar streak of timidity or irritability, when confronted with so many seething issues that in principle ought to keep them as firmly mobilized as the Iraq War or the so-called "American Empire" (the denunciation of which is, sadly, all that remains when they have nothing left to say).

...SNIP"

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060227&s=levy

[endarkenment]

1. Welcome to our Hell Bernard.

Sucks, doesn't it?

[bpilgrim]

2. thats because the DLC has a 'THIRD WAY' and doesn't need progressives

ain't it a swell world they helped to create :shrug:

peace

[applegrove]

3. Third Wayers do need progressives. They do. The thing to remember

about the GOP is that it is winner takes all. In regular democracy each part of the populace all get what they need to function - not exactly what they want.

[bpilgrim]

5. but they don't get it... look at Nader for a prime example

he got kicked to the curb when he tried to join up to help restore integrity and people oriented policies... but he sure ain't the only one though.

peace

[applegrove]

6. But Labour was not shut out by Bill Clinton. Just Nader. And Nader

lost the election in 2000 and then went out and did it again (only he took repuke money).

It frustrates me to no end when people say there is no difference between third wayers and the conservatives.

Trade is a liberal thing.

GOP is totally corporate elitist.

They don't want fair trade - they want trade that will allow US corporations to dominate.

Dems are for Health Care. Third Wayers are for health care. Cause it is more efficient & fairer.

There is a huge difference.

[bpilgrim]

7. NAFTA

but this is bigger than just labor... it is about all progressives & the third-way folk don't want anything to do with them - not just st. ralph - and look where that has got us.

it is time to admit that our neo-liberal policies have failed the people and get back to the TRADITIONAL values we used to champion... the corps already got a party representing them, the reTHUGs.

peace

[applegrove]

8. Liberals have always been for Trade. No Nader doesn't like trade.

But many lefties see the need for trade. Seeing as how most of the world's middle class will be in Asia in 20 years.

USA will be a much smaller player in the world. So - to have trade agreements that allow US to sell software, nanotechnology & pharmaceuticals around the world (and usually by license - not requiring any oil in the production in the USA) it will save the USA economy.

Cause when oil hits $200 a barrell in 10 years and then runs dry in 40, what job do you want your kids to have?

In 2014, when the baby-boomers retire in great numbers it will be an employees market in the USA. So needed will employees be that wages will rise (unless Bush gets his guest worker program that will keep wages down).

Even some socialists in Canada have gone "third way". Notably Bob Rae.

That means fair trade to them. That does mean trade unfairly or no public health care around the world.

Being against NAFTA is actually a conservative position.

Really - it is not wrong to want to sell drugs around the world. It is just wrong when epidemics are ignored or illness is promoted (with a private health care system which discourages preventive health).

Trade does not mean that rich people should not pay taxes.

Trade is just that.

Trade. How countries have always gotten rich.

So - you either want to have your companies participate in trade with the 3Billion middle class who will be in Asia (Indonesia, Bangladesh, Russia, Pakistan, Japan.. will all be satellite countries to China & India... each of those sattelite countries with populations the same as the USA. And they are the little neighbours of China & India).

Whoever negotiates the trade deals defines what trade will mean. We need the Democrats to be in power to define it as fair trade rather than empire. Because Empire will fail. The internet will allow people to trade easily among themselves if the USA is unpopular.

[bpilgrim]

9. FAIR TRADE - not what the neo-liberal polices have wrought

and as i said above this is BIGGER than just TRADE, MOST of our TRADITIONAL values are being shunned in favor of a single issue, BIG BUSINESS agenda that has failed all of us completely.

PROFIT over PEOPLE is NOT the answer.

when will 'our' third-way folk recognize that critical fact?

i don't think the current group ever will, not till everything is destroyed and then they will sit around in a circular firing squad shooting each other but only after they've killed st. ralph and any other progressive they can think of.

:crazy:

peace

[applegrove]

10. Do you think the US should stop trading? And not sign agreements

on intellectual properties laws around the world? So Bill Gates cannot sell Word around the world?

Just where would you cut off trade?

And when would you transform the american economy so that it doesn't focus on using alot of oil to produce home decor items? Isn't it better that China does that?

Since in 2014 there will be an employees market in the West (as the aging boomers retire) do you think American workers should be focussed on making fabric? Cause that fabric will just go up and up and up in price as oil costs sky-rocket.

The question is - what do you want your kids to study and plan for their future. What fields do you want them to plan on? Manufacturing? When it will end in 20 years due to the price of oil?

Would be better if they went into sciences. Or started a catering business.

You simply do have the choice who decides what kind of country it will be. Either the neocons on the Dems. One or the other. Nader is a false choice.

[bpilgrim]

11. it is not a yes or no issue, nor the ONLY issue but that is exactly

the problem with third-way politics today... that is ALL they ever hear.

the third-way and our neo-liberal policies are failures for everyone cept the elite and that is no way to run a democracy.

right now my kids have no future with todays leaders in power.

we need a change.

peace

[applegrove]

12. Will you tell your kids to plan for factory work or will you tell them

to get a science degree? Cause you would have to encourage your kids into some field even if there was no trade whatsoever.

Vote Dem and the elites will not be in total control. Everyone gets what they need in a democracy - not everything they want.

Cause the US has to choose a few areas to be experts in.

There is a big difference in policy and equality and social programs.

Who do you want negotiating the deals?

[bpilgrim]

13. nevermind

peace

[applegrove]

14. Yes. Peace.

:hi:

[Metta]

4. Wow, a swift kick in the ass.

For one thing, spinning to the right for money misses the larger point that, with public financing only, the playing field would be level and pandering would be a thing of the past.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Kicked and recommended

!!