FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Michael Kazin’s Ground Rules for Dissent

Is Michael Kazin proud to be among the long list of writers sent to the frontlines of the Washington Post’s propaganda war against anyone opposed to a U.S. invasion of Iraq? In the run-up to the U.S. government’s planned massive military strikes on Iraq, virtually every column inch of the Post’s op-ed pages related to the Iraqi issue has been devoted to blood-thirsty ravings in support of the War Party’s agenda or to liberals and leftists attacking their own for not meeting their tortuous criteria for becoming an authentic antiwar activist.

Kazin, a history professor at Georgetown University, must have known the odds of getting the Post to publish his piece were far greater if he lectured the U.S. peace movement on its faults rather than followed the much riskier course of attacking the U.S. establishment for its militaristic ways. Given his usual sensible assessments of the current state of the world, one has to wonder why Kazin wrote an article — adapted from a piece he wrote for the fall issue of Dissent — entitled “The Best Dissent Has Never Been Anti-American” for the Post’s Feb. 9, 2003 Outlook section that clearly draws an inaccurate and generalized portrait of the antiwar movement.

The level of McCarthyism on the left continues to grow in tandem with the rising discontent with Washington’s imperial policies. In his Post piece, Kazin inexplicably makes some broad generalizations about the left that exist only in the fantasies of Bill O’Reilly and his fans. Sadly, in recent months, we’ve grown accustomed to Kazin’s crowd creating straw men on the left so that they can easily knock them down and look reasonable in the eyes of the major media.

Early in his article, Kazin, who sits on the editorial board of Dissent magazine, says “no one in the current peace movement has put forth a moral vision that might unite and sustain it beyond the precipice of war.”

Of course, many people involved in the peace movement are putting forward arguments that could sustain the movement beyond the issue of U.S. government aggression against Iraq. That the U.S. government should stay out of the affairs of other countries and should call its troops home is one of the most compelling arguments currently being forwarded by many in the peace movement. The vision of the U.S. government practicing what it preaches, as the peace movement has forwarded, could serve as a unifying force in the United States. Most rational Americans would agree that other countries and terrorist groups should not send agents to kill people on our soil and should not send troops to occupy our land. So why does our government continue to pursue a policy that we find abhorrent when others do it?

Washington officials and pundits argue that, in the name of national security, the U.S. government should continue to enact policies that essentially infringe on the freedom of Americans and people around the world and that end up bolstering only the goals of the U.S. elite. Are advocates for these types of measures traitors to the American ideals of democracy and freedom? Many of those in the peace movement embrace the pursuit of freedom and democracy for all, concepts that certainly are more aligned with the ideals of America than any of the current policies emanating from Washington.

In a wonderful piece on the ZNet website, Brian Dominick challenges the assumptions of “former leftists” David Corn, Christopher Hitchens, Marc Cooper, and Todd Gitlin. “Each man has published at least one commentary (in LA Weekly, The Washington Post, The LA Times and Mother Jones, respectively) taking cheap shots against the Left and regurgitating standard establishment lies about subjects like September 11, Afghanistan and Iraq,” Dominick writes. “It’s no surprise that a bunch of white men might want to hijack or undermine the Left while currying favor from the liberal establishment.”

I’m not sure of the relevance of these writers’ gender or race, but Dominick’s description of them wanting to curry favor with the liberal establishment also appears to apply to Kazin.

As with the four “former leftists,” Kazin cannot resist the urge to take aim at Noam Chomsky in the pages of the Post. Chomsky’s crime is that he developed a definition of patriotism that does not conform to the patriotic message conveyed by the U.S. elite. Kazin says that Chomsky describes the establishment’s patriotism as the governing elite’s way of telling the American people, “You shut up and be obedient, and I’ll relentlessly advance my own interests.” This is a perfectly acceptable definition of the elitist brand of patriotism, and Kazin actually does a service by highlighting Chomsky’s view on patriotism. Kazin’s intent, of course, was to argue that Chomsky’s view is out of the mainstream, even on the left.

Toward the end of his Outlook piece, Kazin implies that the antiwar movement does not care enough about the security of its neighbors here in the United States. He writes that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 will “inevitably force activists to clarify how they would achieve security, for individuals and the nation. How can one seriously engage in this conversation about protecting America if the nation holds no privileged place in one’s heart?”

Once again, Kazin joins the establishment chorus by questioning whether the peace movement really is concerned about the safety of Americans or if they care only for those harmed by the U.S. government’s imperial policies. Any honest assessment of the situation would recognize that people in the peace movement are patriots, even if they eschew the ugliness that’s attached itself to the word over the years, because they understand that the security of Americans will be significantly jeopardized if the War Party in Washington continues its belligerent ways.

The peace movement recognizes this. Apparently, the likes of Michael Kazin are blinded to history’s lesson that bullying eventually proves counterproductive and often leads to fits of rage, irrational or not, by those who perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of a bully’s wrath.

MARK HAND is editor of PressAction.com. He can be reached at mark@pressaction.com.

 

 

More articles by:

Mark Hand has reported on the energy industry for more than 25 years. He can be found on Twitter @MarkFHand.

November 20, 2018
John Davis
Geographies of Violence in Southern California
Anthony Pahnke
Abolishing ICE Means Defunding it
Maximilian Werner
Why (Mostly) Men Trophy Hunt: a Biocultural Explanation
Masturah Alatas
Undercutting Female Circumcision
Jack Rasmus
Global Oil Price Deflation 2018 and Beyond
Geoff Dutton
Why High Technology’s Double-Edged Sword is So Hard to Swallow
Binoy Kampmark
Charges Under Seal: US Prosecutors Get Busy With Julian Assange
Rev. William Alberts
America Fiddles While California Burns
Forrest Hylton, Aaron Tauss and Juan Felipe Duque Agudelo
Remaking the Common Good: the Crisis of Public Higher Education in Colombia
Patrick Cockburn
What Can We Learn From a Headmaster Who Refused to Allow His Students to Celebrate Armistice Day?
Clark T. Scott
Our Most Stalwart Company
Tom H. Hastings
Look to the Right for Corruption
Edward Hunt
With Nearly 400,000 Dead in South Sudan, Will the US Finally Change Its Policy?
Thomas Knapp
Hypocrisy Alert: Republicans Agreed with Ocasio-Cortez Until About One Minute Ago
November 19, 2018
David Rosen
Amazon Deal: New York Taxpayers Fund World Biggest Sex-Toy Retailer
Sheldon Richman
Art of the Smear: the Israel Lobby Busted
Chad Hanson
Why Trump is Wrong About the California Wildfires
Dean Baker
Will Progressives Ever Think About How We Structure Markets, Instead of Accepting them as Given?
Robert Fisk
We Remember the Great War, While Palestinians Live It
Dave Lindorff
Pelosi’s Deceptive Plan: Blocking any Tax Rise Could Rule Out Medicare-for-All and Bolstering Social Security
Rick Baum
What Can We Expect From the Democrat “Alternative” Given Their Record in California?
Thomas Scott Tucker
Trump, World War I and the Lessons of Poetry
John W. Whitehead
Red Flag Gun Laws
Newton Finn
On Earth, as in Heaven: the Utopianism of Edward Bellamy
Robert Fantina
Shithole Countries: Made in the USA
René Voss
Have Your Say about Ranching in Our Point Reyes National Seashore
Weekend Edition
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail