It’s about foreign policy goddamnit!!!

Standard

I finally got around to writing out my feelings about the left vs. right debate and how it is portrayed in the media – i wrote a letter to Barbara Kay of the National Post after reading an article which i took offense to. See below for the article.


Dear Ms. Kay,

I was recently going through some documents that someone had saved for me to read during the past semester and came across your article appearing in the National Post on April 11, 2007.

I take great issue with your claim that it is “the truth that the left has indeed been wrong on every meaningful historical question for 200 years up to and including the existential threat posed by Islamofascism and the invidious canard that Israel is the ‘problem’.”

Though i stand wholeheartedly in the right-wing camp when it comes to question of foreign policy and international interventionism (and i firmly support the state of Israel in its continued attempts to gain recognition worldwide and end the war on its citizens), i CANNOT, as a good Canadian, deny the benefits of social welfare, the women’s liberation movement and gay rights advocacy. I would, in fact, argue that the sexual revolution and the widespread adoption of birth control have been THE MOST important cultural changes of the 20th century – and they stem undoubtedly from the left-wing of the political spectrum.

It seems foolhardy to continue to polarize a debate that is NOT about left and right, but rather about foreign policy, or economic policy, or domestic policy. Your diatribe against the leftist intellectuals (of whom i am happy to know many and think that MANY times there may be an inkling of truth in their thoughts) brings about equally vehement responses (hence this letter) and shuts down any hopes at fruitful conversation.

I hope that your intent with this article was not to have a generation of twenty-year old women scream out “what about birth control?!” and interpret your work as challenging many of the benefits post-modern Westerners would never give up – like liberation from a state of
bare-footed pregnancy.

It is very easy to write about the “right vs. left” problem. Unfortunately, your foray into this debate undermined what i considered an otherwise informative and well-written article about a
very interesting phenomenon i have noticed on campus myself.

I wonder what your thoughts would be as to my own, tentative, unresearched hypothesis that much of this recantation of “leftist” principles comes in a post-Cold War environment where communism and socialism just don’t appear to be viable outside of an ideal world.

Respectfully,

Me.


Kay, Barbara. “What Rhymes with ‘I Was Wrong?'” National Post. Toronto: April 11, 2007.
(Copyright National Post 2007)

‘It is in its way a perversely exhilarating spectacle,” writes David Solway, summarizing the message of his just published book, The Big Lie: On Terror, Anti-Semitism and Identity. “Not many people get to see in their lifetime a civilization coming to pieces before their very eyes, like a star going supernova.”

Solway, whom some consider Canada’s greatest living poet, equally at home amongst both anglophone and francophone literati, is himself something of a creative supernova: (retired) college teacher, educational theorist, travel writer, producer, scriptwriter and the recipient of numerous prizes. He’s also a contributing co-editor of the review Books in Canada, in whose pages and elsewhere he continually gives evidence of being our most elegantly insightful literary and cultural critic to boot.

The Big Lie was conceived in an act of war. Although Solway has always been an aesthetic conservative (“Canadian poets, learn your craft/and celebrate the hundredth draft”), it took the events of 9/ 11 to rouse him from the “ignorance and laziness” of half a lifetime’s default identification with the leftist ideology his cohort internalized in the student-revolutionary sixties.

The Islamist assault on America plunged Solway into “a kind of Cartesian interrogation, a relentless scrutiny of the values and beliefs I accepted as gospel.” Six years on, this radical reappraisal of principles plus meticulous research has produced The Big Lie. The book is an idiosyncratically formatted polemic, composed of theme-linked literary and political sorties, and fleshed out by the poignant chronicle of Solway’s personal sojourn, from secular and even arrogant indifference to Israel’s fate toward a proud, informed and loving embrace of Jewish destiny.

The Big Lie joins a swelling tributary of books produced by a special breed of political evangelicals: former leftist intellectuals (“mugged by reality,” in Irving Kristol’s memorable phrase) from whose eyes the scales have fallen through personal or political trauma. Some familiar exemplars of the type: Norman Podhoretz, David Horowitz, Christopher Hitchens, Alain Finkielkraut and Michael Novak, to name but a few.

Driven by savage indignation on one hand and remorse on the other (intellectuals, their whole identity deeply invested in ideas, experience particular shame in admitting bamboozlement by their ideological gods), some reformed leftists, and now Solway, have harnessed their intelligence, high seriousness and rhetorical prowess to prophetic warnings of the abyss into which they suddenly find themselves staring with horror.

Their “conversion” lends credibility to their writing. For they escape from the dark side at great personal expense– the loss of friendships, professional reputation, career advancement in many cases — and most important, the blow to their intellectual self- esteem. As Solway ruefully notes in his preface: “For this book was written against the grain as I came to realize that I had been wrong about nearly everything.”

Converts share an impatience with received wisdoms, and a burning sense of mission that those who “got it” from the beginning can’t approximate — “it” being the truth that the left has indeed been wrong on every meaningful historical question for 200 years, up to and including the existential threat posed by Islamofascism, and the invidious canard that Israel is the “problem,” while a Palestinian state — “Islam’s Trojan horse,” Solway calls it –is the “solution.”

The Big Lie is an anatomy of our times, a vivisection of the West- hating mindset that leads to active complicity with our enemies. The main thrust of the book — not entirely original, but more exhaustively researched, more passionately and eloquently articulated than other polemics of the genre — is to limn the seamless relationship between anti-Semitism and Islamist terror; to provide forensic evidence of a dangerously irresolute society; and to articulate the sad reality that we have, at our peril, evaded, conciliated, appeased and equivocated in the craven hope that history will pass us by.

The book ends on a humble note: “I have no prophetic pretensions. I can only say what I see, and write in the hope of a miracle.”

True poetry, Solway once said, is a “form of prayer.” When the writer’s motive is pure, and the writing sufficiently brilliant, prose can be, too — for The Big Lie, it seems to me, springs from an innately devotional sensibility — and prayers sometimes do, I have heard, produce miracles.


Updated (08/22/07): Ms. Kay responded to my email. In all fairness, it seems wrong to publish a piece of correspondence here without her permission. If you are interested in reading her response, pls feel free to ask for it below and i will email it to you.

Advertisements

One thought on “It’s about foreign policy goddamnit!!!

  1. Kay writes: “Their ‘conversion’ lends credibility to their writing. For they escape from the dark side at great personal expense — the loss of friendships, professional reputation, career advancement in many cases — and most important, the blow to their intellectual self-esteem.”

    This passage is a prime example of the fallacy she commits in her overall ideology. Their ‘conversion’ does not lend credibility to their writing. It lends integrity to the conviction. That may transfer over to their writing and produce convincing rhetoric, but it does not imply any amount of correctness. There is no logical reason to believe that “seeing the light” is any less dilusional than not seeing it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s