Liberal (America Haters) are the BIG Losers!
Liberals HATE America,,
The Losers
February 6, 2002
By: Thomas S. Garlinghouse
BESIDES THE TALIBAN, the biggest loser in America's "War on Terror" has been
the American Left. Although its most prominent spokesmen -- such as Noam
Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Susan Sontag, and Edward Said -- remain celebrities in
the halls of academe, elsewhere the Left hasn't fared as well. In the weeks
and months following September 11, millions of average Americans heard, many
for the first time, the undiluted HATRED of America that is so
characteristic of the American Left. They were being told, in effect, that
America had it coming. It was a message, emanating from a pampered and
well-paid intelligentsia, that these average Americans, still reeling from
the horrific terrorist attacks, were in no mood to hear.
The result was a justifiable outrage. Millions of Americans were angry, and
they let the America-HATERS know it - by exercising their First Amendment
rights. Yet, many on the Left were shocked and dismayed that anyone would
dare disagree with their anti-American fulminations. Sontag even wrote to
this effect in one of her more idiotic screeds. On college campuses, Leftist
professors predictably invoked the specter of McCarthy and claimed they were
being "silenced." Apparently these professors had become so used to having
their opinions treated as holy writ that they had trouble distinguishing
criticism and dissent, of which they claim sole proprietorship, from
bigotry, intolerance, and censorship. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
even more predictably, explained the trend as an example of American
anti-intellectualism.
That many average Americans would reject the Left's anti-American message is
hardly surprising. The venerable common sense and silent patriotism of the
average American, though too easily disparaged by the "more sophisticated,"
are among our Republic's greatest and most enduring strengths. What is
surprising, however, has been the reaction of many liberals to the
anti-American onslaught.
Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, some liberals have begun to
rethink their association with the extreme Left. They have begun to evince
little patience for much of the knee-jerk, anti-American rhetoric that has
emanated from prominent Leftist luminaries. This was aptly demonstrated by
Todd Gitlin, a prominent academic liberal and author of an authoritative
book on the student radicalism of the 1960s. In an insightful essay, he took
on his former comrades for, as he put it, reveling in a perverse
Schadenfreude at America's tragedy. He singled out Edward Said for
particular chastisement, accusing the Middle Eastern literary critic of
engaging in shameless whataboutism -- the tendency to excuse the atrocity of
September 11 by pointing to the victims of American foreign policy. Islamic
fundamentalists may have bombed the World Trade Center, but whatabout.?
Gitlin maintained that critics like Said are unable to perceive the victims
of September 11 as true victims because that sanctified label (sanctified at
least in the eyes of individuals like Said) is wholly reserved for people
(like Palestinians and Iraqis) who have ostensibly suffered under American
imperialism.
The Anglo-Indian novelist Salmon Rushdie, someone never to be confused with
a conservative, likewise added his own rejoinder to the rhetoric of the
anti-American Left. Writing in the Washington Post, Rushdie called the
bien-pensant anti-American onslaught, "appalling rubbish," and argued that
"to excuse such an atrocity by blaming U.S. government policies is to deny
the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their
actions."
And Jeffrey Isaac of the left-leaning The American Prospect took on the
Leftist icon Noam Chomsky in an article titled "Thus Spake Noam." In it he
criticized Chomsky's lack of intellectual honesty and the MIT professor's
assertion of moral equivalence between U.S. policy-makers and terrorists of
bin Laden's ilk. Even that venerable liberal stalwart, The New Republic, has
done yeoman's work in this regard. Its "Idiocy Watch" column, an on-going
compendium of the most ill-conceived rants following September 11, is like
reading the thoughts of today's most prominent Leftist writers, journalists,
and academicians. Although there are some hysterical voices from the Right,
the majority of examples accrue from the Left. Indeed, one gets the
impression from reading "Idiocy Watch" that every prominent American Leftist
is a self-loathing, out-of-touch nincompoop or a condescending gasbag (and I
'm being charitable).
Surely all this is good news. It demonstrates the moral seriousness of some
liberals. It also demonstrates that the doctrine of moral relativism has not
penetrated as deeply into liberal ranks as some conservatives have argued.
Still, the liberal rejection of its radical wing is a rather new phenomenon.
During the height of the Cold War, for example, as many American Leftists
were more than willing to sell out their country to the Soviet Union, the
liberal intelligentsia was loathe to condemn the Left. In his influential
1964 book Suicide of the West, conservative intellectual James Burnham
excoriated Western liberals for their inability to perceive the danger posed
by the radical Left. The reason for this, he asserted, was twofold. First,
liberals, while not necessarily endorsing the Left's tactics, nonetheless
shared many of its egalitarian, utopian sentiments. Burnham pointed out that
"As the liberal sees it, some persons on the Left are doubtless mistaken in
some of their views. but the liberal feels instinctively that their
'intentions' are good, that they are aiming at the right goals." The second,
and perhaps more significant, reason for liberal myopia verged on the
psychological. Burnham contended that the liberal's main bête noire -- the
enemy that ultimately had to be confronted, no matter the cost -- was the
Right. Indeed, Burnham asserted that many American liberals ascribed to the
venerable French saying: Il n'y à pas d'ennemi à gauche -- there is no enemy
to the Left.
The events of September 11 have changed, at least for the time being, this
dynamic. In many ways, the tragedy of September 11 has acted as an
ideological litmus test, forcing defenders of America and American ideals to
step forward. At the same time, September 11 has also shed a disinfecting
light on those that truly wish harm upon this nation: The radical Left. For
far too long, those on the Left in this country have posed as defenders of
free speech, minorities, and various other causes. But, in truth, such
causes are used cynically and tendentiously, as clubs with which to bash
American institutions and ideals. It is clear, if one pays attention, that
the Left is motivated not by a desire to reform America or to create a more
"humane and just society," but by a deeply held antipathy toward America.
Apparently some liberals are beginning to figure this out.
-------------------------------------
Dr. Thomas S. Garlinghouse is a freelance writer in Davis, California. He
holds a doctorate from the University of California, Davis, in anthropology,
with a specialty in archaeology. E-mail him at tsga...@aol.com.