Of course during the Cold War days there was no internet and except into the 1980s no cable television, so there were many fewer sources of news, especially regarding news from the rest of the world outside of whichever Iron Curtain nation one was living. Today, the options are a little more expansive. Also, Radio Free Europe gained traction because people living in the Soviet empire for the most part not only didn't like communism, they also were angry about being under foreign rule, which is not the case in the Middle East (with exceptions).According to critics, the U.S. government miscalculated in assuming that al-Hurra could repeat the success of Radio Free Europe during the Cold War, when information-starved listeners behind the Iron Curtain tuned in on their shortwave radios.
Al-Hurra, by contrast, faces cutthroat competition. About 200 other stations beam Arabic-language programming to satellite dishes reaching even the poorest neighborhoods in the Middle East and North Africa. The BBC launched an Arabic-language news channel this year, and more rivals loom.
Critiquing the misuses of history in politics and media and general thoughts on the intersections of history, politics, and pop culture
Monday, June 23, 2008
How can you fight a war of ideas when you don't have any?
Today's Washington Post carries an article on the failure of Al-Hurrah, the U.S. backed television station that was supposed to spread American ideals into the Arab world. This part stuck out to me:
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Have you ever had a dream so real...
Having different interpretations or emphasizing different elements of history is one thing. It's quite another to just pretend large chunks of history don't exist. Which is exactly what Andrew McCarthy does in this NRO article about how the "law enforcement" approach to combating al Qaeda is the sole province of sissy men. The article commences with one of the most awesome opening paragraphs I've read:
This is June 2008. That means it marks the ten-year anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s indictment . . . So it’s fair to ask: How is that strategy of prosecuting him in the criminal-justice system working out? That’s a question Sen. John McCain ought to be putting to Sen. Barack Obama every day.I thought we'd snapped out of the "September 10th" mentality a long time ago, say around eight years ago? Or maybe those years didn't happen? If only. . .
Monday, June 16, 2008
Monday Music
As a public service I think I'll just regularly post Tom Lehrer videos, 'cause why not? Here's John McCain's personal anthem:
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Count your blemishes you can't they're all gone
There's a small cottage industry among conservatives of placing much of the culpability for societal and government enforced racism in U.S. history on the shoulders of the American left. The latest is Daniel Flynn's article, "America's Racist Left" in The National Review which argues that racism "stains the history of homegrown radicals just as it stains the history of the nation which those radicals sought to change so radically." While it would be easy to just scoff at such an assertion, Flynn has some important points to make. However, by ignoring the role of the American left's role in combating racism, Flynn presents a history that is both overly static and highly selective.
First of all, let's give Flynn's assertions credit where it is due. Racism is an American problem that has seeped into almost all American political ideologies, including the left in the U.S. Nor has this been an accident or an oddity in left-wing thought, but rather an important strand (although one that has diminished with time). For example, Flynn is right to point to the anti-abolition views of antebellum American leftists; this was an issue for example among the labor movement of the time. Important labor leaders and allies such as New York politician Michael Walsh held to the view that calls for abolition represented one more method that the ruling class used to suppress the common (read white) folk. As Michael McGerr, Gwndolyn Mink and other scholars have discussed, the Progressive Movement of the late nineteenth century were by no means allies of struggling African-Americans and many Southern Progressives tacitly and even vehemently supported segregation (see George Packer's wonderful memoir Blood of the Liberals for more on this specific topic).
That said, Flynn picks his representatives of the various stages of the American left carefully to avoid dealing with some of the more heartening spots of the white American left's history. Take Flynn's history of the Communist Party in the United States. He cites the party's support of "separatism" as evidence of white on black racism, yet this position arose from a national liberation strain of thought, making it a stretch to label it as "racist." Noticeably absent is a mention of the Communist Party as one of the first white civil society organizations that fully integrated itself or more importantly the history of the Party combating racism actively (remember the Scottsboro Boys?) Don't like the Communists? Well, how about the Socialists? Perhaps one of the most important figures in the black freedom movement before Martin Luther King, Jr. was A. Philip Randolph (whose idea the March on Washington was). Randolph was an African-American, a union organizer, and a socialist.
Flynn's post-war history is also somewhat absurd. While conservatives like to harp on the racism of the Democratic Party this is always based on ignoring the virtual civil war within the party between (mostly) Southern reactionaries and the progressive parts of the party. One should remind Flynn of the words of former House majority leader and far-left Congressman Newt Gingrich who noted that "it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation." Looking to the left social movements of the 1960s Flynn seems to think he has a "gotchya" moment in pointing to the lack of black "officers" in Students for a Democratic Society. Except that SDS was intended, in part, as a counterpoint to the already existing Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) which was of course majority African-American. References to SDS of course also beg the question of how many black officers there were in its conservative equivalent, Young Americans for Freedom?
Furthermore, there is the issue of Flynn's attitude which assumes that the left is unwilling to criticize its own on such issues. Of course, any good lefty knows that a core aspect of being on this side of the divide is loving to criticize others. "Moderates" attack radicals, radicals attack moderates, radicals call other radicals too moderate, and so forth. On the issue of American communism and race, Flynn's views were echoed, among other places, in one of the great pieces of American literature Richard Wright's Native Son which holds a skeptical view of the intentions of American communists. McGerr and Mink's books are also highly critical of the white left for its positions and actions regarding race relations. In fact, this was all a core undercurrent of the whole new social history movement of the 1970s and 1980s. History is fluid and one of the chief roles many left-wing academics see themselves in is keeping their activist sisters and brothers honest about the past. But you wouldn't know that reading Professor Flynn's piece.
First of all, let's give Flynn's assertions credit where it is due. Racism is an American problem that has seeped into almost all American political ideologies, including the left in the U.S. Nor has this been an accident or an oddity in left-wing thought, but rather an important strand (although one that has diminished with time). For example, Flynn is right to point to the anti-abolition views of antebellum American leftists; this was an issue for example among the labor movement of the time. Important labor leaders and allies such as New York politician Michael Walsh held to the view that calls for abolition represented one more method that the ruling class used to suppress the common (read white) folk. As Michael McGerr, Gwndolyn Mink and other scholars have discussed, the Progressive Movement of the late nineteenth century were by no means allies of struggling African-Americans and many Southern Progressives tacitly and even vehemently supported segregation (see George Packer's wonderful memoir Blood of the Liberals for more on this specific topic).
That said, Flynn picks his representatives of the various stages of the American left carefully to avoid dealing with some of the more heartening spots of the white American left's history. Take Flynn's history of the Communist Party in the United States. He cites the party's support of "separatism" as evidence of white on black racism, yet this position arose from a national liberation strain of thought, making it a stretch to label it as "racist." Noticeably absent is a mention of the Communist Party as one of the first white civil society organizations that fully integrated itself or more importantly the history of the Party combating racism actively (remember the Scottsboro Boys?) Don't like the Communists? Well, how about the Socialists? Perhaps one of the most important figures in the black freedom movement before Martin Luther King, Jr. was A. Philip Randolph (whose idea the March on Washington was). Randolph was an African-American, a union organizer, and a socialist.
Flynn's post-war history is also somewhat absurd. While conservatives like to harp on the racism of the Democratic Party this is always based on ignoring the virtual civil war within the party between (mostly) Southern reactionaries and the progressive parts of the party. One should remind Flynn of the words of former House majority leader and far-left Congressman Newt Gingrich who noted that "it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation." Looking to the left social movements of the 1960s Flynn seems to think he has a "gotchya" moment in pointing to the lack of black "officers" in Students for a Democratic Society. Except that SDS was intended, in part, as a counterpoint to the already existing Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) which was of course majority African-American. References to SDS of course also beg the question of how many black officers there were in its conservative equivalent, Young Americans for Freedom?
Furthermore, there is the issue of Flynn's attitude which assumes that the left is unwilling to criticize its own on such issues. Of course, any good lefty knows that a core aspect of being on this side of the divide is loving to criticize others. "Moderates" attack radicals, radicals attack moderates, radicals call other radicals too moderate, and so forth. On the issue of American communism and race, Flynn's views were echoed, among other places, in one of the great pieces of American literature Richard Wright's Native Son which holds a skeptical view of the intentions of American communists. McGerr and Mink's books are also highly critical of the white left for its positions and actions regarding race relations. In fact, this was all a core undercurrent of the whole new social history movement of the 1970s and 1980s. History is fluid and one of the chief roles many left-wing academics see themselves in is keeping their activist sisters and brothers honest about the past. But you wouldn't know that reading Professor Flynn's piece.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
MSM Talks about Banalogies
Ok, so Newsweek's Jonathan Alter doesn't mention me specifically, but it's always nice seeing people giving thoughtful discussions of the pluses and minuses of banalogies.
Oh, and a major American political party is on the precipice of nominating an African-American to be president of the United States. No matter how cynical one might be, that has to raise at least a bit of a smile.
Oh, and a major American political party is on the precipice of nominating an African-American to be president of the United States. No matter how cynical one might be, that has to raise at least a bit of a smile.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Don't You Know You Can Count Me Out (In)
Stanley Kurtz over at The National Review has been writing article after article portraying Barack Obama as a secret leftist who, if elected, will institute some sort of vaguely defined radical social and economic change which you should be afraid of. In Kurtz's latest article (which synthesizes previous works) he brings up an important point about how social change happens, even as he uses it mainly to bludgeon Obama further.
Near the close of the piece Kurtz directs our attention to an essay Obama wrote almost twenty years ago for a book entitled, After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. Kurtz finds particularly revealing a passage in Obama's text criticizing "the false dichotomy between radicalism and moderation." Kurtz obviously believes he has flushed out the true Obama: a far-left radical whose moderate image is just a pose to rise to power. This is not a totally crazy idea, after all, a certain Texas governor recently pulled that trick. However, more importantly, the relationship between moderates and radicals is a more nuanced one than Kurtz gives credit for, something which can be clearly seen in the post-war rise of conservatism here in the United States.
The recent upsurge in scholarship on the modern American Right (and remember, "recent" means something different in academia than other places) has been an incredibly valuable addition to our understanding of American history and American politics. For conservatives, it has meant that older historians who dismissed the American right as "status obsessed" or their beliefs as some psychological anomaly have been replaced by serious studies of the historical context, ideas, and movements which define American conservatism. For liberals and progressives, this bevy of new works has forced us to take a harder look at conservatism, as well as providing inspiration for rebuilding a progressive counterpoint in the U.S.
Among other points addressed in this scholarship has been the fact that modern American conservatism's opening salvos were often launched by radical groups. As historians like Lisa McGirr point out, organizations such as the John Birch Society were absolutely fundamental in building the American conservative movement. Her book describes how John Birch Society members played a crucial role in the conservative takeover of the California Republican Assembly and helped to ensure Barry Goldwater's primary victory in that state, and thus, his nomination as the Republican standard bearer in 1964. As McGirr describes them, the "John Birch Society was the most vital organized grassroots conservative force of the era." Yet, McGirr also understands the nuances of these relationships that are lost in Kurtz's "guilt by association" attacks on Obama. As she further argues, "it is misleading to equate the whole movement with the [John Birch] society." Conservatives like Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley, Jr. were not secret Birchers, but rather shared some similar views on some issues, while holding sharp disagreements on others. They appreciated the Birchers' organizing abilities, but pushed them out of the movement when they became a liability.
Moderates (broadly defined) have almost always needed radicals. It is usually the radicals who first identify a problem and begin organizing to fix it. Radicals often provide the passion and organizing expertise (just look at the Communist Party's role in the CIO) required to start building movements for change. More moderate elements come in not necessarily to co-opt radical passions, but also because they usually have the knowledge and access to major power centers that allow for reforms to actually be carried out. There is no simple formula to understand the radical-moderate relationship; sometimes moderates really do just co-opt and weaken important causes (after all, not everyone who was anti-slavery was an abolitionist). At the same time, radicals can also help destroy movements by launching internecine conflicts and by, well, being stupid (thanks Weather Underground!) And my guess is, this will be how it is for the foreseeable future, at least until humanity makes some really big mistake.
Near the close of the piece Kurtz directs our attention to an essay Obama wrote almost twenty years ago for a book entitled, After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. Kurtz finds particularly revealing a passage in Obama's text criticizing "the false dichotomy between radicalism and moderation." Kurtz obviously believes he has flushed out the true Obama: a far-left radical whose moderate image is just a pose to rise to power. This is not a totally crazy idea, after all, a certain Texas governor recently pulled that trick. However, more importantly, the relationship between moderates and radicals is a more nuanced one than Kurtz gives credit for, something which can be clearly seen in the post-war rise of conservatism here in the United States.
The recent upsurge in scholarship on the modern American Right (and remember, "recent" means something different in academia than other places) has been an incredibly valuable addition to our understanding of American history and American politics. For conservatives, it has meant that older historians who dismissed the American right as "status obsessed" or their beliefs as some psychological anomaly have been replaced by serious studies of the historical context, ideas, and movements which define American conservatism. For liberals and progressives, this bevy of new works has forced us to take a harder look at conservatism, as well as providing inspiration for rebuilding a progressive counterpoint in the U.S.
Among other points addressed in this scholarship has been the fact that modern American conservatism's opening salvos were often launched by radical groups. As historians like Lisa McGirr point out, organizations such as the John Birch Society were absolutely fundamental in building the American conservative movement. Her book describes how John Birch Society members played a crucial role in the conservative takeover of the California Republican Assembly and helped to ensure Barry Goldwater's primary victory in that state, and thus, his nomination as the Republican standard bearer in 1964. As McGirr describes them, the "John Birch Society was the most vital organized grassroots conservative force of the era." Yet, McGirr also understands the nuances of these relationships that are lost in Kurtz's "guilt by association" attacks on Obama. As she further argues, "it is misleading to equate the whole movement with the [John Birch] society." Conservatives like Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley, Jr. were not secret Birchers, but rather shared some similar views on some issues, while holding sharp disagreements on others. They appreciated the Birchers' organizing abilities, but pushed them out of the movement when they became a liability.
Moderates (broadly defined) have almost always needed radicals. It is usually the radicals who first identify a problem and begin organizing to fix it. Radicals often provide the passion and organizing expertise (just look at the Communist Party's role in the CIO) required to start building movements for change. More moderate elements come in not necessarily to co-opt radical passions, but also because they usually have the knowledge and access to major power centers that allow for reforms to actually be carried out. There is no simple formula to understand the radical-moderate relationship; sometimes moderates really do just co-opt and weaken important causes (after all, not everyone who was anti-slavery was an abolitionist). At the same time, radicals can also help destroy movements by launching internecine conflicts and by, well, being stupid (thanks Weather Underground!) And my guess is, this will be how it is for the foreseeable future, at least until humanity makes some really big mistake.
Monday Music
The past week's been pretty busy and I've been working on a longer post which has been taking a while. In the meantime, here's Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions singing one of the great hopeful social justice songs, "People Get Ready":
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)