The Euston Manifesto is a statement of progressive principles that calls for “a progressive realignment” and suggests that progressives “must define ourselves against those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic ‘anti-imperialism.’”
There are a number of interesting provisions on there. I’d like to hear any reactions to it that progressives here might have. I’d be especially interested in hearing if people think this amounts to “moving to the right.” Personally, I don’t think it does; rather, it aims to, as it says, reassert traditional liberal values that the contemporary political left has sometimes forgotten.
I suppose the debate here boils down to “If you’re a progressive/liberal, would you sign this, and if not, why?”
FWIW I am not a progressive myself – I’m a small-l libertarian (actually, registered party member, too) – so to a certain extent my own opinion of it is perhaps somewhat irrelevant. Except for this: I could see myself pulling a lever for this platform. Probably not if the opponent was a Guliani (who I think it will be in 2008), but I would take a candidate supporting this manifesto over many, many standard-issue conservatives. I’d certainly like the option.
Communism always looks good on paper, and that is what this seems to essentially break down into. The problem here is that it seems to rely on absolutes, and absolutes simply do not exist in any society.
…would prevent me from signing on. I simply don’t trust anyone who demonizes corporations. If their goal was positive reinforcement, i.e. to form and support governmnts that would work with corporations to encourage them (through tax breaks and whatnot) to act as good corporate citizens, fine.
They use the term “egalitarianism” wrt to economics, althought they do hem and haw about what that means. There is nothing in there about respect for private property. “Communism” might be a bit over the top, but it doesn’t look very friendly to capitalism.
I said “in any society”, I said nothing about my own mind. furt, communism and socialism aren’t all that difficult to tell apart. Labeling something as communist in nature isn’t a condemnation. Several of the statements in the Euston Manifesto lean toward communism. For example:
I would DEFINITELY say that manifesto was written by a conservative. It defines “liberal progressive” as Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly would. It reads like a confession for past sins rather than serious statement of beliefs.
I means most of it is not to unresonable (to either liberal or conservative). But come off it:
talking about “the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism” (thats a dead giveaway it only seems to be conservatives can’t understand that giving a reason why something may have happened is not the same as ‘making an excuse’ for it).
The idea there is more tolerance for anti-semitism in the left than in the right is plain ridculous. (Remember the guy from one of those “moral majority” media organisations blaming the corruption of hollywood on “secular jews”)
it also assumes that opposition to ISRAEL makes you anti-semitic. Saying this is a favourite resopnse of the right, but is just plain wrong. Personally I don’t completely oppose in everything it does, I think Arab-Isreali conflict is alot more complex than is commonly potrayed (To sum it up as “Isreall bad, Palestines good” is as misleading as to say “Isreall good, Palestines bad”), and I certainly don’t think the Iraq war was fought for them (they had the sense to realize the mess it would create, and ITS on their doorstep, not ours).
They use egalitarianism in regards to sex, ethnicity, and religion but specifically say:
The only things they say in regards to economics is a) they are for economic equality and b) workers have the right to organize. I don’t think either is an unusual goal and neither are remotely communist in nature. In general I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would be for economic inequality as their goal.
Maybe…but even if you assume there’s more anti-semitism on the British right than on the British left, the Euston manifesto is only interested in reforming the British left…the authors are saying, “We need to fight it on our side, regardless of what the other side does.”
No, but people who hold economic freedom as their goal (while acknowledging that economic equality might get sacrificed in the process) are easy to find.
Like me, for example.
It’s couched in such general language that it’s difficult to dispute. There’s no specifics as to “economic equality”, except that it’s felt there’s a discrepancy in the distribution of wealth. What’s the proposal for making it more evenly distributed? Saying “we’re for economic equality” is rather like saying “We support the troops.” Who doesn’t?
If you mixed the warmongering of a neocon with the socially liberal side of a libertarian, you’d probably have a pretty good description of many of the authors. They are VERY strongly pro-Iraq war, and VERY protective of Israel, yet they do seem sincere when it comes to things like SOCAS, Free Speech, etc.
Yes, if like me, you consider pre-emptive strikes to be against the liberal grain.
It actually somewhat resembled a Mr. Moto post about what the left needs to do to win the next election. If only we’d be more conservative, we’d be better Democrats, or something like that.
I will note that they were just vague enough to hide their intentions, but the people themselves have given away their motives in other fora. It’s actually vague enough that I find nothing in it that offensive, but due to their stances on various issues outside of that document, there are quite a few actual conservatives that I’d rather have running things than the authors of that manifesto.
What do we know about the many signers of this thing? I don’t recognize any of the names, but I’d be hesitant to say that it was DEFINITELY written by a conservative. Why don’t you do some research on who those people are and convince us that they are “conservatives”.
Not definitive, but if it’s not it’ll be hit soon with changes. Maybe the confusion about “anti-Americanism” is that its not talking about the American left being anti-American, but the British left. That sounds less like an O’Reilly/Coulter statement.
Where exactly do you see anything like “Communism” in that link?
I said “in any society”, I said nothing about my own mind.