Press Action ::: Left Gatekeeers, or the Discreet Relationship between Krauthammer and Alterman

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Left Gatekeeers, or the Discreet Relationship between Krauthammer and Alterman

By Jordy Cummings

There is currently a serious, sober debate going on in both neoconservative and old-school Kissingerian/Scowcroftite conservative policy circles in Washington D.C., rooted in a recent (not online) debate in the pages of the Conrad Black’s journal National Interest (founded with CIA money by ol’ Irv Kristol) between Francis Fukuyama, who regretted backing the war and announced pre-election that he wouldn’t be voting for Bush, and Charles Krauthammer, accusing Fukuyama of Anti-Semitism and whose essay is worth a trip down to the periodicals section of any fine library to see a wingnut reveal his inner wingnut.

Fukuyama’s essay is (as to be expected from the author of the excellent book PostHuman Future in which he is far more implicitly anti-capitalist than most liberals) quite brilliant within its own limited context, specifically in its realization that many neoconservatives (of which he counts himself one proudly)—I am paraphrasing—have a psychological block against seeing “reality” since they see all threats to the United States as existential, much like the Israelis with which they identify. Fukuyama believes that the Iraq war may have been the biggest strategic blunder in American history (duh!) and is especially incensed at the lack of “leverage” gained with Sharon. After Fukuyama’s polemic, it is said to have become (and the current issue is a definite indication) official editorial policy at this influential neocon rag that Israel must not be allowed to hold onto part of the West Bank in exchange for its rope-a-dope with El Presidente Bush in regard to some such Gaza Pullouts.

Pause for a second and realize that this is Mr. End of History, on the board of the NED (the real policymakers), one of the most celebrated conservative intellectuals in policy making circles, realizing the unfortunate—and very humanist of him—psychologically rooted power of the Likud/AIPAC nexus. Predictably, as noted, Krauthammer, in response, did not address Palestine, called Fukuyama an AntiSemite though not quite as overt as Mahathir Mohammed, and got in a few interesting digs at Fukuyama for his endorsement of U.S. Imperialism in Venezuela.

Krauttie was most pungent when he referred to Fukuyama and the NED as an American “colonial office.”... Whether it is between Russia and the States, the EU and the States or Kerry and Bush or CIA and DOD, inter-imperial rivalry has now broken out even within the neoconservative tendency, with Fukuyama and others being Trotskyites while the Stalinists are the Krauthammers, watching cold eyed for deviation. The most pathetic part of Krauthammer’s essay is where he (thinking that George may be reading) names all of the Bush cabinet, even Powell, as followers of his point of view. A view fit for a man who admits that Fukuyama is trying to “take down the whole neoconservative edifice.”

And in other rivalries, Eric Alterman has reared his ugly head again to complain against editorial policy at his own magazine, complaining about a bad review of the communitarian Michael Walzer’s recent book, and about an essay about liberal bombers that offended his friend Paul Berman. What does Eric “Krauthammer” Alterman do about it, now that America from right to left, and most Jews, agree that American pressure must be brought down on Sharon? He lobbies against a Palestinian State.

From the Nov. 29 “Altercation“…

Alterman: The Nation magazine’s back of the book (and occasionally, editorials) continues its single-minded assault on any and every writer or intellectual who begs to differ with Noam Chomsky, my late friend Edward Said, or even, God help us, Alexander Cockburn on what constitutes a realistic settlement of the Middle East conflict, particularly those American Jews associated with the Israeli peace camp, the democratic left, and Dissent magazine.

Cummings: A) What American Jews is he talking about? The ones who think Ehud Barak is in the “peace camp?” All three dozen of them? Or is he trying to pull a Krauthammer. Alterman certainly, unlike Cockburn, all but ignores the Israeli peace camp. Even Michael Lerner regularly publishes Neve Gordon and Uri Avnery. Does Alterman prefer the old days when Palestinians were looked at as terrorists? B) Chomsky, the late Edward Said (who the term friend is, one presumes, far more degree than among comrades) and Cockburn all seem to have different positions on Israel/Palestine. Said was in favor, as am I in the long run, of binationalism, while Chomsky was at one point but now considers it as an immediate goal unrealistic and has tentatively endorsed Geneva, and Cockburn presumably, from his regular publishing of both views, moves between the two perspectives, but never without as all moral humans must, the intrinsic understanding of occupation. The fact that the American public and the intelligence community has finally, as per Yogi Berra realizing “the right thing when all other options are exhausted,” makes one only assume that Alterman’s goal here is to muddy the waters.

I could dwell for hours on petty intellectual disputes, as regarding Alterman bitching about his meal ticket publishing essays knocking liberal bombers, even though he himself has positioned himself as a fellow critic of liberal bombing (to keep those liberals voting Democrat) and moreso, the fact that he can bring himself to use the phrase “democratic left,” which was invented by rats like Art Schlesinger to assert that the mainstream American left in the late 40s and early 50s, due to having some acquaintance with recent allies of the USA who happened to be communists, happened to be undemocratic. Is he asserting that The Nation is undemocratic, unlike Dissent?

But my point here is that Alterman is beyond a hack. He is more dangerous than Krauthammer. He is actively lobbying against the creation of a Palestinian State.

Alterman: I used to defend The Nation when it came to Israel, saying that the Stalinist crank, Cockburn, was a singular, though just-about-impossible-to-defend-exception, and people would do best to just ignore him. But how can I ask people to ignore this pattern, particularly when you throw in an editorial on Arafat that cannot even bring itself to mention that yes, in fact the guy did support terrorism, and treats his main failure as, um, not demanding enough concessions from Israel? Not everyone who believes Israel has legitimate security concerns or thinks that the Palestinians have yet to demonstrate that they are politically ready for the compromises necessary to accept Israel’s permanent existence on its borders—with all of the complications that presents for a future Palestinian state’s sovereignty—deserves to be arrested by the thought-police as an accomplice of Marty Peretz or Norman Podhoretz.

Cummings: Worse than Peretz or Podhoretz, who have no clout.

Alterman is threatening to use his power among funders to alter The Nation’s editorial policy. He is also lobbying against a Palestinian state. Enough said.

Jordy Cummings, editor of Pure Polemics, lives in Toronto and can be reached at yorgos33ca@yahoo.ca.

More from Jordy Cummings