COMMENT
489
exaggerated, or to ignore the matter entirely.
If
there is a dispute over
nuclear figures, it will automatically take the lowest estimates of Soviet
strength, without going into the complexities of assessing present or
future power. Disarmament is a magic word, and much of the liberal-left
does not ask how Russia can be gotten to disarm or how to prevent tech–
nological invention and breakthrough-other than the utopian notion
that good intentions on America's part will set an example for the
Russians. Negotiations, which Theodore Draper has pointed out are
diplomatic games, are also given miraculous power. At the moment,
peace is the universal banner, having taken the place of socialism. But
this is more a reflex than a theory, for it ignores the fact that everyone is
for peace, but not everyone believes it can
be
achieved by demonstra–
tions,
only
in the West, and surely not unilaterally. The more activist left
actually rejects the idea of deterrence through adequate defense, and it is
not inclined to examine the arguments of scientists in favor of antimissile
missiles, whom it usually dismisses as reactionaries and tools of the
Pentagon. On matters pertaining to the Middle East, a good part of the
liberal-left tends to be critical of Israel , making it appear that it is
opposed
only
to Begin, though it is actually against Israel. It is ready to
protest Israel's move into Lebanon, but has not insisted that Syria and
the PLO get out. Nor are there any large demonstrations by the left-or
ads in the
New 10rk Times-over
Russia's intervention in Poland.
America's intentions , which are far from pure, are the main target of the
liberal-left; other countries' failings, except for some right-wing dictator–
ships', are not harped on. Domestically, much of the liberal-left has little
interest in the problems of the economy : its main concern is social equity
and the needs of the minorities. It makes its own left allegiances a mark
of moral superiority and self-righteously dismisses opposing views as
right wing. It is particularly sensitive to any signs of incipient fascism and
to any curbs on personal and intellectual freedom. On the whole, its
emphasis is on domestic issues, with little concern over America's wan–
ing power, a concern that is seen as imperialist. Where the liberal-left
does touch on foreign policy, the stress is on supporting left and national–
ist forces, particularly in Latin America and Africa, and on opposing
right-wing regimes that are not part of the "progressive" axis. On the
Falklands, it was in a bind: first being against Argentina, the right-wing
dictatorship, then switching to condemn England, the colonial power.
There is a pervasive sympathy with liberation movements and govern–
ments, even those that are themselves oppressive, regardless of their
Soviet ties or their anti-American policies.
