New York is starting to feel like Brezhnev's Moscow
Public debate in America has now become a question of loyalty
Jonathan Steele
Wednesday May 15 2002
The Guardian
What a sad place New York City has become. A vibrant, disputatious
town with a worldwide reputation for loud voices and strongly
expressed opinions is tip-toeing around in whispers. Grief over the
casualties of the twin towers massacre is not the reason (those wounds
are slowly healing), but a stifling conformity which muzzles public
discourse on US foreign policy, the war on terrorism and Israel.
"If people knew I held these views, I wouldn't be able to stay in this
job," an old college friend confided as I passed through the city for
a few days last week. He was appointed by the Bush administration to a
top Federal position (not connected to foreign policy) some months
ago. His subversive views on the Middle East, if uttered in Europe,
would raise no eyebrows: Ariel Sharon has no vision or strategy; his
tactics on the West Bank are counter-productive; the American media
are failing to report adequately on the suffering of innocent
Palestinians in cities ransacked by Israeli troops.
Another friend, a liberal rabbi, was about to set off on a regular
visit to Israel. She contrasted the usual furious public arguments
which she expected to find there to the behind-the-hand mutterings of
New Yorkers. "Over here Sharon and Netanyahu have managed to turn the
issue of terrorism, which was provoked by Israeli behaviour on the
West Bank, into an existential question of the survival of the Israeli
state. Debate becomes disloyalty," she complained.
The Israeli prime minister's humiliating refusal to heed the White
House's call last month for an immediate halt to Israel's West Bank
incursions should have prompted a debate on whether Bush or Sharon
makes US foreign policy, she argued. Instead, the leaders of most
American Jewish organisations sided with Sharon and were pleased when
Bush backed down.
Listening to these anguished but private complaints suddenly reminded
me of the Soviet Union of the Brezhnev era when lower-level officials,
journalists and other fringe members of the regime sat around their
kitchen tables, expressing their true views only to family and close
friends. A far-fetched analogy, of course, until you look at the
narrowness of public discussion, not just on Israeli-Palestinian
issues, but also on the threatened American attack on Iraq and the
administration's war on terrorism in general.
When Tom Daschle, the Senate majority leader, suggested this spring
that the war had failed because Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar were
still free, he was fiercely attacked and never dared to repeat the
point. The campaign for an all-out attack on Iraq continues in full
swing with none of the congressional opposition which marked the Gulf
war a decade ago. John Bolton, the state department's most hawkish
official, is taken seriously when he "names" countries with biological
weapons programmes which the US claims the right to target with
military strikes. No one contrasts his purported expertise with the
fact that, after seven months, the FBI has failed to discover the
whereabouts of the people or the laboratories in the US which produced
and mailed anthrax-coated letters last autumn. If the administration
is so ignorant about events on its own doorstep, why should anyone
believe it knows what is going on in labs in Iraq, Iran or Cuba?
To enforce this abandonment of reasoned argument in the name of a
witch-hunt against terrorists, a strange alliance of evangelical
Christians in Congress has come together with the leaders of American
Jewish organisations who normally support the Democratic party. "We
live in a culture where there is a diminishing tolerance of dissent,"
commented Abe Brumberg, long-time editor of Problems of Communism, the
Soviet-era journal which was funded by the US government.
He drew my attention to a column by Frank Rich in the New York
Times. The piece reported that America's foremost Jewish newspaper,
Forward, was fielding subscription cancellations for accepting an ad
from Jews Against the Occupation. Mainstream papers are also being
targeted. "Our press is not being muzzled," Rich was careful to write,
"but the dictates of what constitutes politically correct conversation
about the Middle East are being tightened to the point that American
leaders of all stripes increasingly seem to be in a contest to see who
can pander the most to American Jews."
On CNN's domestic news one morning their vacuous presenter Paula Zahn
urged viewers to stay with her until after the break. "A new book
which criticises American foreign policy and says the US has been
guilty of terrorism has sold 160,000 copies. We'll have more," she
announced.
Noam Chomsky's book, I wondered. Are they really going to let him
appear? No such luck. The offending book was indeed by Chomsky but
America's leading dissident was not invited on to the show. Like
Soviet television in the 1970s, which regularly put up regime hacks to
pillory the two giants of non-conformity, Andrei Sakharov and
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, without giving them a say, Ms Zahn's guest was
William Bennett, a Republican former cabinet minister. He proceeded to
"explain" Chomsky's high sales with a flippant "kooks in our midst"
argument. Many Americans were still in deep confusion after the shock
of September 11, and some people were prepared to believe anything, he
claimed.
Chomsky was unsurprised when I rang him later. "It's typical," he
said. "CNN International interviews me a lot, but the US channel
doesn't dare." Far from being depressed, Chomsky was in bullish
mood. Like an intellectual rock star he is perpetually on the move,
travelling to packed auditoria on campuses around the US and
abroad. "I spend about an hour every night turning down email requests
to speak," he said. He was off to Bogota in Colombia later that day.
Other professorial friends were not so gung ho about the extent of
campus radicalism, in spite of recent peace marches in Washington and
New York. But they agreed that universities are the only place for
political discussion these days. "I hear there was a fantastic debate
at Yale Law School recently," my highly placed Bush appointee
reported. "Two Palestinian law students wiped the floor with Tom
Friedman, the New York Times columnist."
The fascination, and frustration, of America has always been the way
one society can produce so much optimistic vigour and risk-taking
intellectual energy alongside a ruling culture of such boorish
ignorance and cruelty. To judge from the east coast today, the
middle-aged liberal intelligentsia is letting itself be intimidated
into taking the wrong side.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST