Progressives not understood

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:30 am

Tony Blair:

9/11 for me was, ‘Right, now I get it. I absolutely get it.’ This has been building for a long time. It is like looking at a picture and knowing it was important to understand it, but not quite being able to make out all its contours. And suddenly a light was switched on and you saw the whole picture. It was a defining moment.

And more:

One of the greatest failures of progressive politics in my lifetime has been that, in the anti-American parts of the progressive Left, we have ended up on the wrong side with someone as evil as Saddam. Even now, when we have been there with a UN resolution, we are on the wrong side of the battle between terrorism and democracy. I can’t understand how progressive people can be on the wrong side of that argument.

Posted by Tim B. on 04/23/2006 at 04:58 AM
    1. Try this for an interesting link

      Well worth a read and support.

      Posted by drbob on 2006 04 23 at 05:12 AM • permalink


    1. And this one too, a discussion about the fragmentary effect of the Manifesto on the left, over at the New Statesman.

      Anyway, I signed up. I agree totally with some of the Far Left’s criticism of it. They call these crazy ideas about Democracy, anti-Racism (even racism against Jews and Americans), being honest about past mistakes etc etc a NeoCon manifesto in disguise. They see this as a bad thing, of course.

      OK, so the people who authored it are a bit too enamoured of Organised Labour etc etc for my liking. But we’re all against the naked Fascism that’s being embraced by the Far Left, the fashionable anti-Semitism and disregard for historical fact too. Some of the Right could do with a bit more owning up to past mistakes too. The Intelligence failure over Iraq, for example, that’s been covered up by the Fictional Stories of MSM. So much easier to Blame Bush than actually investigate real problems in the CIA and elsewhere.

      Our differences (real ones) are one of means, not ends. Of course I signed up!

      Posted by Zoe Brain on 2006 04 23 at 05:35 AM • permalink


    1. Dr Bob,

      Mr Freen, an unknown but very erudite poster at Evil Pundit’s blog, has already smashed to smithereens the Euston Manifesto.  Just scroll down from the link to enjoy…..

      Posted by Kaboom on 2006 04 23 at 05:39 AM • permalink


    1. No slagging intended on Mr. Blair, however: It makes perfect sense that “progressives,” most of whom are alienists at heart motivated by resentment of everything “we, us, and ours,” would side even with the planet’s most odious creatures, as long as said creatures also hate “we, us, and ours.”

      Posted by Rittenhouse on 2006 04 23 at 07:41 AM • permalink


    1. The Euston Manifesto at first sight looks like a mix of motherhood, political correctness and waffle. Clutching at straws.

      Posted by Rafe on 2006 04 23 at 07:44 AM • permalink


    1. I can’t understand how progressive people can be on the wrong side of that argument.

      Force of habit?

      Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 04 23 at 07:48 AM • permalink


    1. Tony Blair is still a piece of shit who is destroying British liberty.

      He’s a hammy actor, who is considerably less polished when the questioning deviates from the script. This was illustrated clearly on Parkinson a few nights ago, when Parky asked a (not particularly challenging) question to which Blair’s minders had not formulated an answer for. Blair was sweating, stuttering, bumbling, the works.

      His performance after the 7/7 tragedy made me feel physically sick.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 23 at 09:28 AM • permalink


    1. I can’t understand how progressive people can be on the wrong side of that argument.

      Easy answer.  People have assumed that the label “progressive” implies they actually are progressive.  But it’s just a name.  If they truly were progressive, we’d have seen new ideas and solutions from this group, not just “It’s Bush’s fault,” or “It’s America’s fault.”

      Posted by RK on 2006 04 23 at 09:29 AM • permalink


    1. Everyone should have a look at Kaboom’s Mr Freen link. At very very least it is cause for deep caution on this one. Certainly until someone can demonstrate Mr Freen is wrong and I suspect they won’t.

      Posted by the nailgun on 2006 04 23 at 09:38 AM • permalink


    1. “I can’t understand how progressive people can be on the wrong side of that argument.”

      I can. In the 1930s, progressives supported Stalin – granted, not all of them, but the progressive establishment certainly did. In the 1960s, progressives supported Mao and Ho Chi Minh. Again, not all, but the progressive establishment was squarely in the corner of those murdering swine.

      And so the farce is acted out again in our day. In the name of liberty and progress, progressives make common cause with the most tyrannical, the most regressive force that’s wielding power – in decades past, Communism; today, Islamofascism. The only thing that surprises me is that this should surprise anyone. But then, knowledge of history and adherence to the truth have not been progressives’ strong suits.

      Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2006 04 23 at 09:42 AM • permalink


    1. I’m with the nailgun on this one.  The Manifesto is too good to be true, as Mr. Freen points out.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 23 at 10:18 AM • permalink


    1. #7 What??
      We stood shoulder to shoulder with America because my belief then, and my belief now, is that America was attacked not because it was America – but because it was the repository of the values of the Western world, and it was the main power embodying them. It was an attack on all of us.

      And this is the person who you describe as “a piece of shit who is destroying British liberty”. So President Bush probably says things like, “he’s a liberty destroying piece of shit, but at least he’s our piece of shit”.

      Mate, I’ve read the link and saw all of the Parkinson interview (the only one ever given by a British Prime Minister). I don’t have any great problems with what he said on either and what he said to the Parliament in Australia ( and the Labor Party in particular) on liberty and terrorism during his recent visit here was brilliant.

      I’ll accept your comment that he’s “a piece of shit”. Perhaps only to add that that’s the sort of unsubstantiated sort of abuse I’d expect to see in a leftoid blog. However, I would be really interested to hear your views on how he is “destroying British liberty”

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 04 23 at 10:26 AM • permalink


    1. #3, #9, #11, I agree Mr. Freen’s rebuttal is well worth the read.  At first, the Euston Manifesto looks all rosy and humanitarian, but it’s vague enough in its wording to be interpreted in all kinds of unpleasant ways.  Would the UN do that?  Why, yes.  Yes, it would.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 04 23 at 10:32 AM • permalink


    1. Rittenhouse,

      It makes perfect sense that “progressives,” most of whom are alienists at heart motivated by resentment of everything “we, us, and ours,” would side even with the planet’s most odious creatures, as long as said creatures also hate “we, us, and ours.”

      The “progressives” are, at least publically, distancing themselves from Robert Mugabe, although when he was only attacking white farmers, he had their enthusiastic support. Hugo Chavez, on the other hand, can send his goons to raid a Jewish school because he’d convinced himself it was a “nest of spies” and the “progressives” will argue for days that he had “legitimate reasons” to believe it.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 04 23 at 10:34 AM • permalink


    1. Whale Spinor – I would submit that you’ve heard a lot of soundbites from the British PM (it’s easy to be impressed by these – it’s what Blair’s good at), but aren’t aware of some of the authoritarian policies Mr Blair has forced upon his countrymen. For example, did you know that Blair’s introduced religious vilification laws that make Victoria’s look positively tame? And that he wants to introduce an ID card system which will, if enacted, intrude into the private lives and dealings of citizens in a way that would make the East Germans blush? I’m not being facetious when I say that, either.  Click here to find out more. Whilst there, I want you to take particular notice of the section detailing the workings of the so-called National Information Register.

      Look, spend a bit of time on some British libertarian blogs like this one (disclosure – I write for it) and you’ll learn more about Tony Blair’s disdain for individual rights, and what he’s doing to ensure the state looms ever larger over the private lives of British citizens.

      I think you’ll be shocked.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 23 at 10:46 AM • permalink


    1. Tony Blair allowed the Islamic schools to be introduced into Britain..
      His wife Cherie Booth QC has defended in court the right for girls to wear Burquas in British schools.

      Posted by crash on 2006 04 23 at 10:57 AM • permalink


    1. The Euston Manifesto is an attempt to rescue a big chunk of the left from supporting fascism, and for that reason ought to be supported. As Norm Geras has written when defending it from the left, right and left will continue to disagree about economics, but it’s important that both fight fascism in order to continue to have that argument. If a “reasonable left” gets on the right side of the most important issue of the day, I’ll take it even if there are many other important issues we’ll continue to disagree on.

      Posted by Brian O’Connell on 2006 04 23 at 11:10 AM • permalink


    1. Mr Freen: “The Euston Manifesto has, in one article, already destroyed 200 years of freedoms Americans enjoy …”

      Really? ‘Mr Freen’ attacks the Euston Manifesto for promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which he considers a monstrous instrument of doom, a tool for subverting all consitutional rights and founding a Socialist World Government.

      In other words, Mr Freen is a loon. I’ll bet he peers anxiously out of his window every morning, watching for the black helicopters bearing a UN invasion force.

      Australia and the US have been signatories to the UNDR for, I think, almost 60 years, and ‘totalitarian-style tyranny’ has not yet been established in either country.

      #17 Brian is right—the manifesto should be supported.

      Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2006 04 23 at 11:52 AM • permalink


    1. #16 crash – We have Islamic schools in Australia but I’ve never heard which Australian Prime Minister allowed them to be introduced. Maybe it just happened without legislation. If Tony Blair put a bill through the House of Commons allowing them to be introduced into the UK, then I haven’t heard of that either. But if he did, he should be slapped. A lawyer is free to represent whoever they like, murderer, rapists, terrorists etc. It doesn’t make them one. I don’t know if Cherie Blair believes that Muslim girls should be allowed to wear burquas (it was a jilbab actually) in British schools. I’m with the frogs on this one – I don’t think they should in a state funded school. But WTF, it’s got nothing to do with PM Blair’s support from day 1 and ongoing for the fight against terrorism. He’s taken a lot of local UK political flak about it but he’s stuck to his guns and we should all be grateful for it.

      # James – I lived in London for 11 years and correspond regularly with friends there. The Labour govts of Wilson and Callagan and even the Tory one of Ted Heath had the state looming much larger over the private lives of British citizens than did the govts of Margaret Thatcher onwards. And that includes Blair’s.
      Tony Blair’s ID Card system. I worked 20 years for the Dept of Defence and now part time for the Australian Crime Commission on ID fraud. We need a better means of ID for Australian citizens. Currently it’s dog’s breakfast and it’s costing the country millions and may end up costing lives. One individual had 47 drivers licences with his photo on each but 47 different names. So what could he do with them? Fraud obviously, but finance other things (a terrorist cell – it’s happened overseas) covertly. Get a mobile phone? They have been used to detonate bombs before and most likely will again, hopefully not here, but we’re making it very easy for anyone who wants to. So I say bring it on, Terry O’Gorman might complain, but any law abiding citizen has nothing to worry about and the chances are it will make them and their families safer.

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 04 23 at 12:09 PM • permalink


    1. Thank you, but I already have a manifesto…

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 04 23 at 12:14 PM • permalink


    1. Whale Spinor – You have so much faith in governments. I don’t.

      At a recent liberty rally in Piccadilly Square in London, protesters were not allowed to unfurl flags of any nationality. People waving Danish flags were promptly told by police to put them away. Obviously, the cartoon issue was at the fore of most peoples’ minds. One protester had incorporated them into his sign. A (presumably) Muslim onlooker protested to a police officer regarding this sign, saying he felt “threatened” by it. British police have a habit of taking copious amounts of footage of protests. They released a statement to the BBC saying footage of the sign would be passed onto the CPS, who would decide whether to prosecute. I wonder what happened to those chaps who marched through London with “Behead the infidel” signs?

      British liberty is being sacrificed at the alter of New Labour’s purported values of “inclusiveness”, “tolerance” and “multiculturalism”. That is Blair’s legacy – soft tyranny. He is scum.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 23 at 12:31 PM • permalink


    1. Incidentally, the last few sentences of your post could have been lifted wholesale out of 1984 – “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But we’re watching you…”


      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 23 at 12:34 PM • permalink


    1. James – I don’t have faith in all govts, but I respect democratically elected ones because they stand and fall by what the do when in government. I am not an anarchist. If the Brits see Blair as scum and a piece of shit then they shouldn’t have elected him three times.

      I have no problem with a towelhead ranting around with a “Behead the infidel” sign. It benefits our cause much more than his because it lets the general public know what idiots we’re up against. However, I agree, others should have been allowed to unfurl whatever flags and placades they wanted too. The PC Plods should have just maintained the peace.

      You still haven’t mentioned anything about Blair’s stand on terrorism, which I think was my original point

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 04 23 at 12:51 PM • permalink


    1. Couldn’t agree more – “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear”

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 04 23 at 01:00 PM • permalink


    1. As an American, I support Tony Blair for selfish reasons. If I were a Briton, I’d be dejected to be living under his government. I’m with James.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 04 23 at 01:22 PM • permalink


    1. Hey, look who’s commenting at that Evil Pundit link – antsylopithicus!

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 04 23 at 01:23 PM • permalink


    1. Whale Spinor – sadly, the debate does not rage around whatever it is that you consider to be your point. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you were responding to something I said.

      Incidentally, you do realise that less than one fifth of eligible voters in the UK voted for Blair?

      Apathy is part of the Blairite cancer.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 23 at 02:15 PM • permalink


    1. I’ll also mention that Howard is considerably better than Blair when it comes to unscripted questions. I know a lot of Australians compare Howard unfavourably with Blair. Lord knows I’m no great fan of Howard, but I rate him higher than the British PM.

      Consider that joint Howard-Blair press conference a few months ago, where the difference between the two leaders was marked. Howard had it over Blair absolutely. Like I said before, Blair’s skill is in acting – he’s what all the Bush haters claim Bush is.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 23 at 02:28 PM • permalink


    1. The problem with the view of ‘if you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear’ is that nanny state governments (ie pretty much every single Western govt) have a habit of continuously introducing new laws that make it increasingly likely the average citizen will break the law sooner or later.

      Posted by brucey bonus on 2006 04 23 at 05:42 PM • permalink


    1. #20, yes, with the Bill of Rights tacked on.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 04 23 at 06:04 PM • permalink


    1. Whale Spinor

      All I can say is that when the bobbies start arresting people with directing homophobic abuse at a horse, the UK is in serious fucken trouble.

      Posted by murph on 2006 04 23 at 06:09 PM • permalink


    1. A better manifesto than the US Constitution (which is rather dryly procedural) is the Declaration of Independence (which, though it has no “official” standing, is nevertheless seminal):

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      I believe this to be the literal truth. (Though as an atheist, I interpret the “endowed by their Creator” bit as a literally true metaphor.)

      What’s difficult here (for some) is that it says “all men” not “all Americans”. No room for multicultural exceptions. Essentially, Jefferson was the first neo-con. This American Manifesto makes us imperialists, in a way. One of our guiding documents establishes that citizens of every country have the same rights that we do, even if they live under governments that fail to secure these rights, a rather subversive idea. The DoI has always told us that these people have the right to revolt- and sometimes we’ve actively helped them.

      One thing that I think that anti-Americans have right: we do mean for our ideas to wipe out every competing idea (such as monarchism, communism, socialism, or now- Islamism). Weirdly, this makes Bush a radical liberal. Myself, I subscribe to the idea that any govt which is non-democratic is essentially a hostage situation on a grand scale, and ought to be accorded as much respect.

      But I’m rambling now. I’ll just leave it at that.

      Posted by Brian O’Connell on 2006 04 23 at 07:31 PM • permalink


    1. Brian

      Too true.

      I once wrote a letter to The Australian which quoted the Declaration of Independence in response to some twit harping on about eeevil neo-cons.

      I was simply attempting to explain the origin of the American position i.e. the neo-con position.  That said, I’m starting to think that a sizable chunk of the world’s population actually prefer to live in tyranny.  They may not admit it openly, but the net effect of their cultural outlook is that they prefer fascism.  Sure, they personally, want to be free.  However, in the minds of many, the concept of achieving personal freedom also requires excluding others from that privilege.

      Posted by murph on 2006 04 23 at 08:28 PM • permalink


    1. The Parkison interview with Blair was interesting – but rather than stuffing it up, I think Blair just showed that he was prepared to be open and honest about his personal experience in office – that it wasn’t polished was to his credit, and he did OK overall.

      Hats off to Blair, for being one of the few powerful “progressives” who actually “gets it”, and has a backbone.

      Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 04 23 at 08:57 PM • permalink


    1. Whale spinor, I was perhaps a little rude in my previous post; apologies.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 23 at 08:58 PM • permalink


    1. #34:

      On the contrary, I think it was polished – typical Blairite phoney candour – up until a deviation from the script, which was made evident by the PM’s rapid loss of polish
      (which he later regained when back on familiar territory).

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 23 at 09:07 PM • permalink


    1. SEE!!!
      I told you he was a great statesman.

      Posted by Brian on 2006 04 23 at 09:13 PM • permalink


    1. Brian,
      I do believe that the Declaration has been considered as incorporated into the Constitution, for constituttional law purposes, since 1865.  That was the position of an obscure president named Lincoln.  His critics considered him a moron, of course, in very much the same terms that Bush’s critics consider him, even to the comparisons to monkeys.

      Interesting that you talk of that as the neocon position.  For a long time now whenever somebody has accused we dreaded Neo-cons of being ideological I agree, and quote the first line of the Declaration of Independence Brian quotes above as the ideology of the Neo-cons.  Nice to see you have the same idea.

      I found the Euston Manifesto to be full of cant.  When they actually get into some details they are hopelessly reactionary.  Read their section on Economic Development and you’ll see they have nothing to contribute, for they stick with the tired old cliches of economic failure.  Before they republish the thing they need to go back and reconsider everything.  In the Economic Development section they need to go read Friederich Hayek, Peter Bauer, and Hernando de Soto before they do anything else.

      Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 04 23 at 11:05 PM • permalink


    1. I found the Euston Manifesto to be full of cant.  When they actually get into some details they are hopelessly reactionary.  Read their section on Economic Development and you’ll see they have nothing to contribute….

      Yes, yes, yes. All of us on the right and most of us in the center agree with that. There’s too much in Euston about big I Internationalism, world unionism, and the soft socialism of “social justice”, whatever that means.

      The crucial thing about it is that it puts forth a reasonable left position against fascism, Islamo- and otherwise. For a sizable segment of the left, this is a new and/or controversial position. We on the right should be welcoming them to this view; we’re better off with them than without them- right?

      As a rightie, I haven’t signed it, nor do I expect any other free marketeer to do so. But this is much less important than encouraging the reasonable and salvagable left to come to and defend our side against Islamism.

      This is a freakin gift horse already, stop looking it in the mouth so much.

      Posted by Brian O’Connell on 2006 04 23 at 11:53 PM • permalink


    1. Brian—perhaps some are enjoying the fight too much to want any form of consensus?

      Posted by slammer on 2006 04 24 at 03:58 AM • permalink


    1. And suddenly a light was switched on and you saw the whole picture. It was a defining moment.”
      And then Osama realised that the Crusaders had declared war on Islam.
      Oh, yeah. There was that old duffer, just been minding his own business down at the souk – having a cup of coffee and a chat with some friends. Then on the way home he’s mugged by Crusader!
      I see it all now.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 04 24 at 04:31 AM • permalink


    1. the way things are moving in the Uk, there will be certain parts of UK cities which will be controlled by Muslim clerics within a d3cade or so.
      These areas will operate under sharia law and will be hotbeds of islamic expansion in the rest of the UK.
      Tony blair and his government are deluded about the nature of Islam. Tony recently claimed that he had read the Koran twice. Anyone who has studied the koran will tell you that this is not the way it is read and doing so would achieve nothing.
      Such a statement would only make him a laughing stock to muslims.
      The koran does not run in chronological order.
      Tony Blair’s ignorance of Islam is indeed highly dangerous for great britain.
      In his Clintonlike desire to be accepted and liked by Muslims, he makes concession after concession to improve relations with the radical islamists.
      This has had the effect of turning London into a centre for Islamic terrorism. of course the security forces knew from the late nineties that this was so and did not act in the belief that appeasement would result in no attacks on british soil, even if the British based terrorists struck in other parts of Europe or elsewhere.
      Now of course arabic language islamic books calling for the killing of the infidel in holy jihad can be purchased freely at muslim bookshops. is it any wonder that such books have been readily accepted by prospective home grown terrorists?
      The government have recently introduced laws to punish religious hatred. but these laws will be I am afraid only for the non muslim population. – I hope i am proved wrong.
      Whilst Tony and his progresive leftists see Islam through rose tinted glasses, they are unable to understand the Islamic clerics who see themselves in mortal jihad against the infidel.
      They may hope that the mullahs will change and make the right choices and accept coexistence and equality with the british.
      But had they learnt their islamic lessons, they would know that islam does not allow freedom of choice to reject certain aspects of the religion. The laws are not manmade, hence they cannot be disobeyed. Such choices would be tantamount to blasphemy.
      So all these vain hopes of integration under a multiculturist utopia are sheer ignorance and poppycock.
      To avoid the pollution of Islam by western secularism. Muslims have concentrated in certain suburbs in the aim of becoming a majority in those areas. In this way all the blasphemous influences of western society can eventually become excluded.
      It is the same all over europe.
      Soon these areas will demand sharia under the claims which will be allowed under the appeasement policies, that to deny is Islamophobic or violations of human rights.
      A multitude of wives will be demanded (imported from pakistan etc to further increase the demographic expansion.
      Tony has recently appointed Tariq Ramadan as an advisor on Islamic matters, a man who is banned from sevral countries including the USA and Switzerland. Even Cherie’s dealings with property advisor Peter Foster is preferable!

      Posted by davo on 2006 04 24 at 05:16 AM • permalink


    1. 14 Spiny:

      The “progressives” are, at least publically, distancing themselves from Robert Mugabe….

      Hugo Chavez, on the other hand….

      Yes, there are certain “progressives” (decode: combination of economic fascist and social libertine) who learn from their mistakes.

      It’s easy, at first, to support strongmen who say all the “correct” things as long as you don’t have to live under them.

      Fans of dictators usually “get it” witnessing a mass-grave exhumation, when they realize there was a nasty side to all that tough talk.

      But some don’t ever get it.

      Blair’s a mixed bag, as “progressives” go.  He gets it about the insatiability of dictators.  But he doesn’t get it about the insatiability of the welfare state.

      Posted by Rittenhouse on 2006 04 24 at 01:09 PM • permalink


    1. The crucial thing about it is that it puts forth a reasonable left position against fascism, Islamo- and otherwise. For a sizable segment of the left, this is a new and/or controversial position. We on the right should be welcoming them to this view; we’re better off with them than without them- right?

      I agree with Brian (and Lionel).  Is the Manifesto perfect?  Not at all.  But bear in mind the wilderness of ignorance and delusion the left has been wandering in.  This is a sign of progress.

      Baby steps, folks.  Baby steps.

      Posted by Achillea on 2006 04 24 at 01:28 PM • permalink


    1. Or the insatiability of a government with severe panopticon leanings.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 24 at 01:31 PM • permalink


    1. #36,

      interesting analysis – I must admit I have not spent much time examining Blair’s talk – so you think his “candour” is all bullshit ?

      Posted by closeapproximation on 2006 04 24 at 08:20 PM • permalink


    1. The trouble with the baby steps is that they are not likely to grow into adult ones.  Read the thing.  It’s evident that the drafters don’t really understand where the left went wrong, which is deeper than letting their contempt for Bush override some hypothetical devotion to freedom.  I don’t believe tha left has any such devotion.  These guys will revert the minute there is some hard decision that needs to be taken, like what to do about Iran.  Then we’ll get bleating about the “legitimacy” conferred by the UN, the need for more diplomacy no matter how ineffective it has been up to that point, or some similar nonsense.

      Bah.  Go on and make nice with these guys.  Watch them skedaddle when the Winter soldiers are needed.

      Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 04 24 at 10:55 PM • permalink


    1. Then we’ll get bleating about the “legitimacy” conferred by the UN, the need for more diplomacy no matter how ineffective it has been up to that point, or some similar nonsense.

      In fairness, I think the Euston drafters themselves (in particular Norm Geras and Nick Cohen, since those are the guys whose writings I’m familiar with) are pretty well aware that the UN is next to useless, but I’m not so hopeful about the wavering lefties they’re trying to convince through the manifesto. Those are the people I’m expecting just to treat the whole thing as another liberal feel-good exercise (“but of course I oppose tyranny!”) without actually following through when push comes to shove.

      Posted by PW on 2006 04 25 at 07:37 AM • permalink


    1. This is a false argument, in typical Bair fashion. The compulsive desire to break human consciiousness down into left and right falls apart so easily.

      There are war critics on both sides.  To argue that the only critics are left and progressives is ludcrous.  What is more ludicrous is Blairs for to proptray himself as an elighttened progrssive, when in fact, all he did was sell his soul.

      Posted by Addamo on 2006 04 27 at 01:12 PM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.