Views > November 26, 2001
Patriots and Scoundrels
By Susan J. Douglas
It has been hard, these past few weeks, not to feel helpless, depressed, fearful
and, most of all, erased. Ari Fleischer warned Americans to “watch what
they say,” but in case some failed to obey this edict, many in the media
ensured that views deviating even slightly from those of Donald Rumsfeld were
censored, condemned or both. Who needs Fleischer when you have Thomas Friedman
or Jonathan Alter—who would have rather circumscribed careers without the
First Amendment—telling Americans, especially young Americans, to shut
up and pledge allegiance?
From The Economist’s “Treason of the Intellectuals,” to Tim Russert’s show on CNBC where Friedman expressed his deep disappointment
with college students who questioned administration policy, to Alter’s
semi-hysterical smear “Blame America at Your Peril” in Newsweek (not to mention Michael Kelly’s already infamous assertions in the Washington
Post that pacifists are “objectively pro-terrorist,” “evil” and “liars”), some journalists are taking up Fleischer’s banner
and launching a nice little ideological jihad of their own. As Alter,
a serial ’60s-basher put it, the left (of his imagination) is “unforgivably
out to lunch” and “knee-deep in ignorant and dangerous appeasement.” What we need to do is shut up because “it’s kill or be killed.”
All of these attacks begin, as smears usually do, by utterly distorting what
many on the left have been saying. Maybe I’m on the wrong listserves, but
I have heard no one justifying the September 11 attacks or expressing sympathy
for the Taliban, as The Economist and Alter suggest. And even though
both articles condemn left-wing “appeasement” (so they can liken us
to Nazi sympathizers), who on the left has been urging that we “appease” bin Laden?
Instead, many have argued that the attacks were a reprehensible criminal act,
and that whoever was responsible should indeed be hunted down and brought to
justice. We see this as a hideous crime, but we don’t see war as the solution.
In fact, many of us fear that the current policy of bombing what little remains
of Afghanistan and its benighted people (especially its women!) will, in addition
to killing innocent civilians, do little to end international terrorism and,
indeed, make matters much worse.
Why might those of us so “out to lunch” think that? Well, for starters,
Bush the First’s jolly little war in the region made the material existence
of millions of Iraqis, especially children, much worse without hurting Saddam
Hussein one bit. Alter says that after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center,
we “tried turning the other cheek” and it didn’t work. If U.S.
policies in the Middle East have been “turning the other cheek,” I’d
hate to see what belligerence is. Maybe Alter, patriot that he is, is perfectly
happy to associate himself with government policies that have helped kill more
than 500,000 Iraqi kids since 1990, but I, patriot that I am, am not. I think
our country can and should do better, and I think that liberals and progressives
have a right to say so.
The Economist says “there is a worrying confusion between (legitimate)
explanations and (unwarranted) justification of last month’s terror.” Maybe at The Economist, but not in the pieces I’ve been reading.
Many left-liberals question the sanctions in Iraq, our country’s ongoing
support of the autocratic and repressive Saudi regime, and the use of American
weapons to kill Palestinians. But it is a viscous slander to assert that “the
left” feels the attacks were “deserved.” Andrew Sullivan went
so far as to suggest that we are a pro-terrorist “Fifth Column.” I
would think those who seek to silence other views, stifle dissent and condemn
peace proposals are serving the forces behind this brand of terrorism much better
than we ever could, especially since they actually have mass circulation media
outlets as podiums.
Alter, Kelly and others might look to the example of CNN’s intrepid Christiane
Amanpour. In addition to her gutsy reporting from the front, Amanpour hosted
a CNN special on October 13 titled “An In-Depth Look at Islam.” She
powerfully reminded viewers that the American and Arab media present almost
diametrically opposed views of the region. Until recently, Americans barely
saw anything at all except telegraphic coverage of the escalating conflict between
Israelis and Palestinians. The Arab press and the Al-Jazeera network, however,
repeatedly show their viewers the children in Iraq suffering from the sanctions,
Israel’s use of American weapons and even critics of the Saudi regime.
Americans need to know how their government’s policies are being represented in the rest of the world, and they need informed public debate about those policies. The lesson is simple: We don’t need less information and commentary, we need more. You would think that journalists and commentators, of all people, would be the first to insist upon this principle.
More information about Susan J. Douglas
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments
There are no comments on this article yet. Start the discussion below.
-
register a new account »Posting Security
Member Login
Also by Susan J. Douglas
and get a
free, signed copy
of David Sirota's New York Times bestseller The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington
Popular Discussions
- Acknowledging the Race Chasm
51 posts since May 9 08 - Atheism’s Unholy Trinity
50 posts since May 20 08 - ‘The Kosovo Dilemma’ goes astray
The 1999 NATO-led bombing against Serbia was a humanitarian intervention, not a U.S. and European power grab
22 posts since Jun 25 08 - The American Left: What Progressives Can Learn from Obama
16 posts since Jun 24 08 - New Jewish Lobby Counters Neocons
13 posts since May 15 08
© 2001 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
