I am not sure why James Rubin is using the WikiLeaks controversy to attack the ‘hard left.’ It seems like a distraction from the main points of his essay, which I happen to wholeheartedly agree with. Even if we place someone like Glenn Greenwald in this ‘hard left’ category, I don’t think Rubin’s critique is on target. If Greenwald is at fault in his analysis it is in his assessment that WikiLeaks wears an unambiguously white cap.

The central goal of WikiLeaks is to prevent the world’s most powerful factions — including the sprawling, imperial U.S. Government — from continuing to operate in the dark and without restraints. Most of the institutions which are supposed to perform that function — beginning with the U.S. Congress and the American media — not only fail to do so, but are active participants in maintaining the veil of secrecy. WikiLeaks, whatever its flaws, is one of the very few entities shining a vitally needed light on all of this. It’s hardly surprising, then, that those factions — and their hordes of spokespeople, followers and enablers — see WikiLeaks as a force for evil. That’s evidence of how much good they are doing.

That’s the kind of lazy manichean thinking that Greenwald usually eviscerates. I mean, sure, it sounds good to have this swashbuckling Robin Hood out there stealing from the information-rich to give to the information-poor, but many of us don’t like to see the diplomatic wing of our foreign policy apparatus disadvantaged. This is especially the case when the damage takes the form of carpet bombing rather than precision strikes.

What possibly justifies putting Greenwald in a hard left category isn’t some insistence that America leave other countries to govern as they see fit. It’s this:

In sum, I seriously question the judgment of anyone who — in the face of the orgies of secrecy the U.S. Government enjoys and, more so, the abuses they have accomplished by operating behind it — decides that the real threat is WikiLeaks for subverting that ability. That’s why I said yesterday: one’s reaction to WikiLeaks is largely shaped by whether or not one, on balance, supports what the U.S. has been covertly doing in the world by virtue of operating in the dark.

Again, the fault in this lies in its either/or structure. I don’t have to decide that there is one true ‘real’ threat, and then dismiss everything else as harmless. I do not have to support what the U.S. government has done under the cloak of secrecy to prefer the State Department’s general approach to the world to the CIA and Defense Department’s. I can enjoy and benefit from the information provided by WikiLeaks while still believing that they did more harm than good. And I can maintain my sobriety and not claim that WikiLeaks has somehow ‘subverted’ our government’s ability to do bad things behind closed doors.

Greenwald says that one’s views on the WikiLeaks controversy are “largely shaped by whether or not one, on balance, supports what the U.S. has been covertly doing in the world.” That is probably a true statement, but it ought not to be. My view is shaped by what I think was accomplished by the leaks and whether it will lead to better U.S. foreign policy.

In the short term, the State Department has taken their communication system off the classified grid, which greatly reduces how many people in government have access to what the State Department is thinking. Greenwald shows no inclination to concern himself with such details, and appears to be satisfied that the thumb of Julian Assange has been well-placed in the eyes of people who richly deserve it. For me, that’s an immature attitude worthy of a teenager in search of revenge. And, yes, it does amount to placing yourself in complete opposition to your own country’s establishment and system. If that’s warranted, then that’s fine. I have felt the same way at times, particularly in the 2002-2009 period. But I think it’s fair to call this a ‘hard left’ position when it is applied to the WikiLeaks case.

For some reason, Rubin thinks ‘hard left’ means something else.

By and large, the hard left in America and around the world would prefer to see the peaceful resolution of disputes rather than the use of military force. World peace, however, is a lot harder to achieve if the U.S. State Department is cut off at the knees. And that is exactly what this mass revelation of documents is going to do. The essential tool of State Department diplomacy is trust between American officials and their foreign counterparts. Unlike the Pentagon which has military forces, or the Treasury Department which has financial tools, the State Department functions mainly by winning the trust of foreign officials, sharing information, and persuading. Those discussions have to be confidential to be successful. Destroying confidentiality means destroying diplomacy.

See, I don’t see why this is a ‘hard’ left position. It’s my position. It seems to be a position shared by anyone with a shred of faith left in any part of our government.

0 0 votes
Article Rating