Patriots and Scoundrels

Susan J. Douglas

We wanted to make sure you didn't miss the announcement of our new Sustainer program. Once you've finished reading, take a moment to check out the new program, as well as all the benefits of becoming a Sustainer.

It has been hard, these past few weeks, not to feel helpless, depressed, fearful and, most of all, erased. Ari Fleischer warned Americans to watch what they say, but in case some failed to obey this edict, many in the media ensured that views deviating even slightly from those of Donald Rumsfeld were censored, condemned or both. Who needs Fleischer when you have Thomas Friedman or Jonathan Alterwho would have rather circumscribed careers without the First Amendmenttelling Americans, especially young Americans, to shut up and pledge allegiance?

From The Economists Treason of the Intellectuals, to Tim Russerts show on CNBC where Friedman expressed his deep disappointment with college students who questioned administration policy, to Alters semi-hysterical smear Blame America at Your Peril in Newsweek (not to mention Michael Kellys already infamous assertions in the Washington Post that pacifists are objectively pro-terrorist, evil and liars), some journalists are taking up Fleischers banner and launching a nice little ideological jihad of their own. As Alter, a serial 60s-basher put it, the left (of his imagination) is unforgivably out to lunch and knee-deep in ignorant and dangerous appeasement. What we need to do is shut up because its kill or be killed.

All of these attacks begin, as smears usually do, by utterly distorting what many on the left have been saying. Maybe Im on the wrong listserves, but I have heard no one justifying the September 11 attacks or expressing sympathy for the Taliban, as The Economist and Alter suggest. And even though both articles condemn left-wing appeasement (so they can liken us to Nazi sympathizers), who on the left has been urging that we appease bin Laden?

Instead, many have argued that the attacks were a reprehensible criminal act, and that whoever was responsible should indeed be hunted down and brought to justice. We see this as a hideous crime, but we dont see war as the solution. In fact, many of us fear that the current policy of bombing what little remains of Afghanistan and its benighted people (especially its women!) will, in addition to killing innocent civilians, do little to end international terrorism and, indeed, make matters much worse.

Why might those of us so out to lunch think that? Well, for starters, Bush the Firsts jolly little war in the region made the material existence of millions of Iraqis, especially children, much worse without hurting Saddam Hussein one bit. Alter says that after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, we tried turning the other cheek and it didnt work. If U.S. policies in the Middle East have been turning the other cheek, Id hate to see what belligerence is. Maybe Alter, patriot that he is, is perfectly happy to associate himself with government policies that have helped kill more than 500,000 Iraqi kids since 1990, but I, patriot that I am, am not. I think our country can and should do better, and I think that liberals and progressives have a right to say so.

The Economist says there is a worrying confusion between (legitimate) explanations and (unwarranted) justification of last months terror. Maybe at The Economist, but not in the pieces Ive been reading. Many left-liberals question the sanctions in Iraq, our countrys ongoing support of the autocratic and repressive Saudi regime, and the use of American weapons to kill Palestinians. But it is a viscous slander to assert that the left feels the attacks were deserved. Andrew Sullivan went so far as to suggest that we are a pro-terrorist Fifth Column. I would think those who seek to silence other views, stifle dissent and condemn peace proposals are serving the forces behind this brand of terrorism much better than we ever could, especially since they actually have mass circulation media outlets as podiums.

Alter, Kelly and others might look to the example of CNNs intrepid Christiane Amanpour. In addition to her gutsy reporting from the front, Amanpour hosted a CNN special on October 13 titled An In-Depth Look at Islam. She powerfully reminded viewers that the American and Arab media present almost diametrically opposed views of the region. Until recently, Americans barely saw anything at all except telegraphic coverage of the escalating conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The Arab press and the Al-Jazeera network, however, repeatedly show their viewers the children in Iraq suffering from the sanctions, Israels use of American weapons and even critics of the Saudi regime.

Americans need to know how their governments policies are being represented in the rest of the world, and they need informed public debate about those policies. The lesson is simple: We dont need less information and commentary, we need more. You would think that journalists and commentators, of all people, would be the first to insist upon this principle.

Be a Sustainer

We surveyed thousands of readers and asked what they would like to see in a monthly giving program. Now, for the first time, we're offering three different levels of support, with rewards at each level, including a magazine subscription, books, tote bags, events and more—all starting at less than 17 cents a day. Check out the new Sustainer program.

Susan J. Douglas is a professor of communications at the University of Michigan and a senior editor at In These Times. She is the author of In Our Prime: How Older Women Are Reinventing the Road Ahead.

Subscribe and Save 66%

Less than $1.67 an issue