A Sad Attempt to Build a New Left-Right Alliance: Why It Should Fail
In 2003, when the United States under the helm of President George W. Bush, when the United States went to war against the thugocracy of Saddam Hussein, I wrote a briefing paper for The Center for the Defense of Democracy. I warned therein about the attempt to create a new Left-Right coalition opposed to a centrist and mainstream American foreign policy. It was, I argued, reminiscent of “the blending together of opposition to a forceful American foreign policy by remnants of both the Old and New Left and the Old Right” in the 1930s.
The original attempt to unite both Old Left and Old Right took place on the eve of World War II, when right-wing isolationists and classical liberals in The America First Party, and left-wing isolationists in the pacifist movement and in Norman Thomas’ Socialist Party, joined hands and argued that FDR’s Presidency was moving America to fascism at home and war abroad. During the years of the Nazi-Soviet Pact between August of 1939 and June of 1941, these forces were joined by the cadre of the American Communist Party.
The next reincarnation took place during the emerging Cold War with the Soviet Union that broke out in the early1950’s. One of Harry S. Truman’s advisors, Joseph P. Jones, warned that “most of the outright opposition” to Truman’s new bi-partisan interventionist foreign policy came from “the extreme Left and the extreme Right…from a certain group of ‘liberals’ who had been long strongly critical of the administration’s stiffening policy toward the Soviet Union, and from the ‘isolationists,’ who had been consistent opponents of all foreign-policy measures that projected the United States actively into World Affairs.”
During the Iraq War, a disparate group of similar contemporary types, from Alex Cockburn on the Left to Pat Buchanan on the Right, tried once again to forge such a new alliance in opposition to the Bush foreign policy, and even before that, to the Clinton administration’s humanitarian intervention in Bosnia against the monstrous regime in Belgrade of Slobodan Milosevic. One of the group’s stalwarts, a writer for The American Conservative, Justin Raimondo, even wrote that it was false to claim that “America is a civilized country,” and referring to World War II, wrote that “the wrong side won the war in the Pacific.”
I argued that as the United State moved to assert its world responsibility as a major power, that the new attempt to create a Red-Brown alliance (named after the alliance in Russia of old Soviet era communists with fascists and Russian nationalists) would not disappear, and would only gain new adherents.
Now, as the confused and dangerous foreign policy of the Obama administration continues on, yet another attempt is now being created to build anew such a Left-Right alliance. The cast of characters is more than familiar. I understand the temptation. During the Vietnam War era, I myself was part of a similar small attempt at just such a strange alliance. Working with my friend, the late libertarian economist Murray N. Rothbard, I wrote often for his small and largely unknown journal of opinion, aptly titled Left and Right. Rothbard, whom William F. Buckley Jr. pushed out of the pages of National Review, saw Buckley’s successful project of creating a new conservative movement as the right-wing of Establishment liberalism. It was not surprising that before long, Rothbard himself was penning articles in the pages of the far left magazine, Ramparts.
Now, as the Obama administration and the President himself goes around the world apologizing for America’s past evils, the adherents of a Left-Right alliance have sensed that perhaps the moment is propitious for yet one more try at creating what they see as a new and effective movement, that will help push the President further towards adoption of a non-interventionist and self-proclaimed “anti-imperialist” direction.
Almost a month ago, their supporters met at a largely unreported conference in Washington DC, at a meeting that included old Rightists, conservatives, libertarians and leftists. A report was posted at a site called Front Porch Republic by Jeff Taylor, under the McGovernite title of “Come, Home, America:Prospects for a Coalition Against Empire.” The meeting, Taylor reports, was composed of supporters of George McGovern’s disastrous 1972 presidential campaign, Pat Buchanan’s 1992 campaign, and one from Ralph Nader’s 2004 campaign. None of the participants, evidently, see the irony of how vast divergent viewpoints on domestic issues fall by the wayside as the group united around the overarching theme of anti-Americanism.
“Ron Paul’s son who espouses his father’s far out politics?”
does he?
“I believe we try the terrorists captured on the battlefield in military tribunals at GITMO. I do not believe in trying them in civilian court.
I believe that when we must fight, we declare war as the Constitution mandates and we fight to win. That we fight only under US Commander and not the UN.
I believe that defending this country is the primary and most important Constitutional function of our federal government.”
http://www.randpaul2010.com/
“Doesn’t he realize too that the confused Palin has endorsed one of their favorites, Rand Paul(?)”
Rand Paul has downplayed his agreement with his father’s peculiar foreign policy doctrines. It will be interesting how this plays out later in the year. My guess is that the younger Paul will continue to present himself as a mainstream conservative. Nonetheless, we probably can take this for granted: Glenn Beck will ask Rand some hard questions just like he did with Debra Medina. The same also holds true of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, and other conservative talk show hosts.
I hold the Old Right in utter contempt. They are greatly responsible for our lack of preparation at the beginning of WWII. Pat Buchanan’s attempt to portray Adolph Hitler as something of a reasonable man is insane. The argument that Japanese Imperial militarists were alleged victims of American imperialism is morally and logically indefensible. Our efforts in Vietnam were also noble.
Robert Welch’s John Birch Society has done enormous amount of damage over the decades. It has encouraged countless conservative to fight an imaginary enemy. The growth of the welfare state has little do with explicit conspiracies. Most of time, those causing so much damage are childishly naïve sentimentalists like Mickey Kaus and Jonathan Cohn. Friedrich Hayek understood this phenomenon clearly. “Elites” that attended Ivy League institutions want to become our benevolent dictators. They adamantly believe that their supposed advanced education and virtue gives them the right to tell the rest of us what to do. Understanding this distinction is of mind-boggling importance.
This might help explain why people on the left say the recent Pentagon shooter was a right winger and the right says just the opposite. The extremes appear to be merging in a mindset that is, according to your post, old and new.
One difference may be that the far left includes all races and skin colors while the right extreme does not except in the case of anti-semitism or anti-Israel which disturbingly is rampant at both extremes.
I can’t think of any reason anyone could think this is a good idea. If the worldviews are incompatible then any point of agreement is bound to be too narrow to be worthwhile. The ‘Big Tent’ concept of the Republican party already borders uselessness, because there are some single-issue voters who simply can’t support certain things while retaining a personal sense of honor and integrity. Ultraconservatives who ought to be honorable in the Victorian sense, since that is what they champion, and ultrasocialists who believe that anything new must be better than anything old, and that outdated ideas like honesty and integrity are just tools of oppression, simply cannot align together without one or the other giving up part of their core principles. A libertarian can’t in good conscience support a fiscal conservative who opposes gay marriage, but can support a Maoist who wants to abolish free will by government coercion? Anyone who joins in such foolishness has no honor and no principles, therefore we can simply dismiss their claims to such. It’s one of the reasons for my dislike for Libertarians in general. They spit on all the underpinnings that make an economic system work, then pretend that the markets will magically fix everything. In that sense they’re certainly the same as liberals/leftists. They believe in that great Utopian pie in the sky, the magical solution for all things wrong, when there’s no such thing. I had a great deal of respect for Pat Buchanan once upon a time, but when he ran for president with the remains of the Perot movement he demonstrated his lack of honor in selecting a running mate.
Can the same be said of America aligning with dictators over the decades? Yes it can. It’s one reason nobody can really trust us. Eventually we elect democrats who betray our allies, coddle our enemies, and curse our friends. Why would anyone trust America the nation? But the solid core of ideas that made America are sound, and betraying those ideas is not the proper way to improve upon past mistakes.
2. “My guess is that the younger Paul will continue to present himself as a mainstream conservative. Nonetheless, we probably can take this for granted: Glenn Beck will ask Rand some hard questions just like he did with Debra Medina. The same also holds true of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, and other conservative talk show hosts.”
Good guess David. BAD analysis here. Rush, Medved, Beck, etc. WONT hold him to anything IF Rand gets the GOP nomination. Facts: none of them ever held W to much of anything during 2000 & 2004 elections, kept hammering and hollering point home that what’s the alternative? And so…in Nov. ’10…if polls hold up…voila…Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY. After all, what’s the alternative? Better a vote sometimes on GOP issues than a lib dem no vote ever on GOP issues, yes no?
“Our efforts in Vietnam were also noble.” Yes they were noble efforts. For a totally pointless war. US could’ve sat it out and not gone in. So what? How did faraway Siagon effect Huntsville, Alabama’s way of life? Answer: it did not, not by a long sight. US didnt have to go into Vietnam. Period. Unfortunately, Howard Zinn, and left wing nutcases were correct: US had no direct interest in Vietnam. Should’ve have gone in. And if we weren’t going to go in to try and win it all out the way we did during WW2, what was the point? Exactly. Again, noble effort, but all for a senseless war that we had no business being in.
The real victims? US SOLDIERS. They were and remain, the true heroes. They got the shaft. MacNammarra, LBJ, Nixon, etc, didnt help them when they needed it most. Let’s try not to repeat history in Afghanistan regarding our troops there now. They deserve better.
“Elites” that attended Ivy League institutions want to become our benevolent dictators. They adamantly believe that their supposed advanced education and virtue gives them the right to tell the rest of us what to do. Understanding this distinction is of mind-boggling importance.”
Actually it has no such thing at all to do with this distinction, for it is human nature, pure and simple. History’s written by the winner. The winners are the elites. The elities have ALWAYS considered themselves inherently better than the masses. You’ll find that attitude existing everywhere, in every culture, in every era. That’s not uniquely American, it predates our nation. Again, so what? Common sense human nature question: If you and yours were at the heap-top in regards to wealth, education, “breeding”, had all the chances and opportunities and enjoyed a very nice life full of…well everything, even you, I, and anyone else would certainly begin to think of themselves as uniquely special. If not you, than certainly the offspring and succeeding generations who lived in splendor.
“It’s good to be the king”–Mel Brooks. Mel’s right too.
Really nothing more difficult than that. If you’re at the top, you generally rationalize why and over time begin to think, well, yeah, damn I’m good. And so are my succeeding generations. They have it all, so they must know life’s secret and thus can tell others what to do.
History’s written by the winners.
This attitude is just as apparent in pop culture. Look at Paris Hilton. She’s part of the upper class. Not a respectable place in the world who wouldn’t accept her signature. The UN, White House, etc important power-halls would invite her and ilk in a heartbeat. She’s in the right club, right breeding, right generation.
That is life. How it’s always been and how it always will be.