Here's Jacob Weisberg on the "Sontag Awards" phenomenon (i.e., pundits, webloggers, and commentators who have been having a grand old time challenging the sillier statements about the war by "the Left.") I agree that the anti-American nihilism represented by Chomksy, Sontag, Moore, et al., does not reflect any significant sentiment among the American public (though maybe it does in Europe, Berkeley, and in our little punk rock world.) In fact, one of the most interesting aspects of this strange period in media-political history is the fact that "the Left" has been largely abandoned by most of its non-insane leading lights.
Weisberg is missing the point, however, which is that the bankruptcy of these views seems to have shone a piercing light on the bankruptcy of this particular political culture as a whole. It raises the question: what is the Left in America, once purged of anti-American nihilists? Weisberg's piece, like Sontag's backtracking in her subsequent interview in Salon.com, is an attempt to redeem the label "left-liberal," without specifying what the post-9/11 content of this left-liberalism might be.
For me, the significant thing about the various "Sontag Awards" is that they document an amazing moment in our cultural history, where the manifest idiocies of our "cultural elite," generally ignored by most people with better things to do, have been suddenly and publicly exposed in the context of an issue that people actually care about; in a situation that demands moral clarity, some deliver (Hitchens) and some do not (Sontag.) Secondarily, it is interesting to observe the aftermath of this exposure, where people who have spent entire careers preaching foolishness to a self-satisfied choir have been put in the unfamiliar position of having to justify themselves. Weisberg isn't in fact one of those people, but for some reason he has designated himself as their spokesman and apologist.
So if these people (Sontagistas?) are so insignificant, what's the harm? Why spend so much energy documenting their feeble intellectual paroxisms? I'd say there's an inherent value in exposing and challenging wrong-headed ideas. But, more practically, we need to build a case against such ideas in the event that it should be needed in the future. So far, the widespread defeatism about the Afghanistan campaign has fizzled, in part because of sharp criticism, but primarily because it has been proven wrong by the campaign's overall success. But as things become more difficult and complicated (as they will) we can expect the voices against American action to amplify and gain traction. American anti-Americanism may get a second wind. And to the extent that American action is necessary it will be just as necessary when the public's support slips from 90%.
Posted by Dr. Frank at December 6, 2001 03:38 PM | TrackBack