[Marxism] Re: Todd Gitlin-Daniel Lazare exchange

Zachary Levenson zachary.levenson at gmail.com
Wed Mar 22 18:44:28 MST 2006


Louis Proyect wrote:



> Unfortunately the review is not online.
>

Pledging Allegiance

by DANIEL LAZARE

[from the March 20, 2006 issue]

Is patriotism a positive political force? In much of the world, the answer
is no or a highly qualified maybe. In Britain, English patriotism verges on
the comical (see the collected works of Rowan Atkinson for more details),
while the United Kingdom, an array of feudal fiefdoms stretching from the
Channel to the North Sea, is far too antiquated a structure to stir up much
patriotic passion in anyone other than a far-rightist. Does the average
cockney's heart beat faster when contemplating the offshore bankers of
Jersey or the noble fishermen of Shetland pressuring Brussels for more
favorable cod quotas? Don't make us larf!

In France, *la patrie* is a political concept, meaning that one's view of it
is a direct function of one's place on the left-right spectrum. If you're a
Gaullist you may have some lingering attachment to *la France profonde*; if
you're a liberal, you want to see it subsumed under the EU, while if you're
among the 10 percent of the electorate that voted Trotskyist in the 2002
presidential elections, the very word smacks of Pétainism and the
reactionary "integral" nationalism of Charles Maurras. In Germany,
patriotism is controversial due to certain nationalist excesses of the
mid-twentieth century, while in Italy it exists only on a local level. In
Canada, no one quite knows what it means, for the simple reason that no one
quite knows what Canada means other than that part of North America that
looks like the United States but doesn't believe in capital punishment, mass
incarceration or the virtues of maintaining military bases in more than a
hundred foreign countries.

Only in the United States does patriotism, among both liberals and
conservatives, elicit an unqualified yes. Perhaps the most important reason
has to do with the role of voluntarism in American constitutional thought.
Despite being bound to the United States by countless laws and regulations,
Americans cling to a concept of citizenship as a matter of choice. They are
not Americans because they were born here or because economic necessity
forced them to immigrate, supposedly, but because they want to be. Since the
United States is not so much a nation as a calling, anyone wishing to
participate in the American polity must make his or her loyalties clear.
This is why politicians will launch into the most amazing bombast on a
moment's notice about the United States being "the best country ever created
and still, as ever, the hope of humankind" (to quote the hapless Al Gore in
August 2000). The more they want the people's vote, the more they must
trumpet their devotion. If patriotism is an unalloyed good, then more
patriotism is better, while ultra-patriotism, the kind that equates the
nation with the will of God, is best of all.

In his new book *The Intellectuals and the Flag*, Todd Gitlin uses
patriotism to wallop the radical left, which he cannot forgive for being
right about the direction of US military policy after 9/11, when he and
other liberal intellectuals gathered around *Dissent* magazine were almost
completely wrong. Living a mile north of the World Trade Center, Gitlin--a
professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia, author of a well-known
chronicle of 1960s radicalism (*The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage*)
and a member of the *Dissent* editorial board--got a stiff dose of
patriotism as he watched the Twin Towers disintegrate in a cloud of smoke
and debris. Overcome with emotion, he wandered downtown a few days later and
joined a crowd of onlookers applauding dust-covered rescue workers emerging
from the blast site.

"In those awful days," Gitlin informs us, "I found people--and a people to
whom I belonged." Overcome with a feeling of oneness with all those shocked
and horrified people in the street, he put up the Stars and Stripes to show
where his sympathies lay. A few days later, when *New York Times* Metro
columnist Clyde Haberman called seeking a comment about the American flags
sprouting up all over the city, he mentioned that he happened to have one
hanging from his apartment terrace. Haberman's article made Gitlin into a
minor patriotic hero.

But although Gitlin assumes in *The Intellectuals and the Flag* that it was
natural to feel solidarity on that occasion on the basis of a common
American identity, he could have felt solidarity on any number of bases--as
a New Yorker, as a human being, as a secularist or as an anti-imperialist,
to name just a few. Each mode implies a different form of politics, a
different way of looking at the problem, and hence a different way of
thinking about how to respond. The first, for example, might very well imply
solidarity not only vis-à-vis Al Qaeda but vis-à-vis Texas oilmen whose view
of compact, energy-efficient cities like New York is not much more benign.
The second implies an ethical stance against the needless taking of human
life by any actor in the conflict, while the third implies a condemnation of
religious fanaticism in general, Muslim, Christian or Jewish. The fourth
would almost certainly lead, among other things, to demands that Washington
come clean about its dealings with militant fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia
and Afghanistan, not to mention Israel and the American Bible Belt.

Instead, Gitlin responded as an American. Lots of other people in those
fateful days did as well: Considering that Osama bin Laden had attacked
Americans qua Americans, they found it difficult not to respond in kind.
Nonetheless, responding as an American meant seeing 9/11 in essentially
nationalist terms as a case of turbanned foreigners visiting evil on an
innocent United States. When Katha Pollitt published a column in this
magazine saying she would not fly the flag because it "stands for jingoism
and vengeance and war," he was therefore incensed. He fired back with an
article in Mother Jones accusing certain unnamed leftists of "smugness,
acrimony, even schadenfreude"--an especially incendiary charge in those
super-heated times, since it implied that Pollitt and her co-thinkers
derived pleasure from the suffering around them. After finishing with them,
Gitlin attacked Noam Chomsky and the late Edward Said for statements he
regarded as foolish or disloyal, and then rounded on Indian novelist
Arundhati Roy for daring to suggest that Osama bin Laden was Bush's "dark
doppelgänger" and that "the twins are blurring into one another and
gradually becoming interchangeable." Today, with postinvasion deaths in Iraq
outnumbering those in Lower Manhattan by better than thirty to one, Roy's
sentiments seem positively mild. Yet for Gitlin they were indicative of "a
prejudice invulnerable to moral distinctions" because, presumably, they
failed to recognize that Al Qaeda is fundamentally evil, while America, of
course, is fundamentally good.

Still, it could have been worse. Around the same time that Gitlin was
sounding off in *Mother Jones*, *Dissent* editor Michael Walzer published an
article in that magazine (which Gitlin approvingly cites here) not only
echoing the charge of schadenfreude but accusing the left of sympathizing
with Al Qaeda on the grounds that "any group that attacks the imperial power
must be a representative of the oppressed, and its agenda must be the agenda
of the left." National Security Administration wiretappers take note: Not
only were leftists reveling in the bloodshed, they were plainly hoping for
more.

With *The Intellectuals and the Flag*, Gitlin revisits the old battlefield,
toning down his rhetoric somewhat but otherwise expanding on the theme that
radicals must learn to love the flag and embrace patriotism if they wish to
be effective. The first thing to be said about *The Intellectuals and the
Flag*, a grab bag of essays touching on everything from postmodernism and
cultural studies to the role of the universities in fostering intelligent
political debate, is that it is a very bad book--badly written, badly argued
and studded with non sequiturs and intellectual clichés. The second thing is
that it is one of those bad books that nonetheless touch upon an important
topic, even if it is a bit more complicated than the author apparently
realizes.

As Gitlin sees it, leftists come in two varieties, the loyal kind and the
more radical sort typified by his bêtes noires Chomsky and Said. The first
group tries to understand America; when it criticizes America, it does so,
more in sorrow than in anger, from within as a loyal member of the moral
community. The second, on the other hand, is exclusively negative, carping
and complaining about nearly everything America does, no matter how
justified or well intended. When America tries to defend itself or use its
power to prevent some grievous abuse abroad, the only thing the radicals can
say, according to Gitlin, is that "the Empire Is Striking Back." As he puts
it: "In their eyes Bill Clinton's interventions in behalf of the rights of
Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims were as wicked as any and all other
interventions." Since everything America does is wicked, then America, from
their perspective, must be wicked itself.

Never mind that Chomsky is actually a critical patriot who is on record as
declaring that the United States is "the best country in the world" or that
Said, rather than a leftist, was an old-fashioned liberal who happened to
champion a national movement the pro-Israel editors at *Dissent* do not much
like. With his ideology of "for us or against us," Gitlin is impervious to
such fine points. As he sees it, leftists have two choices: They can turn
their backs on the United States on the grounds that it is hopelessly
reactionary or pledge allegiance to the United States so as to become bona
fide members of the American polity and work from within. "Democratic
patriotism," he says, does not mean mindless genuflection but recognition
that the United States is complex and multihued, continually washed over by
powerful crosscurrents from both the left and the right. Instead of
condemning American power in toto, he maintains that leftists should
"acknowledge--and wrestle with--the dualities of America: the liberty and
arrogance twinned, the bullying and tolerance, myopia and energy,
standardization and variety, ignorance and inventiveness, the awful dark
heart of darkness and the self-reforming zeal." One senses that Gitlin could
go on in this pseudo-Whitmanesque fashion for pages at a time. Still, the
bottom line seems to be that loving America is a must for leftists, but so
is criticizing it, because that is what real love requires.

This is a familiar argument, but not a coherent one. Although *The
Intellectuals and the Flag* never makes it clear exactly why leftists should
love their country, a number of possibilities present themselves. There is
the tactical argument, for one, which holds that leftists should conform to
local custom and profess patriotism because that is the only way to enter
"the mainstream." There is the practical argument that leftists should wake
up and recognize that internationalism has failed and that the nation-state
is the only remaining democratic arena. Instead of denigrating America, they
should be more supportive. And then there is the emotional argument, the
idea that we all hold dear some concept of a homeland--*Heimat*, in
German--because, to quote Brecht, "the bread tastes better there, the air
smells better, voices sound stronger, the sky is higher, the ground is
easier to walk on." Since we live in the land of hot dogs, baseball and
apple pie, it's only natural to be loyal to it.

Yet none of these positions really holds water. The trouble with the
tactical argument is that it rings with insincerity. Love is not something
one expresses in order to gain political advantage; rather, love has to be
heartfelt to be real. The practical argument is not persuasive, simply
because the nation-state's record has been so obviously negative over the
past century or so. The United Nations, the European Union, not to mention
the former Soviet-sponsored Comecon (i.e., the East European Council for
Mutual Economic Assistance) and indeed the former USSR itself, all arose out
of the belief that the nation-state was an outmoded form that could only
lead to stepped-up war and repression and that it had to be replaced with
something newer and more expansive. Although some have tried to fudge the
difference by arguing that patriotism is permissible as part of an
international community of peace-minded patries, the fit between patriotism
and internationalism has never been a comfortable one.

The emotional argument founders simply because the nation-state does not
necessarily equate with *Heimat*. America is a country torn by cultural
warfare. There is no reason for a liberal New Yorker or Californian to feel
more at home in, say, Texas than in Toronto or Paris, even though these
cities lie outside the confines of the legal entity known as the United
States. "To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely," said
Edmund Burke. Yet "lovely" is the last word many Americans would use to
describe "their" country, with its strip malls, evangelical churches and
right-wing talk-radio.

And, finally, there is the moral-ideological argument that America is
superior to other nations--fairer, more just and more democratic--and that
it is hence entitled to our special admiration and respect. But this is
actually a very dangerous one from a patriotic point of view. After all, one
can't merely assert that one's country is morally superior. One must prove
it, which implies not only a common international standard to measure it
against but also the possibility that, once the sifting and winnowing is
over, the nation in question will stand exposed as no better than other
nations in its class and maybe even worse. If the former is the case, then
it is not entitled to any special regard, while if it's the latter, then it
is actually entitled to less. If we agree that political morality is to be
the final determinant, then we must agree that one should not be loyal to
one's country as a matter of course.

The notion of a common international standard implies something else: the
importance of an international perspective. Patriotism "privileges" one
viewpoint above all others, the view from within the fishbowl as opposed to
those from without. This is true for any form of patriotism, but it is
especially the case for the United States, the oldest republic on the face
of the earth, the most insular and the most powerful (despite the deepening
disaster in Iraq). By encouraging Americans to turn inward, patriotism
allows them to turn their backs on the outside world, something all too easy
in a nation of 300 million people bounded, as it has been said, by
insignificant military powers to the north and south and by fish to the east
and west. Yet the result, paradoxically, is not to disengage from the world
at large but to strike out in an increasingly brutal and erratic fashion.

This is what made 9/11 such a turning point. Previously, Americans paid
little attention as the government unleashed reactionary violence on faraway
countries they knew little about. But when forces fueled and financed by
Washington turned on their erstwhile sponsor and unleashed frightening
violence within the United States, their reaction was one of rage and panic.
Instead of reassessing their international role, Americans immediately
responded by demanding that defenses be reinforced and the great American
bubble be restored. With remarkable rapidity, Americans fell into line as
Washington began lashing out at an array of enemies from the Korean
Peninsula to the Middle East. Stepped-up patriotism led to a breakdown in
democracy not only by encouraging an atmosphere of wartime authoritarianism
but by discouraging anything by way of an objective international comparison
that would enable Americans to see how far they had fallen. Patriotism robs
people of perspective. By requiring them to turn their gaze inward, it
encourages them in the view that their country is sui generis, a case apart,
and therefore not to be judged on the same basis as other countries. While
"democratic patriotism" may leave some room for criticism of specific
conditions, it shields the nation as a whole by turning it into an object of
veneration at exactly the moment when unsparing criticism from top to bottom
is most required.

Yet rather than calling for less veneration, Gitlin is calling for more.
This would seem to make no sense, but perhaps that is the point. As the
title of his new book suggests, Gitlin aims his argument at American
intellectuals, a group he never attempts to define although at times he
seems to regard it as synonymous with the left. In seeking to advance a
deliberately incoherent argument, perhaps he is seeking to
de-intellectualize the intelligentsia, to somehow pressure it--and, by
extension, Americans in general--into thinking less. This, after all, is
what authoritarianism does: By inducing people to worship artificial totems,
it encourages them to switch off their critical faculties. The result is
greater compliance and less independent thought, a win-win situation for the
right.

Not surprisingly, *The Intellectuals and the Flag* fairly abounds with
political misjudgment regarding other topics as well. Nearly as angry at the
Bush Administration these days as he is at those to his left, Gitlin writes
that the mindless "repetition of stock phrases--'war on terror,' 'axis of
evil,' 'root causes'"--is somehow impeding "public discussion of how this
state of affairs came to pass and what can be done about it." Those trying
to figure out why the attack on the World Trade Center occurred are thus no
better than those who insist that Al Qaeda did it because "they hate our
freedoms."

Gitlin insists that "patriotism has no quarrel with robust dissent," a
statement that is little short of stunning considering not only the decline
in political debate since 9/11 but his own role in squelching it. He argues
that patriotism can serve as a useful basis for mobilization against
Bushonomics and corporate ripoffs: "Americans did not take much reminding
that when the skyscrapers were on fire, they needed fire fighters and police
officers, not Enron hustlers or Arthur Andersen accountants. Yet we confront
an administration that gaily passes out tax largesse to the plutocracy,
whose idea of sacrifice is that somebody in a blue collar should perform it
for low wages." But as he should know from his history books, populism and
patriotism can make for an explosive combination. Nationalist anger at
un-American plutocrats in corporate boardrooms can lead all too easily to
nationalist anger at un-American intellectuals in the universities and the
press.

Gitlin also offers a halfhearted defense of the war in Iraq. While
complaining that Bush's reasons for going to war were "shabby, sloppy, and
evasive," he insists that "the other powers' approach" was also deficient
and that overthrowing the Iraqi Baathists was not without its "virtues."
Like Thomas Friedman, he evidently regards Iraq as the right war fought for
the wrong reasons. Citing his fellow *Dissent*-nik Paul Berman, Gitlin
bravely inveighs against Islamic fundamentalism as "a poisonous, nihilist,
totalitarian creed allied, in its ideological DNA, to fascism and
communism." But he neglects to explain why, if Islamic fundamentalism and
Soviet Communism are ideological brothers, they would fight a war to the
death in Afghanistan and why the United States would provide the Afghan
mujahedeen with billions of dollars in military aid. After all, ideological
kin are more often allies than enemies. He also writes that "for a
century...there has been no more murderous force in the world than totalist
ideologies" such as Stalinism, Maoism and the radical peasant autarchy of
the Khmer Rouge. This is a common sentiment these days, but what about
democracy, socialism and science? They are equally "totalist," yet have been
immensely liberating. Pace Gitlin, it is impossible to change society from
top to bottom without a theory as to how it functions as a totality.

Finally, making a show of progressive politics, Gitlin criticizes America's
runaway energy appetite. "Oil makes the United States grovel before Saudi
tyrants," he declares. "Oil lubricated the disastrous U.S. support for the
brutal shah of Iran.... Oil floated the tyranny of Saddam Hussein." True
enough, dubious grammar notwithstanding. But oil as a motivating force
behind Bush's invasion of Iraq? Forget about it. Gitlin doesn't even mention
the possibility, presumably because it runs counter to his thesis that the
war was a well-intentioned, if badly executed, attempt to rid the world of a
noxious tyrant. He is apparently one of those naïve souls who, to quote the
dreaded Noam Chomsky, believe that the United States "would have invaded
Iraq if it was an island in the Indian Ocean and its main export was
pickles, not petroleum."

One could go on, but why bother? *The Intellectuals and the Flag* is yet
more evidence that the incompetence that has led to the greatest
foreign-policy disaster in memory is not limited to Congress or the White
House but extends across the entire foreign-policy establishment, from the *
*on the right to *Dissent* on the left. In surrendering to the ecstasies of
flag-worship, Gitlin and his co-thinkers turned off their critical faculties
at exactly the moment they should have been turning them up to the maximum.
The consequences have not been pretty in America or Iraq, and they look as
if they're only going to get worse.
__________________
Zachary Levenson
Radiation Effects Research Foundation
Hiroshima Laboratory
5-2 Hijiyama Park, Minami-ku
Hiroshima City, 732-0815 Japan

levenson at rerf.or.jp
Zachary.Levenson at gmail.com
http://rebenson.blogspot.com

"If it looks like class struggle and acts like class war then we have to
name it unashamedly for what it is."
~David Harvey, "A Brief History of Neoliberalism"



More information about the Marxism mailing list