Читать книгу Dissidents of the International Left - Andy Heintz - Страница 19

MICHAEL KAZIN

Michael Kazin is co-editor of Dissent magazine and an expert on social and political movements in the United States. He contributes to newspapers, periodicals and websites such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, The Nation, American Prospect and The New Republic. Kazin’s book American Dreamers: How the Left changed a nation was named the best book of 2011 by The Progressive, The New Republic and Newsweek/Daily Beast.

Can there be a patriotism that doesn’t confine empathy to one’s borders and regards the lives of people in other countries as of no less importance than American lives?

I think most people in the world have a group feeling. Sometimes it’s an ethnic group, tribe, religion or nation. I think that can be turned to positive ends or very negative ones. I think it’s important for people on the Left to be connected to people in their own country. We’re not going to change the world all at once. That’s not how change happens. It would be nice if there was a worldwide Left that could be active in the same places, but I think it’s human to care more about the people you know who speak the same language as you.

The problem occurs when you see your people as superior to other people, as opposed to you being more comfortable with them. I think it’s politically necessary for the Left in different countries to be able to rally their people in shared solidarity. Again, patriotism can be positive or negative. One of the things that happened in the 19th century is that a sense of nationalism got connected to liberalism or radicalism. The French Revolution is the best example of that. Although I’m someone who believes internationalism is absolutely necessary, I think there needs to be a balance struck between national feeling and international solidarity.

Do you think American exceptionalism has become its own secular religion, in the same way that Soviet communism and other forms of authoritarian socialism were in the past?

I think there has always been a degree of American exceptionalism. If you go back to the 18th century, Thomas Paine was talking about how he wanted America to be an asylum for mankind. So I think this is not something recent. American political rhetoric has always been exceptional, especially rhetoric by white people.

The best-selling book by Ta-Nehisi Coates talks about how white Americans have a dream, black Americans have a nightmare. I don’t think American exceptionalism is so much a stated ideology as it is something people can cloak themselves in to make themselves feel better. One of the few things that has united Americans – though I’m not sure if it unites Americans any more – is that this country stands for ideals and that is not true in many countries. In France it’s true, but it’s not true in many countries. I co-edited the book Americanism: new perspectives on the history of an ideal with my good friend Joseph A McCartin and I discussed this in the introduction. I think this ideal is very powerful and it has bound Americana together. I think it has made it hard for socialists to make substantial inroads with the public because in some ways Americanism substitutes for socialism as an egalitarian ideology that people can turn into a reality. In a sense, it’s a secular religion, but it’s not enforced in the same way Marxism-Leninism is enforced. It’s more of a mood and an impulse.

My main concern about American exceptionalism is that events which undercut this premise, such as the genocide of the Native Americans, the slavery of African Americans or the war in Vietnam, will be rationalized or not mentioned. Do you agree?

I think that’s true, but at the same time American exceptionalism does give people on the Left something to strive for. America has these great ideals like equality, democracy, equal opportunity and treating people fairly, so how come we are betraying them by doing what we’re doing? Whereas in some other countries where the binding glue of nationalism is more ethnic, regional or religious, you don’t have those ideals to harken back to. The Left in places like Russia, Germany and India have to come up with ideals that are perceived by many as anti-Russian, anti-German or anti-Indian. For example, the Hindutva movement and its idea of Hindu supremacy is prevalent in India after the election of Narendra Modi to prime minister.

Americanism can be a resource for the Left if it’s used the right way. If you just condemn it, then you are trying to channel support for a country you are perceived as hating. There is no example in history of the Left being able to transform a country where most of the non-Left in that country perceive the Left to view the country as something they don’t like or don’t trust.

Why is there that perception? Why can’t people on the Left simultaneously say most US military interventions have been wrongheaded, but that they still love their country and want to see it live up to the ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence?

I think that sort of patriotism has worked. I think that when the Left has made gains in this country it has done so in part because it was able to embrace those American ideals. As long as most Americans are patriotic and want the country to do well, the Left will have to do so as well.

People like me in the New Left of the mid-1960s condemned America and spelled America with three Ks. It’s certainly true that more people were willing to carry Vietcong flags than American flags during the Vietnam War, which I think is a shame. I think we should have carried American flags and said ‘we’re better Americans than you because we are upholding the values of America by opposing an immoral war.’

There is a great speech by former president of the Students for a Democratic Society Carl Oglesby during an anti-war march in 1965 where he said ‘the Vietcong are fighting a revolution against a foreign power, much as the United States was against the British.’

Obviously, there are differences; one was led by communists and one was led partly by slaveholders, but they were both anti-colonial in nature. He asked: ‘Why does a country based on one colonial struggle kill people in a war based on another colonial struggle against us?’ I think it was a very effective speech and I think it was a mistake for people to get away from that, as people did during the late 1960s. This helped doom the New Left and bring on a new conservative era. ■