Euston Does Not a Tyrant Make

Euston Does Not a Tyrant Make


I have put up an explanation for why one can be ‘left’ and a signatory of the Euston Manifesto (and does not become a closet right-winger).

It also elucidates my views of the War in Iraq.

  • ChrisO

    Who’s kidding who? In an effort to appear thoughtful and even handed, you are ignoring the facts in front of your face. I hadn’t read the manifesto since it was originally published, but re-reading it brough back to me what a trojan horse it is. A supposedly liberal or progreassive document that somehnow manages to include a denunciation of liberals in every paragraph? Come on. References to the “socialist” left were my first tipoff. I run with a lot of progressives, and not one would describe themselves as socialist. Statements like “We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently “understand”, reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy …We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.”

    “We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates”

    ” We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking.”

    Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice against the Jewish people behind the formula of “anti-Zionism”.

    “Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the “anti-war” movement with illiberal theocrats)”

    “One of the tragedies of the Left is that its own reputation was massively compromised in this regard by the international Communist movement, and some have still not learned that lesson.”

    Geez, it reads like the comments section at Captain’s Quarters. Hey, how’s this: “I heartily endorese the principles of the Republican Party, although unlike most Republicans, I don’t hate blacks.”

    You can parse the stance on Iraq all you want. Perhaps you should take your eyes off the trees and look at the forest for a change.

  • Brian in MA


    The Lamont primary win shows the state of the left today. This is the kind of left-wing insanity the Euston Manifesto purports to be against.

    Just because an idea is radical and strongly worded does not make it the tool of partisan hacks. If I recall correctly, America was founded on a radical idea that was so strongly worded it was tantamount to treason.

  • ChrisO

    So the Lamont primary win is a result of anti-Zionism, apologism for terrorists, apologetics for the crimes of Mao and Stalin, anti-Americanism and the international Communist movement? Gee, I guess I have to read the papers more. I totally missed that.

    Here I thought it was about opposition to the war in Iraq, (you know, the war that 60 percent of the country opposes) and Lieberman’s abandonment of the Democratic party on issues like the bankruptcy bill, Terri Schiavo and Alioto, not to mention totally undermining the party in its role as loyal opposition and counterbalance to thre party in power. Oh, and let’s not forget Lieberman’s willingness to hand over his seat to the Republicans in 2000. You can portray Lamont’s candidacy as being about “left wing insanity” all you want, but the fact is that a lot of Connecticut Democrats had a real dislike for Lieberman before Lamont ever came along.

  • Eural

    Amen, ChrisO, Amen…

  • DosPeros

    “I heartily endorese the principles of the Republican Party, although unlike most Republicans, I don’t hate blacks.�


  • Brian in MA

    ChrisO: Yeah, I’d say the Lamont primary is an example of Anti-Isreal, Anti-American, terrorust apoligst sentiments. Lieberman is as liberal Democrat as they come on everything except the War in Iraq, but because he isn’t towing the line, he had to be shunted to the side.

    Oh, and Socialists never call themselves socialists unless they have enough numbers to intimidate anyone who disagrees with their extreme views. Why do you think you only see A.N.S.W.E.R. banners at rallies?

    What I find interesting is you think the purpose of the Democrats is only to oppose the Republicans, no matter how idiotic and insane they have to become to do so. They aren’t providing a counterbalance, they are simply fillibustering at every available time they can and guess what, the Democratic Senators have a lower rating than George W. Bush does. Heck, even the British opposition party is a better counter to American Republicans, mainly because the British understand theit opposition party actually has to propose what they would do, whereas American Democrats cower behind criticism and give us broad platitudes. “We will selectively redeploy from Iraq to Afghanistan” and… no really, the Democrats HAVE no plan.

    Lamont is just another Plan-less Democrat. The only thing on his mind is “Impeach Bush”, and then he is effectively a useless super-liberal paperweight for 6 years.

  • ChrisO

    I’m not sure when I said “the purpose of the Democrats is only to oppose the Republicans.” I was responding to the comment that the Lamont win was strictly about Iraq. It’s easy to cast the Democrats as the party that is only in opposition. When the Republicans can submit all the bills, the Democrats are usually reduced to voting for or against. Any significant Democratic bills don’t make it out of committee. And can we please stop the “insanity” BS? If the best argument you can muster is to try and question the mental health of the other side, that’s a strong indicator that you’ve got no argument at all. Of course, I’d expect no better from someone who claims that opposition to the war in Iraq makes on a “terrorist apologist”. Name calling seems to be your specialty.

    It’s just plain lazy to claim that Lamont only stands in opposition to the war. And no, Lieberman is not one of the Senate’s most liberal members. His votes on things like the bankruptcy and energy bills, as well as his efforts to stifle criticism of the President, put the lie to that talking point.

    Among other things, Lamont proposes:

    “basic research, higher mileage per gallon standards, HOMER appliance and insulation standards, disincentives for high polluting and gas guzzling users and incentives for high mileage, and clean energy alternatives”

    “We can help businesses by providing more choice of affordable plans and financial assistance. This means allowing employers the option to participate in an enhanced Medicare program, and/or in a standardized government insurance pool, modeled on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) (the plan used by members of Congress), to access affordable group rates and a comprehensive set of core benefits. Coverage would be available to anyone, and premiums would be community rated, so that no one could be denied coverage or charged more because of his or her age or health status”

    “I would have supported the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill that was approved by the Senate this year. While I have some reservations about it – particularly with its guest worker program and with the lack of action it takes on improving the legal immigration system in a fundamental way, I think its good outweighs its bad.”

    Of course, I didn’t come up with these off the top of my head. A quick trip to Lamont’s web site provided me with all the information I need to know where he stands. But it’s easier to just lazily repeat talking points instead of actually addressing the facts.