Book Review: Bernard-Henry Levy. "Left in Dark Times."

By Fionnchu

Bernard-Henry Levy. "Left in Dark Times." (Random House, 2008; $25 hardcover.)

Bernard-Henri Levy, born to an Algerian-Jewish family, is a veteran of the late-60s student protests. Now 60, he early on criticized Marxist and totalitarian ideologues, later becoming a prominent French journalist. Vehemently opposed to Islamic fundamentalism, an opponent of terrorism of whatever origin, and an outspoken defender of free speech for unpopular causes, he riles up many "progressives" along with believers of many secular and religious dogmas. His latest book continues his assault on liberal pieties, not from a conservative but from a leftist perspective that respects the Western contributions to democracy and civilized discussion in the name of what he finds a truer tolerance.

Seldom have I finished so poorly written a book. Yet, I agree with most of this "stand against the new barbarism." Levy's fame as a public intellectual, coupled perhaps with his French good looks and penchant for celebrity, may lure readers. Yet, for we foreigners less than 'au courant' with Francophone politics, leftist history, and critical feuds among the intelligentsia, this may bewilder you as often as it instructs, alarms, or frustrates you about the "lyrical Left vs. the melancholy Left." The pun of the title? The original French title is absent from the copyright page, intriguingly.

I'm unsure if Benjamin Moser's translation's to blame, or the original text; full of periodic sentences that qualify themselves, swerve, veer, and hesitate, it reminded me of Celine's elliptical prose if not his politics. For, Levy's bent on correcting the defiant direction of a neo-progressive Left determined to hate America, despise Britain, and especially denounce Israel, the Jewish people, and Zionism. In the current tendency of many on the Left to diminish suffering in Darfur, acclaim the shouts of "one Jew, one bullet" from the streets of Durban, and defend Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and Al Qaeda against Western democracies trying to stop "Fascislamism," Levy strives to remind us of the legacy of the Left. He loves freedom, rationalism, and tolerance, He fears an alliance with those forces and their tenured and pampered advocates who defend despots and fanatics who persist in a twisted refusal to criticize any regime or faction- as long as they hate the U.S.

It takes him forever to move beyond from his prefatory chat with Sarkozy that ticked him off. Apparently, the French leader's too mealy-mouthed when it comes to standing up for true liberalism. Levy has an annoying habit of stating "not to mention" and "I won't get into the case of" and then digressing about exactly that. This attitude may work in person, or on a talk show, but on paper, it rankles me.

Levy seeks, despite stylistic infelicities, to redress rhetorical and practical damage done by his colleagues in universities, the press, and in the trenches. They parrot the same short list of grievances. This may have made a better series of articles - for in the press he relishes thrusting and parrying- than a book. Like many pundits weighing in on current events, this screed may have a short shelf life. Or, it may prove a prescient warning. While I do not agree with all that Levy asserts, he does remind us of how inconsistent, contrary, hateful, and foolish the cant of the pampered Left can be no less than the often-castigated Right.

However, when it comes to the "'cosmopolitan establishment of bankers and business lawyers' that dominate America," (128) I do not think as he alludes that this phrase masks antisemitism. Given the fallout from the Wall Street and mortgage bailouts that happened since this book was published last year, Levy's assumption that this betrays some leftist phrasing equal to a far-right scoundrel appears doubtful. He seems too trusting throughout this book in altruistic intentions of global capital, the free market, and the lack of government regulation of commerce, He tends to ignore the job losses, ecological damage, and cultural conflicts that the market system cannot exactly extricate itself from, or claim only free choice as the market's impact. I know he has striven to promote moral causes, but he does appear rather naive in his defense of the inevitable capitalist triumph that he commends.

Levy's best when defining the "four pillars of totalitarianism": the worship of the Absolute, the devotion to Dialectic, the obeisance to History, and the embrace of Evil. He aligns these on the far-Left with anti-semitism's three contemporary manifestations: the elevation of the Palestinian cause above all other oppressions by "competition among victims"; Holocaust denial or at least revisionism; and the determination to destroy Israel, and erase Zionism, which cloak, half-masked, the hatred of Jews themselves. He tracks the Nazi-fascist ties of many Middle Eastern parties, the persistence of "Elders of Zion" and "Secret Relationship" slave-trade libels among many ideologues, and the facile soundbite bromides vs. the private scurrilous prejudice peddled by many activists as public intellectuals-in the East and the West-purporting to advance a pluralist Islamic or Third World nationalism.

Haunted by his country's own Vichy collaboration and cognizant of the French who today wish to distort such capitulation to fascism and hatred, Levy suggests we take on "Fascislamism" without dragging denial of Israel's right to exist into every debate; he reminds us that terrorism does not rely on the Zionist state for its current attacks. Palestine's marginal, a convenient symbol, but hardly even to compare with Kashmir when it comes to a jihadist's savage holy land to conquer. For too long, Levy finds, the West tolerates bigots who would censor our cartoons, burn our embassies, kill those who do not adhere to one version of one creed, or plot to murder soldiers, civilians, innocents in the name of an intolerant one-world rule.

By separating beliefs from politics, Levy seeks restoration of the Western balance. Tolerance rather than sectarianism, respect rather than belligerence, and maturity to get along with those with whom one disagrees: simple ideals, still hard to follow for so many who in the misguided genuflection to tolerance permit hatred to flourish. He separates "Judeo-Christian" from "Western," by the way. He finds that liberal principles rest on the autonomy of the individual subject within the public space constructed to allow inhabitants full expression of the "right of a body not to be tortured" but to obtain human rights, democracy, and mutual respect given and taken.

In the recovery of the secular Enlightenment, people everywhere can advance, Levy argues, towards universal, inalienable, and identical rights for everyone. America may have revolted first to assert these rights, and they did spring first from Europe, but freedom deserves now to be the legacy of people everywhere. These ideals are beyond colonialism, and untethered now to imperialism. "Ideas, too, have no borders. European or not, the idea that an adulterous woman shouldn't be stoned to death is an idea worth universalizing." (193) "We can love a civilization and try to make it even more habitable, more breathable, for its inhabitants: that's the positive lesson from Europe." (199) "We have to imagine happy atheists." (211)

P.S. This reminded me often of Oriana Fallaci's diatribe against Islamism, "The Rage and the Pride," immediately post-9/11 (also reviewed by me on my "Blogtrotter" blog and on Amazon US, where this Levy book review first appeared 7/31/09).



This review originally appeared at Blogtrotter.

Obama: destroyer of the Left. And why I still call myself a liberal

Cannonfire hits at a point I have been throwing into posts - sometimes at random - for a year.

Obama will destroy the Left.

The country thinks that Obama is some sort of lefty. He isn't one, but that's what people think. If his plan fails - and it will - all left-ish solutions (real left and faux left) will be discredited.

Paul Krugman continues to bravely attack the thinking of the Obama Administration from the Left.



Why I am still a liberal.
When I say I am a liberal I am talking about a broad ideology that has a basis in both classical liberalism, and some New Deal and Great society policies.

I wiggle around about in my own beliefs, especially after last year, but fundamentally they are - randomly:

1. A well educated (classic liberal Western education is what I mean) population is a national concern.

2. The Federal government has a place in some domestic arenas. Head Start and Social Security for example. I see no other way in an industrial or post industrial society.

3. Legal equality for all is the purview of the Federal government. Therefore I think the ERA should still be passed, Gays must be given the same rights as Heterosexuals - including marriage.

4. The Constitution must not be seen as something to be "strictly constructed" but "strictly interpreted." Flexibility was built into by the founders. Not a lot - but some.

5. Overseas military intervention must always be a last resort.

6. The second amendment is interpretable. No one has the "right to bear arms" in total. I can't carry a stinger missile around town. Therefore the kind of arms a citizen can own should be legislated. Arguments over the extent of control are good and healthy.

7. Money is not speech. Rich people do not get "more speech" than poor people under the 1st Amendment. All elections should be financed publicly. Everything rides on this. As long as money is the primary concern of our representatives the system will sputter and be unresponsive. A fine example fell on Dodd's head this week.

8. The right to terminate a pregnancy belongs to the pregnant person until the fetus is viable.
The best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy is intelligent sex education and accessible birth control. Telling humans to abstain from sex is not an answer and never has been. Obviously, society has an interest in discouraging the young from sexual activity. This is a matter of placing value on human sexuality - not simply saying "Don't do that" which any horny teen will tell you is ridiculous. Sexual behavior is not degrading. We have comodified sex and degraded human sexuality, which has cheapened sex. The inability for many to accept the normal homosexual behavior of a certain percentage of any population is a good example of how thick the denial is.

I no longer support Roe V Wade. It is time to have this arguments in the states or amend the Constitution.

9. Capitalism controlled to a degree from excess by a freely elected Federal government (see 7) is the best system we've yet devised. (The bad banks should have been nationalized by Obama for a year.) Capitalism is important. Democracy is more important. Over the last 50 years we've reversed the priority - become consumers first and citizens second.

10. The government on all levels has almost no business interfering in the private lives of citizens.

11. The wall between church and state must be very high.


That is it for now. I do not know what else to call myself given the above list. Certainly not a conservative. And not a faux liberal so in vogue now. Libertarians have their appeal. I have no doubt I'd become one if (when) everything collapses. Until then I am a liberal. Feel free to tihnk up another label.

Who pays?

Of course Obi made a good speech on Tuesday. He almost always gives good speech. This is not new or remarkable. This is his strong suit as a politician. His "strong speeches" should be expected. The downside is that his passion on the podium does not match reality on the ground.

The weirdest part of his rhetoric last Tuesday was the gulf between the man who forced the unread stimulus/debt bill two weeks ago on us was, with a glint in his eye and a grim look on his mug, now telling us we must cut the deficit. Cognitive dissonance, thy name is Obama.

But, doubling back, he then he forcefully moved on to a laundry list of plans. All of which, one presumes, are not free. All the while telling us he does not like Big Government. It makes the head spin.

How and why should we trust this man? He's broken a slew of promises - but continues to glide on to the next speech, the next event, the next airing of the Obama show, unscathed and clearly not troubled.

My theory is that Obama is closer in personality to Hugo Chavez than Ronald Reagan. Psychologically, there is a need to be present at all times. A need to be adored. The inauguration was followed by a campaign style push for the stimulus, rallies and all included, followed by a prime time presser, followed this week by a prime time speech in the easiest major venue on earth. In between was a one day summit on Monday. As if some thing could get done in one day, other than a group reach around of THE ONE.

Will Obama continue this way? Making himself present at all times - invading the prime time airwaves every week? Chavez does in Venezuela.

(Noquarter notes an obvious indicator of his narcissism here. He never mentioned his own cabinet, the Supreme Court, or you and me. This is a small , but telling, detail. We matter to the degree that we adore him. Pods know this instinctively. It is why they attack so viciously. As for me, I simply can not trust a man who is never humble. Funny how much Lincoln gets thrown around by Obama since they share only a home state. Lincoln's fuel as a leader was his humility. Obama's is his narcissism.)

But Obama is not an empty suit. Not at all. He intends to rework the landscape of the U.S., as Chavez has in Venezuela. Barry and Michelle do have an idea of the way things should be. They just rarely come totally clean on what those plans are. By default, he is less mysterious than he was a month ago. But not by much. He really is W's better, smarter, off spring. Doublethink with style.

This is not your father's Orwell.

Think I am wrong? Fine. I certainly could be. But ask one simple question. Who pays? I make no apologies for my old school liberalism. I want the Federal government to do more than the average conservative. LBJ and FDR never neglected the simple question: Who pays? The answer was - we do and the rich pay more. Many did not like that answer, but it was an answer. Social Security, Head Start, the TVA, Nixon's EPA, Eisenhower's interstate highways - all Big Government. All good.

So who pays? We are sitting around a table at an expensive restaurant. The head of the table has just ordered a lovely, expensive meal. Here's our secret: No one at the table brought their wallets. No one has a dime in their pocket. Including the man who just ordered.

Regardless of the calls for sacrifice, he's banking on something for nothing. Why shouldn't he? It has worked so far.

History, as it always does, has other plans for Obama. At best, he'll be our Gorbachev. Scrambling to rewrite the rules of a system that has become untenable. As I've said before, I do not think we can or should "get through this." This is what brought us to the brink.