Left2Right is a new philosophy blog featuring many of the most accomplished moral and political philosophers working in the U.S. today (including Stephen Darwall, John Deigh, Gerald Dworkin, David Estlund, Jeff McMahan, Peter Railton, David Schmidtz, George Sher, and David Velleman, among others), as well as a handful of legal academics and political scientists with interests in issues of moral, political, and legal theory.
Making easily available the ideas and arguments of philosophers of this caliber is clearly welcome, though the "official" statement of purpose of the blog does raise a puzzle, as one sympathetic blogger has already noted:
How better to try to communicate with various constituencies on the right is a serious and important concern, as it's clearly necessary to get at least some portion of them to knock it off. Still, I wonder. I like political theorists as much as the next guy, but I don't know if there is any particular reason to believe political theorists are going to crack that particular nut any better than the rest of us.
Already, Professor McMahan's rather straightforward criticism of the "Support our Troops" emoting that is currently sweeping the United States has attracted exactly what one would expect from the pathologically reactionary and trite public culture of the United States--for example, this from a supporter of the Iraq war:
Hmm. Just got an email from Left2Right. It included the following quote:
"In the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, many of us have come to believe that the Left must learn how to speak more effectively to ears attuned to the Right. How can we better express our values? Can we learn from conservative critiques of those values? Are there conservative values that we should be more forthright about sharing? "Left2Right" will be a discussion of these and related questions....So of course, [McMahan's] is the first article I see. And my immediate reaction is "what the hell does anything in this piece have to do with the mission statement I just read?"
Answer: near as I can tell, none.
* Any assessment of the consistent reports that many of those serving troops beleive in what they are doing, and disagree with the author's assessment? No.
* Any discussion of non-partisan efforts like Spirit of America, which is active in projects that make a difference to Iraqis and work with the U.S. military at times - an organization that includes advisers from the Dean campaign among its supporters? No.
* Any attempt here to explore any common ground? No. Unless you're trying to explore it with Pat Buchanan, who is totally in sync with this thinking. Folks exploring common ground with Pat sure aren't exploring any with me. Or my team.
* Any references to actual organizations working to support the troops, so that people reading you could assess whether your statements were accurate in some, all, most, or no cases? No. (FYI, try this link if you're interested in seeing a diverse range of such groups)
* Any self-examination and consideration of the ways in which the Vietnam War's experiences and aftermath made similar kinds of open defeatism politically problematic this time around? No.
* Any thought in this article, even the remotest, for the welfare and fate of the Iraqis, either before or after this war? Not a scintilla.
"Disappointing" barely begins to describe my reaction to this. You know, the world doesn't need another Daily Kos. The right certainly isn't going to listen to one, and neither is the uncommitted middle.
Or, similarly, from a self-described "marinewife" on the same thread:
thought I'd give your blog a read, in attempt to "listen" to your moderate ideas. The first thing I'm confronted with is your true ignorance on what supporting the troops means. First of all, if you have to ask, you don't. Secondly, you are right, supporting the troops (and all pleas through bumper stickers) means supporting their mission. Anything less is patronizing and insincere. If there's one thing a military professional can smell out, it's a fake, so don't bother. I realize it's quite perplexing to not want to appear to be against those good gentlemen (and women) who strap on a machine gun and pocket a few MRE's to "defend your freedom". You wouldn't want to insult them, lest they come in handy for a UN-endorsed (sure to be a failed) mission. So what's a brother to do?
I run through several (anger filled) responses to your query before I fall upon this profound notion. How about you join the Peace Corps? Or send badly needed schools supplies to schools that are being rebuilt by those gentlemen (yes, I know you think we tore them down in the first place) but you know what Jesus said, turn the other cheek. How about this, even if you think the war in Iraq is immoral, illegal, disgusting, isn't it the bigger man that can see beyond the hypocrisies and still support the people who may not have asked for this situation but are no doubt suffering from it?
I find in this question of yours more of an examination of "is this war good?" rather than "what do these bumper stickers mean?" I believe this war is right, although I didn't think we should go to Kosovo or Somalia, but I still sent money and aid to help my husband create positive encounters with the people there and to help those people in my own measly way.
Or this gem from "Rocky":
I thought this blog was supposed to be about "getting through to the right".
Questioning the motives or reasoning of the simple, patriotic, hardworking stiffs who want to make some small, visible sign of support for the men and women wearing the uniform of the USA in very dangerous places strikes me as, um, pretty dumb.
Anyway, if what you really want to do is get through to the right, you're off to a decidedly poor start. If (as appears more likely) you've really set out to engage in some lefty navel gazing, you're doing just fine.
None of this raises hope that communicating with "the Right"--which over the last 25 years has moved progressively further to the Right in America, all the facts and arguments be damned--is going to be a happy or successful endeavor. The good news is that many of the postings already simply express ideas and arguments, without, it appears, worrying about pandering to "the Right." I hope we'll see more of that, like Professor McMahan's post, and less fantasizing about "common ground" with the forces of reaction.
UPDATE: The commentary in this thread is a bit more interesting; see especially Elizabeth Anderson's reply to the commenter who equates homosexuality with sexual fetishism. It will be interesting to see whether the reply is effective.
UPDATE: If you want some evidence for thinking American democracy is doomed, look at the responses to this very mild and reasonable posting by philosopher David Velleman.
Recent Comments