Is the American Left Changing?

Anti-Semitic sign at a San Francisco
"Anti War" rally. (From the
Zombie Hall of Shame).

George Bush and the "Neo-Cons," while taking traditionally conservative positions on many issues, have also taken many positions that are the exact opposite of traditional Conservatives, including: allowing a large budget deficit; allowing open borders and illegal immigration; an activist foreign policy; and increasing the role of the federal government (on several social issues, as well as in the War on Terror). Conservatives are changing their traditional positions on many issues.

There has been a lot of recognition of the changes on the "right"-- but not much about changes on the "left". There has been a lot of discussion of Bush' policies, as well as the "Neo-cons" in general, so this post is not about the "new conservatism".

While there has been a lot of attention paid to changes on the political right, I believe that there are significant new trends in the political left, many of which are also the opposite of traditional leftist views-- but this has not received the same amount of attention as those changes on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

Traditionally, the left has considered themselves to be tolerant and open-minded-- currently there seems to be a large movement in the opposite direction. (To cite one example: in the past, when someone who's views they disagreed with were to speak somewhere, leftists would picket and hand out literature. More and more now, the trend has been to disrupt the speaker in an attempt to totally silence him).

In the past, leftists were strongly in favor of freedom of expression-- now many are taking the lead in arguing for the suppression of free speech, as well as being in support of other forms of government censorship.

Traditionally, the left has defended the rights of minorities-- recently there has been quite a bit of anti-Semitism expressed in leftist circles...and it is becoming more and more acceptable there. In addition, other forms of bigotry are beginning to appear.

It seems that there is a large part of the left that is abandoning traditional liberal positions, and becoming increasingly hypocritical.

While not much has been expressed publicly about this, I have seen two unusually perceptive commentaries-- one from a liberal, one from a conservative.

Peter Tatchell is a British human rights activist He has unusually good insights into what is happening, and doesn't let "political correctness" stop him from mentioning it:

WHY HAS THE LEFT GONE SOFT ON HUMAN RIGHTS?

Large sections of liberal and left opinion have gone soft on their commitment to universal human rights. They rightly condemn the excesses of UK and US government policy, but rarely speak out against oppressors who are non-white or adherents of minority faiths.

There are no mass protests against female genital mutilation, forced marriages, the stoning of women and gender apartheid in the Middle East. A perverse interpretation of multiculturalism has resulted in race and religion ruling the roost in a tainted hierarchy of oppression.

In the name of "unity" against Islamophobia and racism, much of the left tolerates misogyny and homophobia in minority communities. It rejects common standards of rights and responsibilities; demanding that we "make allowances" and show "sensitivity" with regard to the prejudices of ethnic and faith communities.

This attitude is patronising, even racist. It judges minority peoples by different standards.

Some liberals and left-wingers mute their condemnation of intolerance when it emanates from non-white people; whereas they would strenuously denounce similar prejudice if it was being vented by whites against blacks or by Christians against Muslims. They argue that we have to "understand" bigots from racial and religious minorities; yet few of them ever urge the same "understanding" of white working class bigots.

We have long experienced the hypocrisy of the political right. In the name of defending "freedom", many conservatives defended the very unfree regimes of Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile. Alarmingly, this selective approach to human rights is now echoed by sections of the left, with their lack of protests against the murderous regimes in Iran, Zimbabwe and Sudan.

President Mugabe has massacred more black Africans than PW Botha in South Africa. In contrast to the global anti-apartheid movement, there are no worldwide protests to support the Zimbabwean struggle for democracy.

Why does a black tyrant murdering black people merit less outrage than a white tyrant murdering black people?

He has many more perceptive observations. I highly recommending that you read it all.

The second commentary I have recently come across is a talk by Evan Sayet, a conservative and former former speech writer for Bill Maher. Not surprisingly, as a conservative he is quite critical of liberals, but I believe he also has some keen insights into the "new liberalism".

While I don't necessarily agree with all that he says, I believe he makes some excellent observations-- this guy is really sharp. (In fact, some of what he say is amongst the most perceptive commentary I've heard on the issue).

The video is fairly long and get off to a slow start, but really picks up after the first minute or two:

EVAN SAYET: HOW MODERN LIBERALS THINK