Comments

1. 

   me

   May 23, 2014 at 18:50

   He teaches at Yale for crying out loud, he is really brave! Gosh
2. 

   StephenKMackSD

   May 23, 2014 at 19:45

   While I find myself in agreement and sympathize with Mr. Bromwich on the question of Liberals, I too find myself as a Democratic Socialist ,going to Conservative thinkers and writers, that don't follow the Neo-Liberal Party Line. I find a great many conservatives who articulate an anti-imperial politics more congenial than the Liberals, who cannot emancipate themselves from Obama worship, to do something resembling independent thinking. As much as I admire Mr. Bromwich as observer and political moralist, for me the question of Mr. Bromwich's credibility will hinge on the question of Ukraine. Where he used to publish regularly, The New York Review of Books, has become the publishing outlet for Mr. Timothy Snyder's regular essays, that in sum represent simply an extended apologetics and rationalizations for the coup. (Perhaps Mr. Ignatieff and his R2P zealots have colonized that publication?) While ignoring the subversion of a duly elected but corrupt regime by Victoria Nuland, her five billion dollars, and The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and other NGO's. Not to speak of the Svoboda and Right Sector's involvement in the coup, and the present regime ruled by American front man 'Yats'. Paul Craig Roberts, Global Research, MintPress, The Nation and Stephen F. Cohen are the voices I listen too, besides reading the avalanche of hysterical propaganda. Mr. Bromwich represents what used to be revelatory and indispensable at the NYRB, in fact I would say that he is the natural inheritor of the mantle of Murray Kempton, who managed to meld exquisite style with a commitment to the cultivation of civic republican virtue. On the question of Niebuhr I will vigorously dissent! As Mr Fox's biography illustrates, Mr. N. was a moral , political conformist, not to speak of a compulsive proselytizer and careerist. The formation of the ADA with his 'Cold War Liberal' twin Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. was a monument to the 'Liberalism' Mr. Bromwich so eloquently eviscerates. StephenKMackSD
3. 

   PED

   May 24, 2014 at 03:23

   I prefer to think that Obama's increasingly frequent references to the United States as "the unique, exceptional and indispensable nation" are a concession to politics and public opinion rather than a sincere belief. The real disgrace is that the American people will not allow their leaders to think in any other way.
4. 

   DMS

   May 24, 2014 at 07:45

   Whew! I can't possibly compete with StephenKMackSD (above) as to dropping personalities so I'll just stop in admiration.
5. 

   Fran Macadam

   May 24, 2014 at 15:11

   Derbyshire sympathetically interviewing Bromwich? Now that really does offer hope for reconciliation and redemption.
6. 

   philadelphialawyer

   May 25, 2014 at 18:15

   Excellent interview. "Some of the political commentators you find in The American Conservative—for example, Daniel Larison. Some of the sharpest critiques of American imperialism under Bush-Cheney and now under Obama have come from Patrick Buchanan. In some ways he’s a very bad man, but he’s a consistent anti-imperialist. When I say this to liberal friends, they say, 'How dare you read this man!'" And the same might be said of the Pauls. Indeed, my liberal friends are also quite quick to cut off the notion that anyone on "the right," be they libertarians or paleo conservatives, might have something useful to say about imperialism, the war on drugs, the criminal justice system generally, the spying issues, and so on. There is a sense among the "Coastals" (DC to Boston, LA to Seattle), that anyone not of the "in group," ie anyone from the South, the Mountains, the Great Plains, and maybe even the Midwest too, must be an idiot. And, even on the Coasts, that only those folks from a certain environment: urban, liberal Jewish or Protestant, at least college educated, count, in any meaningful way. For all the talk about the Right being annihilationist and "you're with us or you're against us" and eliminationist and denying legitimacy to the left, the left does much the same thing, but only more sotto voce and less in your face. Romney and McCain represent, to them, the very outer limit of what can be talked about in polite society, and not even them during their election bids. The notion that a Paul might have a good idea is hulled down immediately. Why, he opposed the Civil Rights laws! And so he does. But he also opposed the Iraq War and the entire GD national security State, and that should count for something too. Hillary and Obama too (for all his pretense to the contrary) supported the Iraq War and continue to support the national security State, even as they also support the CR laws. Why is that OK? Why the one and not the other? Indeed, why is the one the preferred, the "only" option, while the other is unspeakable? I think Obama is nicely summed up as well. He's smart. He's well educated. He is clearly in another league altogether, intellectually and in terms of policy, when compared to his predecessor. And yet there is a mediocrity to the man. A sense of, "well, I am to the left of Bush and his insane followers and to the right of the DFH's, and so, I must be right." And not only does he manifest this moral laziness, but he does so in a way that oozes arrogance. Here we have a man who rose to prominence based on his ability to write and give a speech. And he is quite good at it. And yet it seems he can't be bothered to do much of it, or any other "politicking," in favor of his policies, nominations, budgets, and proposed legislation. Its as if he seems to think that, because he is "clearly" right, everyone, including the die hard oppositional/obstructionist GOP, will just HAVE to go along with him, because they will look stupid otherwise. As if he doesn't recognize (1) that there actually can be legitimate, non stupid opposing views, (2) that there are ways of presenting opposing views so that they don't look stupid, even if and when they are, and (3) that many folks really either don't mind stupidity (or actually revel in it, a la the fans of Rush Limbaugh) or else don't consider it nearly as important as tribal loyalties, racism, etc. And, of course, nobody in national American politics (ie Presidents, would be presidents, ex presidents, secretaries of state, and so on) can or will admit even the slightest doubt about the entirely false notion of a benign, "exceptional" America. As the man says, Vietnam has been written right out of the story. As has, I would add, Central America, southern Africa, Iran, and many other places as well. Virtually no one in American politics at any level comes even close to recognizing the two simple points that Chomsky, and some on the libertarian/paleo conservative right, have made over and over again in the most convincing fashion......(1) that the US, for all of its talk about exceptionalism and being a shiny city on a hill and so on, actually SHOULD be judged on how will it follows the rules of International Law and basic reciprocal fairness that we use to judge other countries (and, indeed, when it comes to fairness, all other entities and persons) and (2) that by actually looking at the real evidence and engaging in a real evaluation, the US has fallen short in those regards repeatedly, and repeatedly in the same ways, and to devastating effect on other polities, countries and peoples.