Todd Gitlin wrote a reply to my above review, which in my view missed every available point. You can decide for yourself by going to the Democracy site and searching for Gitlin.
Our exchange of letter in the current issue is below. Gitlin argues that he was criticised by Chomsky and the far Left in the Nineties and that excuses his uneasiness about showing solidarity with the victims of Islamo-fascism today. But that only goes to prove the argument I made in What’s Left? that extreme anti-western, anti-liberal ideas which began in obscure corners of the left in the Nineties, moved into the mainstream.
Anyway. Here is our exchange.
Issue #12, Spring 2009
Letters to the Editor
by Democracy Readers
Left, Right, Left . . .
Suppose officials in the Obama Administration are anxious to find ideas to guide America in a new direction. They might turn to Democracy and read Todd Gitlin. He certainly sounds like a man of the left. But what does he think liberals in office should do? Clearly they should not take notice of the warnings from Bernard-Henri Lévy and myself that the European left (and perhaps parts of the American left too) are going along with, or at least excusing, the far right. According to his response to my review of Lévy’s new book [“Left Is Right,” Issue #11], I assume “in black-or-white Republican fashion that those who reject a bomb-bomb foreign policy are turning cold shoulders to totalitarianism’s victims.”
I do not, and nor does Lévy. Like much of the rest of what Gitlin has produced, this is overkill, from a writer more interested in attention-seeking than fact-checking. All I have argued, here and elsewhere, is that a left that no longer shows solidarity with the victims of totalitarianism–unless, of course, that totalitarianism can somehow be said to be the “fault” of the United States–is not a left worth having. Our Obama staffers, however, will be more interested in his views on how they should handle their inevitable confrontation with totalitarian regimes and movements. Gitlin’s answer is, I think, that they should do nothing.
I say, “I think,” because it is not at all clear what Gitlin believes. After denouncing Lévy and me in the wildest language, he mutters that we may have a point. After thundering his opposition to a “bomb-bomb” foreign policy, he implies he supported the bombing of the forces of Slobodan Milosevic.
Gitlin’s slipperiness, his fear of saying anything that might bring him harsh looks from a fellow sociologist or a hurtful write-up in The Nation, was encapsulated for me in this self-regarding question about the vital conflict of our time: “If my soul is stirred by Afghan women demanding their rights, but I worry about a NATO strategy that bombs a lot of inconvenient civilians, have I gone over to the enemy?”
Well, it depends, doesn’t it? We all worry about NATO strategy, but if Gitlin only mentions women’s rights in passing, and devotes the rest of his article to attacking writers who defend them, if he cannot even pluck up the courage to say whether he wants the struggle against the Taliban to continue, then I do not think that radical Islamists’ would regard him as their deadliest foe. He does not support but he does not oppose, either–the classic position of the dilettante down through the ages.
Gitlin ends on a self-pitying note, sighing that “when Cohen warns that the American Left will soon face the same dilemmas as the French, that American liberals after Bush run the risk of sliding down the Europeans’ morally squalid slope, he fails to grasp how marginal intellectual life is altogether on this side of the ocean.” If he is the best the American intellectual life can come up with, I can’t say I’m surprised. For the sake of America and the world, the Obama Administration should marginalize him, too.
London, United Kingdom
Todd Gitlin replies:
According to Nick Cohen, I fall short of his exacting fact-checking standards. But he himself thinks that I “imply” that I supported the bombing of Milosevic’s forces during the Bosnian genocide–when 0.45 seconds with Google would have demonstrated that I did support it before, during, and after. For the record, if it matters, I do agree–no great shakes– that “it is always wrong to stone women to death” and, more generally, to “abandon . . . solidarity with those victims of oppression whose suffering does not fit into the ‘anti-imperialist’ worldview.” A bit more Googling would disclose that Professor Chomsky’s epigones have frequently had it out for me for precisely that reason, though perhaps I have declared my solidarity in less Manichaean terms than Cohen prefers. The trouble is that bombast in the name of solidarity is not a policy.