The Left Excommunicates One of Its Own

One of the many things I appreciated about my brother-in-law Myke (a Canadian with left-of-center political leanings) during his recent visit was that we could disagree about political or philosophical topics with mutual respect and admiration for one another's arguments and the core beliefs upon which those arguments are founded. Similar discussions with those who maintain a near-religious belief in the veracity and immutability of their own opinions--often (but, certainly not always) arrived at purely through emotion or a desire to belong to a certain group--can often feel like an exercise in futility.

The title of this post links to an article that is illustrative of this issue. The article is penned by a leftist columnist in Britain named Nick Cohen, who describes his "excommuniction" from the "church" of the left-wing, anti-war movement in Britain by a former friend in an article in another newspaper. He has an interesting insight to a tactic employed by his former friend.

The least attractive characteristic of the middle-class left - one shared with the Thatcherites - is its refusal to accept that its opponents are sincere. The legacy of Marx and Freud allows it to dismiss criticisms as masks which hide corruption, class interests, racism, sexism - any motive can be implied except fundamental differences of principle.

Impugning their opponent's motives enables some on the left to side-step the shaky ground upon which they base their own argument, thereby changing the focus of the debate from the issue at hand to the suspect ulterior motives behind the "reasoning" of their opponent's argument. Cohen's article shows that near-religious adherence to their ideology prevents some leftists from seeing that blind hatred for Tony Blair, George W. Bush, et. al., virtually makes them apologists for an ideology which would normally appear to be anathema to their own.

...good motives of tolerance and respect for other cultures have had the unintended consequence of leading a large part of post-modern liberal opinion into the position of 19th-century imperialists. It is presumptuous and oppressive to suggest that other cultures want the liberties we take for granted, their argument runs. So it may be, but believe that and the upshot is that democracy, feminism and human rights become good for whites but not for browns and brown-skinned people who contradict you are the tools of the neo-conservatives.

On the other hand when confronted with a movement of contemporary imperialism - Islamism wants an empire from the Philippines to Gibraltar - and which is tyrannical, homophobic, misogynist, racist and homicidal to boot, they feel it is valid because it is against Western culture. It expresses its feelings in a regrettably brutal manner perhaps, but that can't hide its authenticity. The result of this inversion of principles has been that liberals can't form alliances with the victims of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or Iraq any more than the [W.H.] Auden generation could form alliances with the victims of Stalinism.

Cohen is dubious that some of his fellow travelers on the left will be able to free themselves from their ideological straighjacket before it's too late.

The thing to watch for with fellow travellers is what shocks them into pulling the emergency cord and jumping off the train. I know some will stay on to the terminus, and when the man with the rucksack explodes his bomb their dying words will be: 'It's not your fault. I blame Tony Blair.'