Thursday, May 24, 2018

Moving forward the debate of "left," "right," and "center"

This article moves the debate over the vague terms "left," "right," and "center."  Still, a problem with the analysis, at least to me, is the "self-reporting" of what people "think" they are.  This does, however, show support for open and transparent government is in decline, a decline not seen in civilized societies since the 1930s. 

I have long held to a thesis about the 1930s:  In that decade, and into the 1940s, a large swath of the elite lost faith in open society, and quite a number of elite cultural, political, and economic people chose sides.  Some became fellow travelers or more of international Fascism and some international Communism. The ones who were demonized after WWII? You guessed it, the New Deal internationalists who were friendly with Communists.  While the Dulles brothers, who were friendly (and sometimes more than friendly) with Fascists and literally Nazis, were exulted, and placed into important governmental positions, those friendly to Communists, Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, were hounded out, vilified, and, in Hiss' case, imprisoned. Foreign policy debates in our nation's history have almost always been an outgrowth of domestic politics, going back to the 1790s when Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians were screaming "treason" at each other.  

And I continue to say that any social scientist who speaks about "left," "liberal," "right," "conservative," and "center," should be utilizing Daniel Bell's formulation of those terms (see his Forward to that book), which is to qualify each of those terms in the context of the cultural, political, and economic.   The fellow who wrote this article for the NY Times, David Adler, is not following Bell's formulation, either.  It hurts the depth of the analysis, in my not so humble view, but this does show how elitists in Western societies, who often thought of themselves as "centrist," led their societies to Fascism and Nazism in the 1930s, and may be doing so again today.  For when the economic powers that be feel themselves under attack, they will be more willing to manipulate a percentage of the working class with culturally reactionary rhetoric.  However, at some point, if the economic situation does not result in that percentage of the working class being redeemed, the demons unleashed in that society become uncontrollable.  This is how Hitler and Mussolini arose back in the 1920s and 1930s, and today, in the United States, we have been led from Reagan to Trump. 

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Remembering Isaac Deutscher in a time of torment in Israel and Gaza

In moments such as the current one, I tend to reflect on Isaac Deutscher, for he encapsulates the dilemma American Jews face with respect to Israel, yet we must demand and accept an answer.  This linked article at Fathom.org does a nice job of introduction of Deutscher's evolution of thought from the start of the 20th Century through the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, though the Wiki entry-bio of Deutscher is very good too.  I quote from the Wiki entry on Deutscher's views about Judaism and Israel in Deutscher's last years up to the time, just after the 1967 aka Six Day War, when he died.  Deutscher's parable, re-printed below in the entry, also has current, poignant resonance:

"This 'six-day wonder'" (MJF NOTE: meaning the Six Day War), he commented, "this latest, all-too-easy triumph of Israeli arms will be seen one day... to have been a disaster... for Israel itself."[10]

His most famous statement regarding Israel is "A man once jumped from the top floor of a burning house in which many members of his family had already perished. He managed to save his life; but as he was falling he hit a person standing down below and broke that person’s legs and arms. The jumping man had no choice; yet to the man with the broken limbs he was the cause of his misfortune. If both behaved rationally, they would not become enemies. The man who escaped from the blazing house, having recovered, would have tried to help and console the other sufferer; and the latter might have realized that he was the victim of circumstances over which neither of them had control. But look what happens when these people behave irrationally. The injured man blames the other for his misery and swears to make him pay for it. The other, afraid of the crippled man’s revenge, insults him, kicks him, and beats him up whenever they meet. The kicked man again swears revenge and is again punched and punished. The bitter enmity, so fortuitous at first, hardens and comes to overshadow the whole existence of both men and to poison their minds."[11]

In "The Israeli Arab War, June 1967" (1967), Deutscher, a Marxist of Jewish origins whose next-of-kin died at Auschwitz and whose relatives lived in Israel, wrote:

“Still we must exercise our judgment and must not allow it to be clouded by emotions and memories, however deep or haunting. We should not allow even invocations of Auschwitz to blackmail us into supporting the wrong cause.” (Quoted in Prophets Outcast, Nation Books, 2004, p. 184)

He believed,

"To justify or condone Israel’s wars against the Arabs is to render Israel a very bad service indeed and to harm its own long-term interest. Israel’s security, let me repeat, was not enhanced by the wars of 1956 and 1967; it was undermined and compromised by them. The ‘friends of Israel’ have in fact abetted Israel in a ruinous course.” (Quoted in Prophets Outcast, Nation Books, 2004, p. 184) 

MJF COMMENT:  It is important to maintain parallel thinking about the fate of Jews in History, particularly Christian European History.  This parallel thinking, however, is not sufficient to justify Israeli governmental continuing conduct against Palestinians.  Yet, the history of anti-Jewish hatred must still be in the background as context, and, should be borne in mind, when parsing the language of some of those who decide Israel is the worst country in the world, or who are refusing to understand how an Israeli, who lives near where Gazan Palestinians are lobbing rockets designed to maim or kill them or their children, may feel.  Yes, I recognize the Israeli blockade in Gaza as a reason, but that is just another layer of what Deutscher is talking about in his parable.  

Over the years, there have been political solutions proposed or offered by Israelis, and also by Palestinians (though the Palestinians who do so have to try and gingerly step off ledges their majority militant leaders have erected), and there have been a few truly well meaning people in the Palestinian and Israeli sides. These persons, however, have been sadly overwhelmed at this point.  Our nation, the United States, has done grave harm in and to the region, and it is why I call for US withdrawal from the region.  Our nation should announce it will no longer arm any nation in the region; and only provide diplomatic assistance in reference to military activities that continue there.  To the extent our nation offers economic assistance, it should only be for what people, less so governments, in those nations tell us, i.e. what they need to survive and, under circumstances that are less horrific,  begin to thrive.  We should no longer be interested in economic aid that merely promotes iPhones and Coca-Cola.  I continue to state that if we did this, we would fairly quickly rise in the esteem of people there, and the example will be much more salutary than the policies we pursue now.  Right now, our nation is justly hated by many in the region, and our nation's actions over the past 70 years have largely gone to promote violence, whether intended or not (depending upon the leaders we wish to defend or criticize).