Because throughout he assumes there's only the question to be answered of either intervening in world disputes because we're "moral", or not intervening because we're "immoral" or "confused".
This interpretation of the article is completely wrong, and I can only begin to tell you how.
The article finds a curious symmetry between the ideological reversal on the part of the present neocons, like Wolfowitz, who was a former Trotskyite, and the anti-globalizers, who are now espousing what was once a conservative position. He sees the Leftists' failure to recognize this phenomenon as a reason why their anti-war arguments have failed. Don't argue, in other words, until you know who you are and how you got there. Not bad advice, but counsel that the Left has ignored.
You simply chose to ignore the author's explicit criticism of US and Israel foreign policy. If you had, your focus would have been on the article's theme, which is not one advocating colonialism. The article simply notes the weakness of the Left's argumentation, and suggests a few reasons for it.
Sure he scolds Vidal. Big deal. Vidal can't hold a candle to Havel, Ramos-Horta and Michnik. Perhaps it is a cry for Vidal to get on track, instead of re-treading his shopworn '60s debate "crypto-nazi" exchange with Buckley, a tiresome exercise that simply doesn't fit present circumstances. What does that criticism of Vidal have to do with the main point, which is the Lefts' intellectuals' failures to articulate a coherent response to the neo-cons?
The two unspoken premises are: (a)US intervention causes less carnage than non-intervention, and (b)it is constitutional for the US gov't to intervene wherever the public officials wish. Both premises are false.
I'd rather go with the spoken premises instead of fantasize about what the author may have said or what my bias requires me to read into the text. You will not find a word of text that supports your argument.
In sum, a really good article that seems to have the Lefties here in a proper dither. The interesting thing is that I don't read the author as espousing a viewpoint other than the stated one. John and you are hunting for meaning outside the text in the hope of finding chinks in the argumentation which I don't see. In other words, you are channeling Vidal's and the Lefts' failures. |
