Etzioni: Whither the Decent Left?

Amitai Etzioni:

North Korean ships are carrying missiles and materials from which chemical and nuclear weapons can be made — to other tyrannies, such as the oppressive regimes in Myanmar and in Yemen. The United States leads a group of more than ninety nations that are committed to stopping such traffic, but North Korea has stated that such interventions would lead to war. One hears extremely little from progressives about what the United States should do next…

Yet, we hear next to no sounds of approval from the progressive camp; one is hard put to find editorials from the left stating that this time we’ve got it right. Are progressives holding that all problems can be treated with merely goodwill, foreign aid, and talk? Or are they willing to fess up and acknowledge that when all other means have been exhausted, and there is clear and present danger–the time to act is now, and to act may entail putting at least one foot down?

A few points:

1. No one knows what North Korean ships are carrying. It is true that, in the past, North Korea has engaged in the proliferation of missile and nuclear technology. There are good reasons to suspect that it will do so in the future. The exact nature of the cargo carried by the Kang Nam, however, is wholly unknown. Indeed, North Korea has a history of setting public relations traps for the unsuspecting.
2. Someone did, in several outlets associated with “progressive” foreign policy, publish discussions of the sanctions against North Korea. Other progressives have also written about North Korea. I have no idea whether Jeffrey Lewis and the guys at ArmsControlWonk consider themselves progressive or not, but he’s given some of the most detailed discussion of North Korea’s nuclear program to appear anywhere, and his prescriptions are broadly in line with a variety of “progressive” foreign policies. The Center for American Progress has also weighed in on North Korea.
3. The Iraq War was a stupid conflict conducted in a stupid manner, and it consequently produced a tremendous amount of domestic opposition. Much, but not all, of this opposition came from what can be understood as “progressives”. The unity of opposition to the Iraq War, however, obscured a series of very real differences within the coalition. Progressives differ on the exact manner and timing of withdrawal from Iraq, on the wisdom of the war in Afghanistan, on the most reasonable approach to Iran, on the future structure of the US armed forces, on the nature and desirability of US hegemony, on the character of US relations with Africa and Latin America, on the utility of nuclear weapons, on the importance of “free trade,” and on the relevance of international institutions and international law. While each progressive has his or her own understanding of the relationship between progressive principles and foreign policy, it’s simply not the case that a singular “progressive foreign policy” can be teased out. Rather, there are many different potential foreign policies that can fall under the label “progressive,” just as there are some that can safely be excluded from that umbrella. Anyone who tries to tell you that “progressives think X” on foreign policy is engaging in a rhetorical trick; those progressives who disagree with the policy are by definition excluded from the debate.
4. Given this multiplicity of potential progressive foreign policies, conflict and disagreement between progressives (to say nothing of the anti-Iraq War coalition as a whole) is inevitable. The “decent lefting” that Etzioni is engaging in is probably the least productive manner in which to conduct this conversation. The point is to pre-emptively denounce rather than seek any debate, and given the uncertainty associated with North Korea the bluster is particularly misplaced. Indeed, Etzioni can’t even identify any progressives who disagree with him; rather, he’s incensed by their purported silence, and implies that they must hold some odd set of radical anti-American/anti-imperialist views. It’s true enough that there are still some on the left who will denounce a writer as a “neocon” if he advocates supporting a left-wing Latin American President against a military coup d’etat, but these people are few in number, have no meaningful political power, and have little access to mainstream media outlets. It’s also true that the “Where were the WMDs!?” line may eventual gain the same stature as the Munich Analogy, an argument constantly deployed in an effort to understand disparate and dissimilar situations. I’m willing to give it a bit more time, however. In any case, Etzioni leaves the impression not simply that those who disagree with him are wrong, but that those who agree with him at insufficient volume are feckless. I am forcibly reminded of the situation following the South Ossetia War, where progressives who were insufficiently enthusiastic about brave little Georgia, and who were interested in such trivial questions as “who started the war?” were denounced as the indecent left. The same, of course, applies to the run up to the Iraq War, when an entire family of arguments was deemed inappropriate for serious discussion.

All that said, I agree with Etzioni; PSI is a good idea, a tighter set of sanctions against North Korea is sensible and legitimate, and progressive foreign policy goals are well served by such an approach. The arguments go down better, however, without the chip on the shoulder.