Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Getting Past Vietnam-Era Condescension & Insecurity

Posted by David Sirota at 6:01 AM on January 11, 2007.


In order for a society to progress, it can't be held hostage by insecure elites living in the past...

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

There seems to be a pervasive and not-so-subtle streak of anger among 50-60 something pundits who describe themselves as "liberal" and yet who constantly attack the left for opposing the Iraq War, and then lecture the left about how we should have learned a lesson from Vietnam - this lesson being that progressive opposition to the war in the 1960s was terrible because Democrats proceeded to lose the presidency in the 1980s and Congress in the 1990s. To these 50-to-60-year-old cloistered, mostly male pundits, opposition to the War in Vietnam wasn't an act of courage - it is only portrayed as something horrible and never to be repeated because somehow we are all expected to believe it was the only reason for election losses decades later. Not surprisingly, almost all of the people pushing this narrative never served on the battlefield, and so the worst possible tragedy to them in their comfortable lives is not their arms or legs being blown off, but the party they nominally affiliate with losing elections - even though they have no evidence whatsoever to prove that those elections were lost because of the reasons they say they were.

Joe Klein is probably the most explicit in pushing this Vientam-inspired theory that opposition to the Iraq War is horrible, though he certainly not the only one. In his initial Time Magazine blog post, Klein attacked those who oppose the war as "illiberal leftists and reactionary progressives" who are "rooting for an American failure." A little later, Klein discussed Iraq further saying: "Liberals were 'right' about Vietnam, but they have paid a price ever since because they were so obnoxious."

His message is very clear: Klein is saying that while progressives may be right about opposing the Iraq War (even though Klein himself went on national television on the eve of the war to support the invasion), it is wrong for progressives to actually turn that opposition into real action because to do that would definitely lead to election losses for Democrats. Klein assumes this as fact because he is convinced - without any proof, of course - that progressive opposition to the Vietnam War led to election losses for Democrats decades later.

Klein and his "liberal" pundit friends are very, very good at using stereotypes to describe "the left." I was recently a recipient of a series of angry email screeds from Klein calling me a "crypto-socialist," a “left-wing BS artist" and likening me to people he knew in Students for a Democratic Society (and yet he somehow also likened me to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh - I really think Klein may not a stable/rational/functioning member of normal society). But in fact, it is Klein and the pundits who have actually become the worst cultural stereotypes of liberals they detest.

A 50 or 60-something year-old saying that because his generation supposedly acted/reacted one way means that the world can never act/react a different way is the very kind of self-centered arrogance and condescension liberals are regularly criticized for. That is, after all, the entire thinking behind this Vietnam obsession: that because progressive opposition to the Vietnam War in the 1960s supposedly was fully responsible for Americans voting Democrats out of office in the 1980s and 1990s, it automatically means that progressive opposition to the Iraq War in 2007 will be responsible for Americans voting Democrats out of office in the future (2010? 2020?).

Such theories, in short, assume that ordinary Americans are inherently stupid and unable to learn/adapt from history and reward a party for ending a war that the public opposes. This is the very kind of looking-down-the-nose-at-the-commoners behavior liberals are always ridiculed for. After all, these pundits aren't (at least openly) arguing that the Vietnam War should have continued - most acknowledge Vietnam didn't work out so well. Yet,what they are arguing today is that America didn't learn anything from that experience - that America, in fact, is too stupid to learn anything and react differently the next time around.

Klein yesterday spitefully claimed that after the Vietnam War, "liberals proceeded to see Vietnam in every American military initiative." But it is graying pundits like Klein who clearly can't let go of Vietnam. I'm not sure why, frankly. Maybe its because they feel bad they didn't serve in the Vietnam War, and need to feel tough now by putting on a thug act and attacking anti-war efforts. Maybe it's because most of these pundits helped push the war in the first place and are too conceited to admit mistake. Maybe it's totally unrelated - maybe it's because people like Klein have worked their entire lives to achieve a dream of becoming a political columnist at a major magazine, only to realize that political columnists at major magazines are becoming increasingly irrelevant, ridiculed and exposed as dishonest frauds by the progressives who are empowered by new media.

Ultimately, I really don't care what the reason is. But I do know this: Americans are inherently smart people who can adapt and who do learn from history, no matter how much Joe Klein and the pundits assume we are stupid. This isn't to say that history can't teach us lessons, but it is to say that we are not automatically held hostage by history - and especially not by historical revisionist tales of anti-war efforts being singularly responsible for the downfall of the Democratic Party.

Just because the Joe Kleins feel bad they didn't serve/are too conceited/know they have blood on their hands/feel irrelevant doesn't mean this country is destined to repeat national security mistakes forever. Just because the Joe Kleins are too intellectually incapacitated to get past their Vietnam-era insecurities doesn't mean this country is unable to end a misguided war without punishing the party that helps end that war. Just because the Joe Kleins think they are smarter than everyone and that America is stupid doesn't mean the Joe Kleins actually are smarter than everyone and that America actually is stupid.

Democrats contemplating whether to use the power that voters just gave them, or behave like wimps and merely pass non-binding resolutions, should not fall into the trap of looking down on America like the pundits - they should have faith that when the public delivers an election mandate, the public wants action, and will reward that action with support.

Digg!

Tagged as: vietnam, joe klein

David Sirota is a veteran political strategist and author of Hostile Takeover, a New York Times bestseller about the corruption of both political parties.


Dobbs to Quit CNN
Dobbs, under fire, to seek greener pastures.
Post by Staff. November 11, 2009.
Under Pressure From Tea Party Activists, Charleston GOP Censures Lindsey Graham For Bipartisanship
Part of the fury from the right against Graham is being spurred by the oil and coal industry.
Post by Lee Fang. November 11, 2009.
Murdoch and Murdoch Flak Confused About Racism, Truth
What must it be like to do spin for News Corps?
Post by Tana Ganeva. November 11, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Names?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jan 11, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More names, please, or don't use the plural. Thomas Friedman springs to mind, a deeply dishonest man, but otherwise I've no idea who you're talking about, aside from Klein.

Otherwise, I can only agree. Perhaps most important: as I remember, and being Klein's age I (still) remember very well, the Democrats' losses in the 80's were richly deserved, partly because Carter was a pretty poor president and mostly because they moved rapidly to the right, abandonning their core constituencies, like me. I quit being a Democrat during Clinton. As far as I was concerned, he was a Republican.

Interestingly enough, my father, a lifelong Republican, felt the same way, and switched parties.

A further point Klein chooses to overlook: the Dems were responsible for the Vietnam War; a Republican finally ended it, more or less over his own dead body, to say nothing of thousands of Americans and more thousands of Vietnamese. The party actually has a history of being thoroughly imperialist.

As I also remember, the war ended when the anti-war movement became really, really obnoxious. That's what it takes when our elite get into one of these imperial adventures, and it's time the current anti-war movement studied up. As I remember all too well, it took casualties here at home as well as over there. I'm not looking forward to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Big Muddy
Posted by: Russ Wellen on Jan 11, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking of Vietnam, see The Philadelphia Daily News's Will Bunch piece comparing LBJ's speech 40 years ago yesterday to Bush's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Have we forgotten the words of Bush Sr..?
Posted by: SusanC on Jan 11, 2007 1:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did anything in Iraq, or that entire region change, since Bush Sr. explained in his book why he did not invade during Desert Storm?

"In their cowritten 1998 book, "A World Transformed" George Bush the Elder
and Brent Scowcroft discussed regime change in Iraq:

Trying to eliminate Saddam [in 1991], extending the ground war into an
occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing
objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have
incurred incalculable human and political costs . . .[We] Would have have
been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would
instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies
pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit
strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles . . . Had we
gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an
occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a
dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome." (quoted in Losing
America, pg 154)

Source: Biography.ms via Google

If nothing changed why did we invade? could it be that we invaded for Bush Jr's personal gain along with guarenteeing his relection as a "war time" president? How much money has no-bid contracts generated for the GOP treasury?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obnoxious?
Posted by: lessbread on Jan 11, 2007 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Klein ought to focus his attention on the present quagmire rather than revisiting the fiascos of the past. As Bob Somerby has pointed out many times [1], Joe Klein epitomizes "millionaire pundit culture" [2]. As a phony liberal, he can nearly always be counted on to spread establishment disinformation [3] and lend a hand with the rubification of the electorate [4].

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]