I would like to respond to “Not much of an American left left to speak of” (November 12). It’s an interesting analysis, but I think flawed and biased. Three points in particular struck a discordant note. 1. “But these constituencies are varied, diffuse, and often at odds.” There is a notion in the mainstream press that the “left” can’t get its act together, that there is no coherent message from the “Battle in Seattle” or the “riots” in Quebec City and in Toronto, with its Coalition Against Poverty’s Day of Action. I think the message isn’t coherent because it isn’t reported.
There are groups coming together over concerns regarding the super-national powers claimed by and accorded to the World Trade Organisation and the repressive, damaging policies of the International Monetary Fund. Surely this is democracy speaking; multi-faceted, complex and legion in tone and argument.
Where are the representatives of these organisations and movements? The tokenism represented by the half-dozen progressive columnists in the print media does little to counteract the reams of conservative editorials, columns and news items. Looking beyond the pickets reveals that there are thoughtful and detailed initiatives that have been drafted and are freely available. To name a few Canadian examples: The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Suzuki Foundation and the Council of Canadians. When it comes to American examples of alternative political approaches, the writers are casually dismissive. This brings me to my second point. 2. “This event encapsulates the two basic responses on the left.” I realise this is a useful device: define the bounds of your argument and address it. However, it limits debate. The thrust is to suggest that there are many voices calling for change with no coherent message. However, the authors argue they can be reduced to two schools of opinion, neither valid. The “Chomskyites” are “callous”, “narcissistic” and politically impractical. On the other hand is a group which is “more nuanced”, yet lacking direction. In what sense is Chomsky callous? 3. “A simple anti-war stance is not viable, for two reasons.” The two reasons are that the threats are real and on-going and the protesters have presented no alternatives. The writers do not deal with three simple realities: The perpetrators of the September 11 attacks are dead; It has not been suggested that the Taliban were directly involved in the attacks;
The anthrax attacks may not be related to events of September 11. Given these facts and the nature of terrorism, the notion that bombing Afghanistan will end terrorist attacks is dubious. As for the lack of alternatives, Chomsky has suggested that international courts should be called upon and empowered to deal with terrorism. Laws have been enacted to cover these situations, they simply have not been enforced. The selective nature of the United States’s military foreign policy renders it highly suspect. Why attack Afghanistan and not Saudi Arabia, where the real funding and support for Al-Qaida is based? It is frustrating to read an article in which the authors claim to be on the “left” and are so ignorantly critical of it. They state there’s not much left left well, not if they’re all that’s left of the left. Right? Justin Hay, Toronto, Canada