Euston in America

Jeffrey Herf on the Open University blog announces the launch of NewAmericanLiberalism.org, a rather crudely HTMLed offshoot of the Euston Manifesto project designed, as Herf puts it, to call for "a 'new political alignment' among those ranging from the democratic left to 'egalitarian liberals.'"

In addition to the co-authors, the now 178 signers include many people who are closely associated with The New Republic, notably Martin Peretz and Leon Wieseltier, past and recent contributors such as Daniel Bell, David Bell, Walter Laqueur, Daniel Goldhagen, Robert Leiken, Benny Morris, and Ronald Radosh, and a host of other very distinguished scholars, intellectuals, and policy analysts too long to be included here but readily available on the websites. The full list of signers is at the website.

An awful lot of these people seem to me to just be rightwingers, a stratnge starting point for a reconstruction of American liberalism.

Comments

"distinguished scholars, intellectuals, and policy analysts" all signing a "manifesto" ... a bunch of elitist wanna-bes.

those clowns should just STFU.

Posted by cleek | October 9, 2006 11:11 AM

So now we have a proxy to help us identify bad people. An unmitigated win for the forces of light and goodness!

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 9, 2006 11:26 AM

I guess the idea is to pre-empt a shift to the left in the population by pretending they're reviving the old Left center of gravity, and capture independents and Reagan Dems drifting leftwards. Call it juke-step politics.

Posted by Dom Telay | October 9, 2006 11:29 AM

so i see the new american liberalism entails unconditional support for the state of israel's long-standing policy of ethnic cleansing and forced removal of palestinians. what's "new" about a bunch of establishment american apologists for war crimes against arabs trying to pump up xenophobic hysteria yet another notch?

who the hell funds these morons?

Posted by Murph | October 9, 2006 12:11 PM

If I may raise an uncomfortable point, how many of them are Jewish and/or pro-Israel intellectuals?

Posted by chew2 | October 9, 2006 2:45 PM

This is trivia of interst only to me, but two of the most eminent and erudite steppe history scholars are signers: Peter Golden (Turks)and Anthony Khazanov (Mongols).

Posted by John Emerson | October 9, 2006 4:03 PM

Having discredited honest conservatism, these guys are presumably looking for new currencies to debase.

Call it slash-and-burn intellectualism.

Posted by Dave L | October 9, 2006 4:05 PM

The "concern troll" phenomenon graduates from blog comments to the world at large . . .

Posted by rea | October 9, 2006 8:10 PM

Yglesias is exactly right. The list is chock full of right wing scum. I am a little surprised given their right-wing inclinations (Radosh for example is an apologist for Franco and Spanish fascism under the guise of attacks on the communist-led International Brigades) they even want to pretend to have any affinity for liberalism.(or that liberals would be comfortable with them). I would guess this is a classic disinformation maneuver as used by the Soviets.

Posted by della Rovere | October 9, 2006 10:21 PM

It would be more helpful if people who have actually read the manifesto would point out what they find problematic with it, than to attack the creators and signers. I scanned it, and its goals seemed positive and good, with many things that I agree need to be done. Who the heck cares what the political leanings of the signers have been in the past if they are now seeking common ground? Let's abide by the spirit of the manifesto by respecting each other and working together for the good of everyone.

Posted by Jan Miller | October 10, 2006 3:41 AM

Okay, Jan Miller, I read.

"The key moral and political challenge in foreign affairs in our time stems from radical Islamism and the jihadist terrorism it has unleashed." - This is just nonsense. Terrorism is a bloody annoyance, nothing more and nothing less. Accommodating an emerging China in the international system, for example, is a key challenge in foreign affairs. Ensuring that the benefits of globalization are more widely shared is another, and one that is both moral and political to boot.

But "radical Islamism" and "jihadist terrorism"? They are a threat to a number of Middle Eastern regimes, period. And not a very serious one, based on the record - let's see, Sudan, Afghanistan and most of Somalia. Wow. I'm trembling.

The West obviously needs to take this variety of terrorism very seriously, but it is fundamentally a law enforcement problem. These guys, who have apparently spent the last four years in a coma, still want to use it as the organizing principle for all of our foreign policy. And they want that foreign policy to be armed and dangerous. All in pursuit of a modern, liberal Middle East. This was a stupid idea, ex ante. At this point, it fits a clinical definition of insanity.

Posted by dave l | October 10, 2006 8:30 AM

Let's abide by the spirit of the manifesto by respecting each other . . .

How is that the spirit of the Euston Manifesto?

I read it when if first came out, and I have re-read it just now. I see no expression of respect for those who dissent from the authors' views.

It would be more helpful if people who have actually read the manifesto would point out what they find problematic with it, than to attack the creators and signers.

I think it is helpful to point out dishonesty. The Manifesto purports to be a statement of 'progressives'. If some of its signers cannot reasonably be so described, they are being dishonest.

My first problem with the Manifesto is that some of its key points are strawmen that miss the really crucial points at issue in current debates.

'We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.'

The key question is not whether such right are 'appropriate' for a country like Iraq or Afghanistan, but whether military occupation is effective, ineffective, or even counterproductive for facilitating the emergence of the kind of society in which such rights are valued and protected. Ignoring this question implicitly conflates all opponents and skeptics of liberal imperialism with the tiny fringe of actual 'cultural relativists'. To defend liberal imperialism they need only reject 'cultural reletavism'. This is lazy and dishonest pseudo-argument.

Posted by David Tomlin | October 11, 2006 7:12 AM