Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

Following up on the earlier post about US ‘progressives’ discouraging Leftist candidates challenging spineless Democratic incumbents, here are some observations from my friend Paul de Rooij.

When a bird is born in a cage it still knows that it is in captivity — in most instances, the bird is eager to escape.  When a human is born in a prison, it is likely that he will not know that he is in captivity. Americans who have grown up in a country purporting to be “free” or with “freedom of expression” are properly indoctrinated to react against any attempt to present a challenging political stance or point of view; it is a bit like the one who is born in a prison refusing to look outside.  While “free”, it is viewed as an affront for someone to state some truths about the war in Iraq, the Israeli Fifth Column, the responsibility for climate change, and so on.  Politics is viewed as a contest for money between indistinguishable alternatives, and yet it is considered an affront to actually present a viable noticeable alternative.  When Cindy Sheehan threatened to run against Nancy Pelosi — the most unctuous personification of more-of-the-same-politics — one witnessed the sorry spectacle of Katha Pollitt writing an article in The Nation asking Sheehan not to run.  In the past one witnessed the same when several Nation columnists went into hysterics about Ralph Nader running for president while not having much to say about the usual politics or even the new imperial wars.  For Pollitt, and her liberal Nation pundits, the only “free” politics tolerated is the horse race seeking most funds to run a campaign with an agenda determined by others.  With this attitude from someone purportedly on the “left” in the US one will never witness a challenge against the politics-as-usual Democrats in the US, let alone witness the emergence of a third party or preferably a political movement — one actually providing an alternative.

Pollitt’s position is also distinctly anti-democratic.  Politics should be about pushing for a society project or some basic principles.  In politics one should be *for* something, and it distinctly corrosive to tell others not to propose an alternative political program or point of view. When Pollitt urges Sheehan NOT to run she is not only infringing on Sheehan’s democratic right, but also on the right for other citizens to actually obtain a meaningful alternative.

Unlike the UK, where it is very easy for anyone to run in an election, in the American case there are prohibitive hurdles and an active legal challenge by the mainstream political parties.  In British elections we have witnessed candidates such as the Raving Monster Loony or the Ruby Transvestite (with a light emitting tight red body suit) running for parliament.  Whatever one may think of these individuals, they provide a possibility for the electorate to reject politics-as-usual.  In the US there is no possibility for the electorate to cast a NOTA (none of the above) vote, there are no Raving Monster candidates, and spoilt ballots are seldom counted or made public.  Once again, this is a manifestation of the profoundly undemocratic nature of US politics.  Yet when someone is willing to endure the contest, provide an alternative, and reject the formal narrow political ritual, the likes of Marc Cooper, Katha Pollitt, et al., consider this an affront.  For Cooper & Pollitt the political tolerated space is very narrow indeed.

The Nation is a magazine that has had its ups and downs with an emphasis on the latter.  While it purports to be on the left it has lent its pages to near-neo-cons, or provided advertising space to some of the most unpalatable groups.  It is also sad to find that this magazine cannot set out a line and then reject materials or authors that don’t accept the editorial world-view. When a lefty magazine seeks to engage in such editorial discretion, this it is attacked as “censorship” or it causes much political correctness type of silliness. On the other hand, when a right-wing magazine, e.g., the London Spectator, only publishes right-wing pundits/articles this is considered to be acceptable and doesn’t elicit a rebuke.  The Nation fiddles with the silly liberal notions of “balance” or a “market place of ideas” resulting in a confusing jumble of onanistic punditry with the occasional decent article. The Nation and similar liberal magazines do not confront the status quo, they do not provide a clear world view, and on top of that they berate those who are actually trying to provide alternatives.  The Nation is the magazine for the denizens of the prison who have never been outside and don’t know that there is an alternative.  It is time to reject the likes of Katha Pollitt and their silly articles, to opt for views and media that think outside of a box, aim to live outside of the prison, and demolish the prison.