The Liberal Manifesto

Although it's been up a couple of weeks, I just came across the "liberal manifesto" that Bruce Ackerman and Todd Gitlin posted over at American Prospect Online - We Answer to the Name of Liberals.

Clearly this is a moment for liberals to define ourselves. The important truth is that most liberals, including the undersigned, have stayed our course throughout these grim five years. We have consistently and publicly repudiated the ruinous policies of the Bush administration, and our diagnosis, alas, has been vindicated by events. The Bush debacle is a direct consequence of its repudiation of liberal principles. And if the country is to recover, we should begin by restating these principles.

I disagree with most of the manifesto.

Why do they begin by asserting Israel's right to exist the US's responsibility for peace in the Middle East? They do not assert the rights of any Palestinians. Nor do they question or even acknowledge the ways that the US presence has been deadly and damaging, a vehicle for imperialism, militarism, and furthering capitalism.

I disagree with US military actions in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Why does their liberalism privilege militarism? Are they seeing themselves from the position of some kind of neoconservative? Is that the fantasized other inspiring this manifesto?

I agree with their criticisms of Bush but think that they could be stronger--why say that it verges on monarchical pretension rather than that it has crossed the lines into fascist dictatorship? And why not condemn the Democrats who have gone along for the ride?  And why not criticize the ease with which warrants were granted rather than simply mention warrantless wiretapping and surveillance? Differently put, why not criticize and reject the entire oppressive machinary of surveillance?

I agree with their criticisms of Bush's tax cuts and undermining of commitments to social welfare and solidarity. But why not criticize Clinton for eliminating welfare as we know it? Why not add a condemnation of Congress for refusing to raise the minimum wage? Why not situate Bush within the larger corporate capitalist hegemony that celebrates CEO earnings in excess of 500 times that of their employees?

I agree with their emphasis on equality but fault them for stopping too soon. An affirmation on the rights to the means of a good life is empty without an assertion of the political will to redistribute goods so as to secure these means.

I agree with their criticism of the president and his party's suppression of voting. But why not criticize and reject the way that the two party system limits in advance the very possibility of political choice? Why not criticize and reject a system that essentially requires elected officials to be millionaries in order to run a campaign? Why not criticize and reject the larger corporate culture of patronage and pay offs that suppresses political possibilities?

I agree with their criticism of the president's disregard for the environment. But why not go further and challenge the entire culture of the automobile? Its individualism, narcissicism, and waste? The way cars stall in massive traffic jams and destroy the enviroment? The way our failure to commit to public transportation communicates our total selfishness and disregard for common approaches to work and movement?

I agree with their criticism of the administration's attitude toward science. But why not criticize the corporatization of science? the greed of the pharmaceutical and oil companies and the way that they, too, are deeply implicated in the production of corrupt, deformed, and inhospitable science?

I reject their reliance on a "self-evident truth" and their naming of this truth "reason." Why don't they acknowledge the deep complexities and rifts within and around the reasonable? And, more importantly, why don't they recognize the importance of a vision of politics that recognizes competing conceptions of the real (not the same thing as pluralism)? I agree with their attempt to push religion out of politics (what they call the public square), but I reject their contention that the can trump religion with neutral public reason.

I reject their vision of America's real enemies--radical Islamists. The real enemies are the corporations and financials concerns that profit from war and fear, that feed from ever new forms of inequality and degradation.

I am not a liberal and that is not my manifesto.

That said, I can imagine allying with these guys from time to time.

Comments

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/31/seminar-the-primacy-of-politics/

?

[Alain]

Hi Jodi, great post. I agree with most of your comments on the Liberal Manifesto. My only quibble (if you could call it that) would be that if the authors took the positions you are advocating they would no longer be liberals, right? Perhaps a trivial point but it seems that their "liberal position" is simply restating one side of the old debate between "science and revelation." While I completely agree that their understanding of objectivity is naive, it would seem that their general point needs to be made in the face of Republicans who believe facts are largely irrelevant - as a global hegemon the United States can create its own reality, blah, blah, blah. So while I think the ultimate political discussion should be at the level you map out, the short term requires that notions, however ill defined, like facts, reality, or even the limits of power need to be articulated.

[Kenneth Rufo]

If you're not a liberal, it's kind of de facto not your manifesto, right?

Just saying...

[Jodi]

Maybe I would have done better to end with something like 'and this is why I'm not a liberal..."

Or, maybe it would have been more appropriate to look at the whole thing more explicitly through the lens of why liberalism is inadequate to the present or when is a manifesto not a manifesto.

[Alain]

Thanks Jodi. I particularly like "When is a manifesto not a manifesto." My thought is that current political discourse needs these sort of basic assertions - what is real, what counts as factual, etc... in the face of a fascist movement that denies the relevance of such categories. To the degree that the authors make such an attempt, it is helpful. It seems that the United States today needs to get its bearings - not only in terms of what the political leadership wants to accomplish, but what is the basis upon which judgements are made. For the current junta, the emphasis is clearly on how to act, and not on the specificity of a given situation. "Facts on the ground" seem largely irrelavent - it is a question of constructing a world as the leadership want it to be.

[Craig]

Hence the importance (following from Alain's comments) of Schmitt's sociology of law and jurisprudence - i.e., "all law is situational law" and "the exception proves everything" (as a place to start), but, looking beyond that, we can begin to see the sketch of a new nomos. (And, with that all too imprecise comment, I return to Weber's discussion of "the types of legitimate domination," noting that I am unable to find the Bushite form of domination in this chapter.)