-----

5 Responses to “The Euston Manifesto’s real-world launch” 

1. 1 Tom Burrough  May 25th, 2006 at 7:01 pm

   A very good manifesto. I’ll encourage my friends to give it a look.

2. 2 Neil Harding  May 27th, 2006 at 5:35 pm

   This new statesman article explains quite well why you shouldn’t support the manifesto.

3. 3 Neil Harding  May 27th, 2006 at 5:39 pm

   The link might not work so here is the article;

   The politics column - Bring on a new democratic left
   Columnists
   David Clark
   Monday 29th May 2006

   There is a need for an authentic democratic left to reassert itself. Perhaps its inspiration could be the example of the wartime Labour Party, writes David Clark

   George Bush and Tony Blair are not the only supporters of regime change attempting to reclaim the political initiative from their critics this week. The authors and supporters of the Euston Manifesto (featured in the New Statesman last month) have also been gathering to launch their project formally for a “fresh political alignment” of unrepentant liberal hawks.

   Its organisers dismiss the idea that the manifesto is an apologia for the invasion of Iraq, but the premise of its argument - that liberal democracy is at war with the forces of terrorism and tyranny, and there is only one side for genuine progressives to be on - fits naturally with the Bush-Blair vision of the war on terror. Faced with this cosmic threat, it is the responsibility of all “genuine democrats” to suspend traditional political loyalties and make “common cause” with one another. Evidently, this extends to the Republican right.

   There is, nevertheless, much in the manifesto with which to agree. Its belief in the intrinsic value of democracy reflects the left’s most enduring achievements. Its call for a humanitarian foreign policy is in the best traditions of internationalism. Even its scathing criticism of sections of the anti-war left for abandoning these values in favour of a vulgar anti-imperialism is substantially justified. Western guilt and the doctrine that my enemy’s enemy is my friend have produced some truly ugly sentiments.

   Yet there is nothing especially new in this. Possessed of extreme self-righteousness, the ultra-left has been with us since the French revolutionary Babeuf, who was guillotined in 1797. Indeed, a large proportion of those on the pro-war left are former cadres of one or other of its 57 varieties. In this the Eustonites are reminiscent of the early American neoconservatives. They also shared a background in radical-left politics and became preoccupied with attacking their former comrades’ supposed moral corruption on a great issue of war and peace (in their case, Vietnam). It was a journey that led most of them eventually to abandon the left for good. The question is whether supporters of the Euston Manifesto are destined to follow a similar trajectory.

   There are good reasons for suspecting that they might. The belief that western civilisation is locked

   in a life-or-death struggle to defend human freedom

   - whether it’s the cold war or the war on terror - contains an irresistible logic. An unqualified faith in the moral superiority of western power sits uneasily with a tough critique of its economic and social structures, and the tension is hard to sustain. The neoconservatives resolved this contradiction by dispensing with the critique, and there are clues in the Euston Manifesto that point the same way.

   Its authors are certainly right to dismiss the idea that there can be “no opponents on the left”. The problem is that they give the very real impression of believing that their only opponents are on the left. There are vague and slightly ritualistic expressions of concern about social injustice and global inequality, but nowhere are they confronted with the kind of passion that is devoted to attacking those considered guilty of appeasing terrorism by criticising western policy - nor is any attempt made to identify their cause.

   The most telling illustration of this comes in the passages devoted to condemning the left’s supposed “anti-Americanism”. Here the Eustonites show how far they have drifted from the instincts and concerns of even the moderate left. Progressives oppose American hegemony not because it is American, but because it is hegemonic, and because the idea of a unipolar world order is objectionable on grounds of equity and democracy. The Euston Manifesto sees the inequality generated by globalisation as some sort of inexplicable mishap; genuine progressives are clear that its origins lie in the uneven distribution of global power that underpins the free-market policies of the Washington consensus. The manifesto’s failure to grapple with this problem, or even acknowledge that it exists, robs it of whatever radical potential it may have contained.

   These are challenging times to be a progressive. But between militant leftists who are cavalier in their disregard for democratic values, and militant democrats who are increasingly unwilling to brook any criticism of western policy, there is the need for an authentic democratic left to reassert itself. It should perhaps take as its inspiration the example of the wartime Labour Party. It embraced what the Eustonites dismiss: the idea that social and political change is not a threat to the war effort, but an essential component of it. It did this by identifying and remedying the societal failures that had contributed to the rise of fascism, in order not to excuse it, but to destroy it for good.

   The war on terror will be winnable only if we also retain the self-awareness to recognise our errors, and do something about them.

   David Clark was a special adviser to Robin Cook

   The Euston Manifesto can be viewed at: [http://www.newstatesman.com/eustonmanifesto]

   Martin Bright is away

   This article first appeared in the New Statesman.
   For the latest in current and cultural affairs take out a print or online subscription.

4. 4 Andrew  May 28th, 2006 at 12:30 am

   Much of the article seems to be somewhat fuzzy, hinting subtly that the whole thing is doomed to failure without any real evidence other than not-necessarily-applicable historical examples. The only real criticism seems to be of the anti-american stand on the basis that any ‘inequality generated by globalisation’ is bad. To be honest, I don’t have an opinion on this. I don’t know enough about economics / politics to say whether that’s true or not. Hopefully somebody will respond when the article is ‘officially’ published on Monday.

5. 5 Adrian Scollin  Jun 5th, 2006 at 12:39 am

   General comment:

   I wonder why some people are concerned about “trolls”: Hyde Park Corner - that traditional London forum for ideas - seemed to welcome debate at all levels - very democratic. The philosopher J. S. Mill also defended critics as they often served the better to understand one’s own argument.

   Regarding the article - three points:

   1. left /right politics has ceased:
   I fear that the proponents of such ideas have failed to grasp the essence of the “End of History” best seller - that left /right politics has ceased to exist in its traditional form and the old “bun fights” no longer appeal to voters.

   2. The people are ahead of parliament.
   Voter apathy in Britain suggests that issues are still important but parties and coalitions are ignored - witness the ballot abstentions. The people are ahead of parliament.

   3. WMD
   Washington’s fingerprints are all over this type of appeal - remember Blair’s WMD claims that Bush supported without any evidence? The 1962 Cuban Crisis was sustained through endless photographic evidence and confirmed by a naval boarding of one Soviet vessel. We are still waiting for similar evidence from Bush or Blair.

   Adrian Scollin
   2 Bestwick Avenue
   Heanor
   Derbyshire
   DE75 7HH

-----

Leave a Reply

Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.

There was an error with your comment, please try again.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Track with co.mments

(comments may take ~20 seconds to process due to anti-spam pixies)