by Malooga

[Comments on] 

The Euston Manifesto

[or what drinking bad beer in a bad pub can do for bad political argument.]
[Louis Proyect has some excellent background about the Manifesto]

For a Renewal of Progressive Politics
[sort of like the urban renewal of the sixties]

A. Preamble

We are democrats and progressives [or were twenty years ago, before we climbed aboard the CIA payroll]. We propose here a fresh political alignment [Bedding down with right wing fascists, pretty fresh, huh?]. Many of us belong to the Left [or claim we do], but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. [I believe that Clinton called it triangulation.] Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values [As we define them to be.], and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. [Who just might end up in Gitmo, if you get my drift.] It involves making common cause with genuine democrats [™], whether socialist or not.

The present initiative has its roots in and has found a constituency [conspiracy] through the Internet, especially the ‘blogosphere’. It is our perception, however, that this constituency is under-represented elsewhere — in much of the media and the other forums of contemporary political life. [Yep, there just aren’t enough “leftist,” pro-interventionist, zionist, imperialists out there on the web, in think tanks, or in the op-eds, these days. That nasty Chomsky, and his sidekick, Zinn, are taking up all the column inches.]

The broad statement of principles that follows is a declaration of intent. [Broad principles are so much more clear, and unassailable, than petty details.] It inaugurates a new Website, which will serve as a resource for the current of opinion it hopes to represent and the several foundation blogs and other sites that are behind this call for a progressive realignment.

B. Statement of principles

1. For democracy

We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures —
freedom of opinion [Between the center-right and the far right, as long as it is in 15 second, or shorter, clips.] and assembly [In caged boxes and “free speech zones”; under the watchful eye of masked, leather booted, unaccountable, taser and tear gas wielding “friendly neighborhood cops.”], free elections [Or at least as “free” as the last two Presidential elections have been.], the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers [The only way they have been separated the past six years is that they are not actually physical Siamese twins. They work for each other, hunt with each other, cover for each other, and, in some cases, sleep with each other.], and the separation of state and religion. [Under god.] We value the traditions [myths and lies] and institutions, the legacy of good governance [Nothing but solid, good ole governance behind the myriad foreign interventions, the largest jail population in the world, the ecological devastation, the exploding cancer rates and lack of health care, and the poor and starving.], of those countries in which liberal, pluralist [Well, we ARE allowed to argue about abortions and flag-burning.] democracies have taken hold.

2. No apology for tyranny

We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently ‘understand’, reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy [Whether we support them, or not.] — regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. [Can anybody say, “Patriot Act?” How about “domestic surveillance?”] We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces. [Like the Democrats in the Senate, who ratified the Act.]

3. Human rights for all

We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned [Do I hear echoes of  Jeane Kirkpatrick’s “moral equivalence here?] whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights that are closer to home [I believe Chomsky’s formulation is that, while it might be easy for us to criticize China’s violations, and vice-versa, that gets us nowhere. We are most responsible for, and have the most control over, our own actions. Good enough for Noam, good enough for me.], or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples. [They are, and we will enforce them, by golly!]

4. Equality

We espouse a generally [Is that a yes, or a no?] egalitarian politics. [Should be possible since  Buckley v. Valeo states that money does not equal free speech.] We look towards progress in relations between the sexes (until full gender equality is achieved), between different ethnic communities, between those of various religious affiliations and those of none, and between people of diverse sexual orientations — as well as towards broader social and economic equality all round. [Ah, that lovely word, progress. It falls so softly off the tongue, especially when it is the last dying word of the still hopeful oppressed.] We leave open, as something on which there are differences of viewpoint amongst us, the question of the best economic forms of this broader equality [Hmm, unalloyed capitalism might work, but then again, so might neo-liberalism, fascism, feudalism, autocracy, and oligarchy. This is one of those tough decisions we will just have to reserve judgment on.], but we support the interests of working people everywhere and their right to organize in defence of those interests. Democratic trade unions are the bedrock organizations for the defence of workers’ interests and are one of the most important forces for human rights, democracy-promotion and egalitarian internationalism. Labour rights are human rights.[Have we accidentally slipped into the Communist Manifesto?] The universal adoption of the International Labour Organization Conventions — now routinely ignored by governments across the globe — is a priority for us. [Just don’t criticize America.] We are committed to the defence of the rights of children, and to protecting people from sexual slavery and all forms of institutionalized abuse. [We’re just mealy mouthed bout the conditions that cause this oppression.]

5. Development for freedom

We stand for global economic development-as-freedom [That’s a mouthful. Freedom for who? The indigenous, or the displaced campesinos?] and against structural economic oppression and environmental degradation. [OK, more development, less degradation, got it.] The current expansion of global markets and free trade must not be allowed to serve the narrow interests of a small corporate elite in the developed world and their associates in developing countries. The benefits of large-scale development through the expansion of global trade ought to be distributed as widely as possible in order to serve the social and economic interests of workers, farmers and consumers in all countries. [I thought we were already benefiting those displaced farmers by letting them work in machiladoras for seventy hours a week, while we feed them GMO corn.] Globalization must mean global social integration [Ulp. Don’t tell my indigenous friends that they must “socially integrate” their cultures.] and a commitment to social justice. We support radical reform of the major institutions of global economic governance (World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank) [I thought we supported the death penalty for murderers in this country? Well, let’s not go overboard and throw out the baby with the bilgewater. Anyway, it’s good to know that we Progressives support “global governance.”] to achieve these goals, and we support fair trade, more aid [Agribusiness demands it.], debt cancellation and the campaign to Make Poverty History. [Progressively. Is that like a “War on Poverty?” Maybe we could bomb the poor.] Development can bring growth in life expectancy [It can also shorten your life expectancy by ten years, as it did for the men of the former Soviet Union.] and in the enjoyment of life, easing burdensome labour and shortening the working day. [Whoa there, whose working day has been shortened lately, except for the downsized temp workers?] It can bring freedom to youth [freedom = factory], possibilities of exploration to those of middle years [when you are fired and forced to move.], and security to old age [Especially after we privatize Social Security]. It enlarges horizons and the opportunities for travel [Which you just might need to do, since air travel is the single worst contributor to global warming], and helps make strangers into friends [Koombayaa!]. Global development must be pursued in a manner consistent with environmentally sustainable growth. [How?]

6. Opposing anti-Americanism [This is called “Burying the Lead.”]

We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. [But we will carefully avoid mentioning them in this document.] But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. [Which, I guess, absolves us from having to confront our failings.] The United States of America is a great country and nation. [Simply grrreat, Marge. Mix me another Martini while your up] It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. [Those lasting achievements are eroding faster than the frescoes in Fellini’s “Roma.”] Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. [Million$, is the operative word in that sentence. Or is it, “commodification?”] That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people. [No, after we destroy your country, and kill, jail, and torture your relatives, you are EXPECTED to love us for it. Somehow, I think there might be a pattern hidden in that sentence.]

7. For a two-state solution

We recognize the right of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution. There can be no reasonable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that subordinates or eliminates the legitimate rights and interests of one of the sides to the dispute. [In other words, the interests of an expansionist settler state, which has engaged in ethnic cleansing and occupation must not be subordinated to the interests of a people who have been ethnically cleansed and occupied. That should make for a “reasonable” solution.]

8. Against racism

For liberals and the Left, anti-racism is axiomatic. We oppose every form of racist prejudice and behaviour: the anti-immigrant racism of the far Right [Should we let everyone who wants to enter this country in? Wouldn’t any limits be racism?]; tribal and inter-ethnic racism [Which we, alone, are qualified to identify, judge, adjudicate, intervene in, and punish.]; racism against people from Muslim countries and those descended [sic] from them, particularly under cover of the War on Terror.The recent resurgence [What evidence is there for this resurgence?] of another, very old form of racism, anti-Semitism, [Burying the lead, again. “Very old?” How quaint an implication of historical continuity.] is not yet properly acknowledged in left and liberal circles. [Just how many more op-eds in the New Pravda would make it properly acknowledged for you?]  Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice against the Jewish people behind the formula of ‘anti-Zionism’. [Where do I start here? Acknowledging Palestinian grievances is exploitation? Conflating the actions of a state with the people, so that if we oppose the state, is now evidence of prejudice against a people? The formula of Zionism? Not international law, like UN 242? Where’s the Listerine?] We oppose this type of racism too [Well, you certainly defined it.], as should go without saying. [Then don’t say it.]

9. United against terror

We are opposed to all forms of terrorism. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime under international law and all recognized codes of warfare [What if we claim that it was not deliberate, but simply collateral damage, as we do in Iraq and Afghanistan?], and it cannot be justified by the argument that it is done in a cause that is just. [Like Bush tries to do with our invasion of Iraq. This sounds like one of Rumsfeld’s mad projections. The US is directly responsible in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqis during sanctions, and estimates of up to 300,000 since the invasion. This is over 3% of the total population. Wounded are many times more. Palestinian deaths outpace Israeli by about 10 to 1. Even if we count the deaths from 9-11, deaths of Westerners at the hands of Moslems are a minuscule fraction of the deaths of Moslems at the hands of US and Israelis. But note which is mentioned and criticized here.] Terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology is widespread today. [So is going into other people’s heads and deciding for them what inspires them. Anyway, it couldn’t be some more mundane cause, like being occupied and murdered, could it?] It threatens democratic values and the lives and freedoms of people in many countries. [It is certainly true that the US war in Iraq is rebounding and corroding democratic values in the US itself.] This does not justify prejudice against Muslims [No, it doesn’t justify it, but slyly, this formulation does its best to incite it.], who are its main victims, and amongst whom are to be found some of its most courageous opponents [and quislings]. But, like all terrorism, it is a menace that has to be fought [O.T. Logic: More retributive killing is the answer.], and not excused.

10. A new internationalism

We stand for an internationalist politics and the reform of international law — in the interests of global democratization and global development. [Always in the interests of endless development, here.] Humanitarian intervention [Dance, Bill and Wes], when necessary, is not a matter of disregarding sovereignty, [we maintain] but of lodging this properly within the ‘common life’ of all peoples. [Gag me with an Anarchist pretzel!] If in some minimal sense a state protects the common life of its people (if it does not torture, murder and slaughter its own civilians, and meets their most basic needs of life), then its sovereignty is to be respected. But if the state itself violates this common life in appalling ways, its claim to sovereignty is forfeited and there is a duty upon the international community of intervention and rescue. [We might do well to look at ourselves in the mirror first, here. It is also the duty of the free press to manufacture consent by twisting information and vilifying the official enemy.] Once a threshold of inhumanity has been crossed, there is a ‘responsibility to protect’.  [But there is never a responsibility to go back and analyze who originally supported the wayward regime, installed the irrational leader, or equipped and armed its military. That could get uncomfortable. Nor is there any responsibility to avoid more killing by NOT intervening. That would not be fun. Again, we are judge, jury and executioner, here.]

11. A critical openness

Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism [Let’s go back 50-80 years to kick the left in the butt, but ignore Vietnam and Central America.], as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11 [Anyone who wasn’t enthralled in a jingoistic orgy.], the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism [Oh yes, I remember this argument well. Anyone who earnestly asked, and tried to answer the question, “Why do they hate us?” was "excuse-making.”], the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the ‘anti-war’ movement with illiberal theocrats [resistance against occupation is futile unless you are sanctioned by the National Endowment for Democracy.]), we reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left. We reject, similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right. [Which side are you on, boy, which side are you on? Look, if you progressives feel more comfortable with the ideas of the right, why not just come out and say it?] Leftists who make common cause with, or excuses for, anti-democratic forces should be criticized in clear and forthright terms. [Those who supported the invasion of Iraq, and subsequent refusal to hold elections.] Conversely, we pay attention to liberal and conservative voices and ideas if they contribute to strengthening democratic norms and practices and to the battle [or myth] for human progress. [For a clearer sense of what really constitutes progress for the left, than this thin screed offers, see James Petras’ recent article, “Center-Left" Regimes in Latin America.]

12. Historical truth

In connecting to the original humanistic impulses of the movement for human progress [again], we emphasize the duty that genuine democrats must have to respect for the historical truth. Not only fascists, Holocaust-deniers and the like have tried to obscure the historical record. One of the tragedies of the Left is that its own reputation was massively compromised in this regard by the international Communist movement [Hey, at least they had National health care. Seriously though, whatever errors the left made over communism are nothing compared to the Orwellian distortion over Central America, Rwanda, Yugoslavia and the current “War on Terror.” Nor is it a drop in the bucket compared to conventional non-partisan history as it is taught in our schools. See, “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” by  Dr. James W. Loewen], and some have still not learned that lesson. [But we will keep berating you until you do learn it. Have you figured out what side we are really on, yet?] Political honesty and straightforwardness are a primary obligation for us.

13. Freedom of ideas

We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty to criticize ideas — even whole bodies of ideas — to which others are committed. [Just be mindful of what we said earlier that criticizing Israel is tantamount to that “very old form of racism, anti-Semitism,” and that  attempting to understand Islamic anger is really “the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism.”] This includes the freedom to criticize religion: particular religions and religion in general. Respect for others does not entail remaining silent about their beliefs where these are judged to be wanting. [I think this means that we should feel free to draw doodles of Muhammad, and call Moslems “Islamo-fascists” with impunity.]

14. Open source

As part of the free exchange of ideas and in the interests of encouraging joint intellectual endeavour, we support the open development of software and other creative works and oppose the patenting of genes, algorithms and facts of nature. We oppose the retrospective extension of intellectual property laws in the financial interests of corporate copyright holders. The open source model is collective and competitive, collaborative and meritocratic. It is not a theoretical ideal, but a tested reality that has created common goods whose power and robustness have been proved over decades. Indeed, the best collegiate ideals of the scientific research community that gave rise to open source collaboration have served human progress for centuries. [This one is about as explicable as Bush railing about human trafficing at the UN.  I mean, open source is nice and all, but why not mention drug manufacturers refusing to provide drugs for the AIDS sufferers of Africa, or why not mention some of the weapons treaties we pulled out of since we are talking about openness. Why not talk about demilitarizing space, rather than claiming that we own it. Why not develop all scientific research openly and collectively? In any event, I think that the current trend in software, at least as far as Uncle Bill is concerned, is to give it away for free, but restrict usage through spybots, and charge massively for support and services.]

15. A precious heritage

We reject fear of modernity [and the consequent rights of the indigenous everywhere], fear of freedom [I think this means people’s rights to live under a non-democratic government, should they choose to do so.], irrationalism [Are you sure about this one, check your previous logic.], the subordination of women [Unless their unsubordination is progressive. Again this progressive sounding bit of totalitarianism denies the rights of traditional societal structures to exist.]; and we reaffirm the ideas that inspired the great rallying calls of the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century: liberty, equality and solidarity; human rights; the pursuit of happiness [Unfortunately this idea often descends into disquisitions for good wine, onanism, and property rights. I would much rather see the older Iroquois democratic ideal of responsible stewardship of the Earth mentioned here.] These inspirational ideas were made the inheritance of us all by the social-democratic, egalitarian, feminist and anti-colonial transformations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries [And are being taken away from us much more rapidly under the Clinton, Bliar, and Bush neo-liberal transformation.] — by the pursuit of social justice, the provision of welfare, the brotherhood and sisterhood of all men and women. None should be left out, none left behind [Regardless of their wishes]. We are partisans of these values. But we are not zealots. [One man’s partisan is another man’s zealot.] For we embrace also the values of free enquiry [Except about 9-11], open dialogue and creative doubt [Don’t hear much doubt here], of care in judgment [sic] and a sense of the intractabilities of the world. [Much as we “Progressives” might try to manipulate things to our progressive advantage.] We stand against all claims to a total — unquestionable or unquestioning — truth. [Before we descend into post-modern mush, let us recall that these guys were pretty clear about the truths that one shouldn’t seek to understand terrorists motives or say anything which AIPAC might construe as “anti-semitic.”]

[Let me take out my hankie and dry my eyes a bit before I continue.]

C. Elaborations

We defend liberal and pluralist democracies against all who make light [Or earnestly criticize.] of the differences between them and totalitarian and other tyrannical regimes. But these democracies have their own deficits and shortcomings. The battle for the development of more democratic institutions and procedures, for further empowering those without influence, without a voice or with few political resources, is a permanent part of the agenda of the Left. [Yes, but how? The devil, as they say, is in the details.]

The social and economic foundations on which the liberal democracies have developed are marked [Are they marked, or is that the hallmark?] by deep inequalities of wealth and income and the survival of unmerited privilege. In turn, global inequalities are a scandal [A scandal, I tell you!] to the moral conscience of humankind. Millions live in terrible poverty. Week in, week out, tens of thousands of people — children in particular — die from preventable illnesses. Inequalities of wealth, both as between individuals and between countries, distribute life chances in an arbitrary way. [Yes, yes, yes. But why do you bright fellows happen to think this is? And what do you propose should be done about it? That is the crux of the matter. The rest of this is just embroidered boilerplate.]

These things are a standing indictment against the international community. [The entire international community equally? Maybe the US more? Maybe corporations? Maybe the WTO, IMF and World Bank guys, combined with the economic hitmen and the supporting militaries.] We on the Left, in keeping with our own traditions, fight for justice and a decent life for everyone. [How?] In keeping with those same traditions, we have also to fight against powerful forces of totalitarian-style tyranny that are on the march again. [Well, at least a persistent jingoism shines through. Are you really prepared to fight the encroaching totalitarian tyrannies of the Bush regime?] Both battles have to be fought simultaneously. One should not be sacrificed for the other. [But if one must be sacrificed, it is pretty clear from the tone of this document which it would be.]

We repudiate the way of thinking according to which the events of September 11 2001 were America’s deserved comeuppance, or ‘understandable’ in the light of legitimate grievances resulting from US foreign policy. [There is nothing understandable about others’ hostility to us. Got it. Actually, I am beginning to suspect that the war in Iraq, rather than 9-11, is America’s deserved comeuppance.] What was done on that day was an act of mass murder, motivated by odious fundamentalist beliefs and redeemed by nothing whatsoever. No evasive formula can hide that. [After listening to David Ray Griffin, I am not very sure about what was really done on that day. But I do understand that you guys are mining the “9-11 changed everything” meme, which most of us have forgotten, for all it is worth.]

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath,
and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. [This is all “rooting for our team” tactical disagreements. What I would like to know is, how many of you oily liberals agree about the illegality of “preventive” war, and this war in specific. How many of you agree that one country has no right to invade another sovereign country that is not threatening to attack it? And how many of you guys are really foolish to believe all this hooey about democracy, when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that we ever planned anything but installing a new puppet leader? If you want to be thought of as serious thinkers, and not serious drinkers, you need to address these questions.] We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. [Well, I guess you addressed it then. The point here is that it is irrelevant whether you recognize the overthrow of the Baathists as a liberation or not. It is up to the Iraqis do decide how they recognize it, and I don’t think you belligerent dunces really want to hear their answer.] We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country’s infrastructure [How sweetly patronizing of you!], to create after decades of the most brutal oppression [I believe that by brutal oppression you mean the Kissenger engineered war with Iran, followed by our first war with Iraq, followed by sanctions. Prior to all of that, Iraq was the gem of the Middle East, a center of higher education with the greatest percentage of PHDs in the world, and nationalized health care.] a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted — rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention. [War crimes on the level of Nuremberg are blithely dismissed as “rubble of the arguments over intervention." The sweet joys of Liberalism!]

This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs [Reagan preferred the phrase “freedom fighters” to “gangs” and “thugs.”] of the Iraqi so-called [do you mean self-called, perhaps?] resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country. [No doubt of the puppets motives at least.] We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one’s energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi ‘insurgency’. The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values they profess. [Betray democratic values? By disagreeing with you? You are on quite a little snit here, especially for someone who has made every effort NOT to share your treasured “considerations” in engaging in war crimes. I think the more pertinent consideration after reading this delightful little paragraph, is to ask in what manner you “progressives” differ from the most totalitarian and fascistic strains of the far-right in your views on Iraq? Is it that you are bombing them for “democracy,” while the right is bombing them for oil? Pray tell.]

Vandalism against synagogues and Jewish graveyards and attacks on Jews themselves are on the increase in Europe. [Really?] ‘Anti-Zionism’ has now developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form alliances with anti-Semitic groups. [You don’t have to put quotes around  ‘anti-Zionism.’ It is true. Many people, including many Jews, are against Zionist ideology as well as the policies of the Israeli government. That is called democracy, my Liberal friend, not anti-Semitism.] Amongst educated and affluent people are to be found individuals unembarrassed to claim that the Iraq war was fought on behalf of Jewish interests, or to make other ‘polite’ and subtle allusions to the harmful effect of Jewish influence in international or national politics — remarks of a kind that for more than fifty years after the Holocaust no one would have been able to make without publicly disgracing themselves. We stand against all variants of such bigotry. [Maybe it is not bigotry. Maybe, as in the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt article, there is a compelling case to be made. Here it is you that is betraying the democratic values you profess.]

The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of ‘rendition’, must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, [Try war crime on for size.] for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit. [Nice rhetorical trick to find a way to complement the US in a sentence about Abu Graib!] But we reject the double standards by which too many on the Left today treat as the worst violations of human rights those perpetrated by the democracies, while being either silent or more muted about infractions that outstrip these by far. [Usually committed with American support or complicity. Have to agree with Uncle Noam here, that America – and its proxies – are the worst perpetrators of violence in the world.] This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag [In quality, yes; in quantity, not so far], can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voice.

D. Conclusion

It is vitally important for the future of progressive politics that people of liberal, egalitarian and internationalist outlook should now speak clearly. We must define ourselves against those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic ‘antiimperialism’ and/or hostility to the current US administration. [Anti-imperialism is not simplistic, nor harmless, in the least, regardless of how you seek to derogate it. And calling the progressive-democratic agenda to be imperialism, albeit clothed in populist guise, is to reveal what you have here so ardently sought to obfuscate.] The values and goals which properly make up that agenda — the values of democracy, human rights, the continuing battle against unjustified privilege and power, solidarity with peoples fighting against tyranny and oppression — are what most enduringly define the shape of any Left worth belonging to.

[It is hard to understand just how you would attempt to implement this progressive agenda — “the values of democracy, human rights, the continuing battle against unjustified privilege and power, solidarity with peoples fighting against tyranny and oppression” — while, at the same time, defining yourself against “hostility to the current US administration,” as they represent the very pinnacles of “unjustified privilege and power in the entire world. If you call yourselves progressives, yet show no hostility to the current administration, perhaps, by your reckoning, they are progressives too.  As Orwell mused in “Animal House, “Man is the only real enemy we have.”]