Dave points out the problems behind the ideology claimed by those remaining who are proud to name themselves 'decents'. When I started this blog I was a supporter of the Stop the War Coalition, and went on to sign the Euston Manifesto in opposition to many of its more unsavoury elements. I can't point to specific posts, but Prof Geras over at Normblog has dissected the criticism, point by point, that Euston is somehow 'pro-war'. It is certainly 'anti-totalitarian', but this does not imply necessary support for military action in any particular instance. Nor does it imply approval of western military action per se.
Suffice it to say that I have always and will continue to approve the overthrow of all dictatorships, anti or pro-western, by their resident populations, and I support whatever western aid is available to do it. Many in StWC do not, and those who hold revolutionary socialist (in Iran) views have frequently found themselves expelled. I support revolution in Iran, and was therefore quite happy not to further involve myself with StWC for a number of years, though the nearest Labour Party proxy (and StWC affilliate, unfortunately) is Labour Against the War, which I support, subject to a few criticisms. My general lineation is towards HOPI these days.
Anyway, subsequently to my spell as a Euston signatory, I've really seen things drop off. There has been the hypocrisy, and the mind numbing domination of the institutions of decency by exactly the kind of people Dave describes. I think Lenin of the Tomb is right to decribe them as 'cruise missile liberals'; people for whom opposition to totalitarian clericalism is far more important than principles such as the fight for peace, upholding democratic election results, reconciliation, or the preservation of currently existing liberalisms.
On democracy, many are positively opposed to it, for example the crushing mandates of and political decentralisation as a result of Chavez. I cannot imagine their acceptance of a freely chosen and popularly elected Islamist government.
Then there is hypocrisy in the sense that they often fail to criticise dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia, presumably due to the dubious nature of the British state in relation to them.
Then what about situations like Egypt? There popular Islamists fight an unpopular neoliberal dictatorship. Who to support?
There is the hypocrisy in their opposition to communist revolutionaries such as those in Lebanon. Harry's Place deplores the use of force and authoritarianism by communists, but is happy to support it on a vastly larger scale when utilised by the governments of liberal democracies. It is difficult to believe that these people see their current position as one which is compatible with or extended from their time as communists. Not that anyone should endorse communism in the first point, but you catch my drift.
I despise the idea of a cruise missile for 'liberalism', and the use of the term 'liberal left'. Some liberal conclusions are entombed within left ideology, but often liberalism is also of the right. I actively oppose 'liberalism' as a blank cheque, and it is certainly not worth thousands of deaths. I chose life over liberalism, at least, when the decision to take such life is not the decision of the person losing it. Further, as a democratic socialist, I believe that a popularly supported strong hand can sometimes be necessary for the achievement of the greater good. I am concerned with human rights only where they advance the rights of all. I regard civil, democratic and participative rights as generally more important than, say, the right to own an oil company.
Lastly, there is the question of cause and effect. Norm has also pointed out the perils of 'mbunderstanding' terrorism and Islamist movements. I think that the criticism is valid, in an empathic sense - there can be no moral tolerance for those who, for example, break the laws of warfare, attacking civilians. But I don't understand, for a start, why this should not also apply to nation states. Secondly, I think when the term is looked at in a political rather than a personal sense, it is a highly unscientific of all determinisms. I believe that people and movements are subject to objective circumstances, and that these have effects.
While it may be unacceptable for a person to make a moral decision of such magnitude incorrectly, it would also be foolish not to look at what gets the individual into such a position in the first place, and indeed what shapes their personality. Some decents say that terrorism is beyond explanation, or that it results from ideology alone. I am a materialist who believes ideology to be at best a product of real factors, usually social in some way, and at worst an illusion ('the truth is concrete', as those who remained Marxists would say). Not seeking explanation for the causes behind such movements and individuals is a kick in the face for sociology and materialism as a notion. I think materialism is necessary to avoid moral relativism, which ironically is what Eustonites decry.
These arguments are often used in a way which applies lower moral standards to western governments than it does their armed adversaries. A real shame.
There is no contradiction between denying personal 'understanding, sympathy etc. with exploring causes, trends, possibilities, enablements and effects. None at all.
Regarding leftism, in many cases, these liberals do not, as Dave points out, mask their outright hostility to 'the left'. Nick Cohen even slates 'the left', while claiming membership of it. He is confused about the orientation of his own project.
Though Euston does not require me to agree with such people, I find that there are hardly any of my orientation, which makes the whole thing anti-pluralist and thus effectively redundant from a community point of view. I'm getting off at this stop, because I'm not sure I like the prospective destination.
I'm an anti-cruise missile, anti-terrorist democratic socialist.
