Good Fight: Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Againby Peter Beinart, David Slavin
Once upon a time, liberals knew what they believed. They believed America must lead the world by persuasion, not command. And they believed that by championing freedom overseas, America itself could become more free. That liberal spirit won America's trust at the dawn of the Cold War. Then it collapsed in the wake of Vietnam. Now, after 9/11, and the failed
- Editorial Reviews
- Product Details
- Related Subjects
- Read an Excerpt
- What People Are Saying
- Meet the author
Once upon a time, liberals knew what they believed. They believed America must lead the world by persuasion, not command. And they believed that by championing freedom overseas, America itself could become more free. That liberal spirit won America's trust at the dawn of the Cold War. Then it collapsed in the wake of Vietnam. Now, after 9/11, and the failed presidency of George W. Bush, America needs it back.
In this powerful and provocative book, Peter Beinart offers a new liberal vision, based on principles liberals too often forget: That America's goodness cannot simply be asserted; it must be proved. That American leadership is not American empire. And that liberalism cannot merely define itself against the right, but must oppose the totalitarianism that blighted Europe a half century ago, and which stalks the Islamic world today.
With liberals severed from their own history, conservatives have drawn on theirs the principles of national chauvinism and moral complacency that America once rejected. The country will reject them again, and embrace the creed that brought it greatness before. But only if liberals remember what that means. It means an unyielding hostility to totalitarianism and a recognition that defeating it requires bringing hope to the bleakest corners of the globe. And it means understanding that democracy begins at home.
Peter Beinart's The Good Fight is a passionate rejoinder to the conservatives who have ruled Washington since 9/11. It is an intellectual lifeline for a Democratic Party lying flat on its back. And it is a call for liberals to revive the spirit that swept America, and inspired the world.
Read by David Slavin
The New York Times
The Washington Post
- HarperCollins Publishers
- Publication date:
- Edition description:
- Abridged, 5 CDs, 6 Hrs.
- Product dimensions:
- 5.30(w) x 5.80(h) x 0.80(d)
Read an Excerpt
The Good FightWhy Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again
By Peter Beinart
HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.Copyright © 2006 Peter Beinart
All right reserved.
A New Liberalism
The trip began badly. Within minutes of former vice president Henry Wallace's arrival at the Minneapolis airport, the crowd waiting to greet him had already begun to squabble. Wallace's aunt and uncle, who were Minnesota residents, wanted to drive their famous nephew to his hotel. But the leaders of Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party insisted that he travel in their car instead, in a show of solidarity. Communists were like that. In the transportation sweepstakes, Hubert Humphrey, the 35-year-old mayor of Minneapolis, came in a distant third. Not only was he denied the honor of ferrying the country's leading liberal politician in his car, but the Communists didn't even give him a seat in theirs. So he had to wait to speak to his political idol until later that night.
Despite their differences, Humphrey revered Wallace. The younger man was jovial, corny, everybody's best pal; the older man was mystical and introverted, a lover of humanity but rarely of those around him. But they were both Midwesterners, and they both worshipped the New Deal, seeing it not merely as a template for America, but for theentire world. At the 1944 Democratic Convention, Humphrey had unsuccessfully fought to renominate Wallace as vice president, rather than the hackish Harry Truman. On the day Franklin Roosevelt died, Humphrey poured out his soul to the man he hoped would one day be president. "I simply can't conceal my emotions," he wrote to Wallace. "How I wish you were at the helm."
Now, more than a year later, Humphrey needed Wallace's help. Nineteen forty-six had been difficult for the young mayor. During the war, when the Minnesota left had united in a popular front, Humphrey had gotten along fine with the Communists. But now they were moving against him. In June, Communists and their allies had packed the state DFL convention in Saint Paul, choosing their own slate to run the party, and passing resolutions excoriating Truman's new hard line toward Moscow. When Humphrey rose to speak, the crowd greeted him with cries of "fascist" and "warmonger." He persevered, until a security guard growled, "Sit down, you son of a bitch, or I'll knock you down." And so, without finishing his remarks, Humphrey did.
If things were turning ugly in Minnesota, they weren't much better on the international stage. In February, Stalin warned that American capitalism and Soviet Communism were on a collision course. In March, Winston Churchill journeyed to Fulton, Missouri, and after an introduction by Truman, declared that "an iron curtain has descended across the Continent," dividing Western Europe from the "police governments" to the east. Humphrey wasn't eager for the cold war -- he had hoped World War II would leave a new era of international cooperation and development in its wake. But he couldn't ignore events in the world, and in his backyard. By the end of summer, he was condemning Soviet despotism and declaring Minnesota's popular front dead.
Wallace was headed the other way. In September, in a rally at Madison Square Garden, he attacked the "numerous reactionary elements" seeking to undermine "peace based on mutual trust" between the United States and the USSR. He was still in government, serving as Truman's secretary of commerce. Yet he was contradicting Truman's foreign policy. Eight days later, he was out of a job.
Despite all this, Humphrey -- the inveterate optimist -- still believed that when he sat down with Wallace, they would see eye to eye. When they finally did, at Wallace's hotel that night, he explained what was happening in Minnesota and pleaded for Wallace's help in taking the party back. Wallace seemed puzzled by the talk of Communist treachery. After all, he explained, he knew only one Communist himself. Humphrey was stunned: Several open Communists had driven Wallace from the airport. Liberalism was headed for civil war and the man he once idolized would be on the other side.
but in the fall of 1946, that civil war was still months away and Wallace was still a liberal icon. Shortly after his firing, the American left gathered in Chicago to defend their hero, denounce the growing cold war, and mobilize for November's midterm elections. All the biggest liberal groups were there -- the National Citizens Political Action Committee, the Independent Citizens Committee, the NAACP, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) -- for what historian Alonzo Hamby has called "one of the widest and most representative assemblies of liberals ever brought together." The conference demanded that Truman "exert every effort" to repair the deteriorating relations between Washington and Moscow. To Wallace, it sent a special message: "Carry on with confidence that you have the support of . . . millions upon millions of Americans."
Liberals left Chicago giddy at their show of strength and confident about the fall campaign. In mid-October, CIO president Philip Murray, the left's most influential labor leader, predicted that "we expect this movement to become in due course the most powerful liberal and progressive organization brought together in the history of the country." The liberal newspaper PM exulted that "the great wave of conservatism that was supposed to sweep the country after the war is a delusion."
Richard Nixon knew better. In September 1945, the 32-year-old Navy lieutenant commander received a letter from a prominent banker back home in Whittier, California. The letter asked if he would like to be a candidate for Congress on the Republican ticket in 1946. Nixon quickly agreed.
The district, California's twelfth, was represented by a five-term liberal Democrat named Jerry Voorhis. Voorhis was hardly a Soviet apologist. In fact, he had angered Los Angeles-area Communists by criticizing Russian repression in Eastern Europe. But he did have ties to the National Citizens Political Action Committee and the CIO, and for Nixon, that was enough. Fusing the two organizations under the sinister rubric "the PAC," he made their supposed support of Voorhis the centerpiece of his campaign. "I welcome the opposition of the PAC with its Communist principles and its huge slush fund," proclaimed Nixon in late August. . . .
Excerpted from The Good Fight by Peter Beinart Copyright © 2006 by Peter Beinart. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
What People are saying about this
Meet the Author
Peter Beinart is an associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. He is the senior political writer for The Daily Beast and a contributor to Time. Beinart is a former fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Good Fight. He lives with his family in Washington, D.C.
and post it to your social network
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews >
We now have a "Liberal" in the White House, not a classic Liberal of the kind Beinart wrote about. In fact, his kind of Liberal, the Hubert Humphrey-Scoop Jackson type who promoted American power abroad with compassion at home has been all but driven from the Democratic Party, (Joe Lieberman,and possibly Evan Bayh being exceptions)courtesy of the die-hard Leftards who've given us Obama, Clinton, Biden and a bunch of unsavory other characters. Result? An Israel regularly bashed by an incompetent, inexperienced Obama and a Clinton who should know better;(they've all but wrecked our relationship with our best friend in the Middle East) interference with a Honduras that wisely chose to get rid of a potential Chavez; hands off Iran even when the same Iranian Revolutionary Guards that Senators Obama and Biden chose not to call "terrorist" during the vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment rape and butcher innocent Iranian women and young girls like Neda Soltan. An Obama who all but wrings his hands when North Korea detonates nukes and threatens war. A War in Afghanistan that despite the best efforts of General Petraeus (no thanks to Obama) that is rapidly becoming the Vietnam style quagmire the Leftards claimed Iraq would become. And yes, still NO Osama - despite a Democratic administration that constantly cried "Tora Bora". Only last week Joe Biden told the government of Georgia not to expect American military aid at a time Russian aggression is once again threatening the existence of that nation. Nice. Oh, but he and Hillary did give Hamas 900 mil of American taxpayer dollars at a time when GM and other American firms could have used that kind of bailout. If this is the kind of "Liberalism" winning the war on terror that Beinart suggests, then we are in for a very rough ride. The world may say nice things about us now under Obama, but we're losing respect fast, and our adversaries are picking that up.