@edgarblythe,
Far be it from me to defend the American Left, but I believe Rubin's central premise, ( that by advancing, supporting or even accepting, American expansionism, imperialism, and military actions have betrayed leftism), is very much flawed and primarily so because it is based on what is a nieve, inaccurate and even petulant conceptualization of leftism as containing a unified, monolithic set of principles and goals
Pacifism, isolationism, cross-national and racial egalitarianism, and the embracing of individual liberties are not to be found exclusively in the table of contents of a primer of Leftism (and not even one devoted only to the American version). The fact that he has so many examples to cite and so many liberals, progressives and leftists to condemn is pretty solid evidence that all of the political movements and schools of thought he defines as left-wing probably wouldn't agree with his conceptualization.
When the number of your
fellow travelers who shamefully fail to live up to your ideals vastly outnumber those who do, either you are traveling with a pack of curs or you are very arrogant and judgmental. From the very start of his article, Rubin gives us a strong indication of upon which side of the line he falls.
Less orthodox ideologues than Rubin might view the addition of foreign policy hawks to the voices at media outlets that are widely considered,
at least, left of center, as a desirable means of providing a diversity of viewpoints to their readers or listeners, rather than as betrayal. The clear implication is that these outlets (that so many on the left insist are,
at least, centrist) have perfidiously rewarded screeching hawks like Bret Stephens, Samantha Powers and Jeffery Goldberg for their
war-mongering and in the case of Powers and Goldberg, their
heresy.
It would be too easy to point out that the leftist regimes that have held actual power (and often absolute power) around the world have been solidly engaged in and even defined by the apostasy Rubin laments, and it would be unfair. Rubin has limited his condemnation to American leftists, although this doesn't render his argument any less flawed.
These (
New Republic) writers, John Dewey foremost among them, cheered on the United States’ entry into World War I, seeing it as a revolutionary act
that would usher in an age of mass mobilization, collective planning, and modern bureaucracy. (emphasis added)
With this excerpt, we see Rubin, himself, providing evidence that Progressivism (particularly at that time) was not synonymous with his particular concept of leftism. Progressivism (despite the heated claims of some on the right) is not Communism, Marxism or Socialism. Assuming Dewey actually used the terms "mass mobilization" and "collective planning", they each have definitions and applications within Dewey's
Progressivism that are distinct from the Socialism of Karl Marx or even Eugene Debs. They may share a common origin in concerns for vast wealth inequity and the standard of life of the working class, but neither their desired ends nor their proposed means are remotely the same. Progressivism was a movement of reform while Socialism was a movement of, if not revolution, then drastic systemic change. These differences are simply that and not signs of betrayal by one or the other.
Some of Rubin's targets deserve his disapprobation: Woodrow Wilson, William Jennings Bryan, FDR (even though he is only obtusely tied to the internment of Japanese Americans) and Eric Holder to name four, but not, in my opinion for their "betrayal" of
leftist principles. Their sins, if you will, were abuse of power violations that involved the undermining and shredding of protections afforded Americans under the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is not a socialist manifesto and jailing political critics, dislocating and imprisoning Americans solely because of their race/nationality and sending drones to execute, without any sort of due process, American citizens in foreign lands, has been condemned by a great many people on the Right.
I suppose it's to be expected, albeit disappointing, that Rubin, while, obviously, being tough on those he deems to have been or who are fellow leftists, he saves his harshest criticisms for conservatives, and gives out some free passes or just a wrist slap to so many Democrats. It seems to me that it's bit disingenuous to try and have Eric Holder rather than his boss shoulder the blame for drone attacks.
I doubt anyone is interested in my addressing Rubin point by point, so I'll end this post with an acknowledgment that Rubin's service in the Marines while stationed in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan may have, quite understandably, led to his intense opposition to any and all wars and I can certainly respect that, but his commentary is certainly pertinent to themes expressed in this thread. We each have our own opinions of presidents and political leaders throughout American history, but ideological purists like Rubin don't win many elections and none govern as such if they do. The world and the nation won't allow it.
