Liberal Infighting

THOSE who support the American economic and military agenda of the past 15 years dismiss the campus peace movement as a bunch of idealistic hippie-wannabes. But those of us who have been critical of this country's priorities have recently been fighting amongst ourselves--bitterly.

As a liberal who supports the U.S. military action thus far in the Gulf War, I find my most vehement criticism has come from my former political allies. The way we yell at each other, it is as if the "rightness" of our opinions is directly proportional to the loudness of our voices, as if the severity of our tone has a direct link to the persuasiveness of our argument.

For the first time, many of us have had to "agree to disagree" about the fundamental question of war and peace. It is a time when one's position has higher stakes than in a section on international conflicts. A time when false assumptions about other people's politics lead to accusations of betrayal.

IFIND it a little disturbing myself that I agree more with President Bush than Bernard Sanders. I find it even more disturbing that my most painful and bitter argument was with the friend who drove me to a 1989 Washington D.C. choice rally. The dilemma facing liberals who approve of the military action is that we are turning against our visceral anti-war feelings.

My first childhood memory is of my mother sitting me in front of the television telling me to "boo" General William Westmoreland whenever he came on the air. We're supposed to distrust military action, especially military action by a Republican administration.

We're supposed to be more critical of government excuses, supposed to be out there in protest, supposed to ignore propriety and prove that everything anybody said about the " was unequivocally inaccurate.

But at some point, this aspect of liberalism conflicts with what has happened, and what needs to happen. Two strengths of liberalism--sovereignty and peace--can be incompatible in foreign affairs. I desire war no more than I support abortions. In my ideal world, there would be no international conflicts as there would be no unwanted pregnancies.

It is not easy to decide that war, like abortion, is necessary.

SO LIBERALS like me respond to anti-war marchers with so much caustic intensity because we have decided not to be them. We call them "naive" and "Knee-jerk," and say they "give liberals a bad name." Through harsh words, we highlight our disassociation with them.

Liberals who participate in anti-war rallies respond so fiercely to liberals like us because they see us as traitors. They call us "sell-outs on sanctions" and "Uncritical," and say we "give liberals a bad name." Through harsh words they highlight their disassociation with us.

What is forgotten amongst all this disassociation is that liberals always disagree. The original concept of liberalism is to approach issues with open minds, to analyze thoughtfully all available options and the consequences of such options.

We may come to different solutions--unlike hawks who have never met a war they didn't like. The recent campaigns against "Political correctness" have convinced conservatives that we have had one frame of mind. If that were true, liberals would have been a much more effective political force these last 11 years.

But it isn't true. Our divisions now represent the ideal of liberalism--in peace and in war.