SIDNEY HOOK AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: Current Crises; Future Challenges
On Saturday, October 1, over 100 people attended a day-long conference to discuss the relevance of Sidney Hook's philosophy to our current political situation. As Carl Gershman explains below, this event was the inspiration of Penn Kemble, former editor of Notesonline, and a long-time admirer of Sidney Hook.
The starting-point for the event included two keynote addresses that Hook delivered to conventions of Social Democrats, USA in his role as Honorary Chairman. (See Related Documents above.) Hook was a prolific writer, having authored many books and articles on a variety of topics, but most especially on democracy, and the threats to its survival. For Hook, democracy was "not merely a political concept but a moral one . . a way of life."
While the complete conference proceedings are currently being compiled, below are selected excerpts.
OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCITON
Carl Gershman, President, National Endowment for Democracy
The idea for this important conference grew out of a discussion that my wife Laurie and I had with Penn when we visited him in the hospital in July. It was a wonderful conversation in which Penn reflected a great deal on the early period of our movement. He talked a great deal about the absolutely critical role that Paul Feldman played when we had that momentous faction fight in the early 1970s, referring to Paul as an absolutely heroic figure, who in a way is more responsible than anyone for our ability to maintain control of the Socialist Party and later the Social Democrats during that period. He also mentioned the role that Dave Jessup played in the battle within the churches against anti-Americanism and anti-anti-Communism.
He repeatedly emphasized that the ideas we held then were not only right, but were still relevant today. These ideas included the centrality of democracy; he mentioned the struggle in Vietnam, pointing out that some people had attributed the defeat there to the fact that elections were held and the country was divided, but it was really when people gave up on democracy that the defeat took place. Another obvious example is democracy's continuing relevance in the war of terrorism and the need for a united country.
Here Penn faulted the Republican Administration for, in his view, using wedge issues to divide this country, when we need a more united country in order to win this war against terrorism. And we were talking the day after the adjournment of the AFL-CIO Convention in Chicago, and Penn still believed that the labor movement, with all of its troubles, is necessary. He called a strong labor movement the balance wheel of democracy, an instrument for the inclusion of people who are marginalized in society. And, of course, he emphasized the continuing relevance of social democracy, which was, he said, best embodied in the thought of Sidney Hook. I had no knowledge to that point that Penn's relationship with Sidney Hook was so central to him. [Penn] pointed out that when he was a student at the University of Colorado in the early 60s, Alex [Garber] had brought Sidney out to speak on the campus and that was the first time he really heard him. And he then read [Sidney's] work and said that the two early books on Marx had an especially huge impact. He had mentioned that they had taken a trip together to Taiwan in the early 1980s and he spoke a lot about it. And then he said he would like to see a conference organized around the thoughts of Sidney Hook and his legacy. So that the people who are Sidney's political heirs could think together about how to act on his ideas today. And again, looking to the future, and doing what Penn has done repeatedly, in recent years, which is to bring the movement together to think together how to act in a coherent way. Penn emphasized Sidney's thoughts in the keynote address that he gave to the SD Convention in 1976 about what really makes a Social Democrat. For a Social Democrat, democracy is more than a political concept, it is also a moral concept. And he went on to describe what it is to have democracy as a moral concept, as the organizing principle of one's political life, and his desire to see that democracy be available to everyone, all people, both in the U.S. and around the world.
I immediately agreed to honor Penn's request, as did everyone who participated in the organization of this meeting. As he has always done, Penn was pushing the democratic idea forward by bringing and keeping together a community of people who could work in common to strengthen democracy now and in the future. In my view, this meeting has already stimulated and inspired linkages that did not exist before. This is not a happy time for our movement with Penn's illness and the shocking passing of our dear comrade Sandy Feldman. But at the same time, I think it is possible to look to the future and how to develop a stronger core community of advocates for democracy, especially within the rudderless liberal mainstream.
Recently, I have received three books that are written or edited by people that are going to be with us today, that really address the issue of democracy as Penn wanted it to be discussed at this conference. The first book is Paul Berman's, Power and the Idealists: Or, The Passion of Joschka Fischer, and Its Aftermath,
in which he tells the story of 1960s radicals who have evolved into democratic dissidents and defenders of liberal values, most of them in Europe, people like Bernard Kouchner, Daniel Cohen-Bendit and Joschka Fischer, the foreign minister of Germany.
The second book, The Islam West Debate by David Blankenhorn, assembles the documents from a global debate on terrorism, precipitated by a statement signed by 60 intellectuals called "What We Are Fighting For," which was issued shortly after 9/11 and stimulated the most important debate since 9/11. The principle author of that statement is Jean Bethke Elshtain, who will be the keynote speaker today.
Finally, the night before this conference I met Thomas Cushman, a professor at Wellesley, who has put together a book called A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for the War In Iraq. [The book] gathers together statements of the people on the democratic left who believe that there was a strong humanitarian reason for overthrowing Saddam Hussein and for building a democracy in Iraq.
The appearance of these books shows that a movement is beginning among dissident liberals and social democrats to strengthen the voice and presence of liberal internationalism within the American political and intellectual life. I hope and believe that this conference, which Penn conceived, will give greater momentum to this movement, bring people together, enable them to come together, to think together and maybe even to organize together as they look to the future. That is how Penn understood this conference and that is how I understand it as well.
I want to thank everyone for coming and everyone on the panels for speaking. I want to thank Dave Jessup, who conceived of this booklet of tributes to Penn and who is such a terrific friend to Penn and to all of us. I want to thank Dick Wilson and Genie Kemble for their input in thinking about this conference. I also want to thank Mike Allen, David Lowe and Marc Plattner at the NED who offered extensive consultations about how this conference could be organized and what the agenda would be. I also want to thank Vicki Thomas who worked so closely with Penn for so long and who did all the logistical and organizational work for this conference.
It was our hope that Penn would be able to be with us this morning to make some introductory remarks, but alas that has not proved to be possible. However, I am gratified that Penn's beloved wife, Mal, is here and has agreed to make some remarks on Penn's behalf.
Marie-Louise Caravatti, Associate Research Director, American Federation of Teachers
As Carl said, Penn can't be with us today, but he is listening from home and we are videotaping the entire conference for him so he can critique us at his leisure. Penn did have one message for us. Since this conference was first conceived, events in Louisiana made it clear that social democracy offers a distinctive path for American politics. For many in this group, social democracy has centered on the defense of democracy against totalitarianism and defense of the labor movement as the balance wheel of democracy. Today we need to expand on this. To Sidney Hook, a social democrat is one who believes in democracy as a way of life, of equal opportunity for all, yet he recognizes that it is possible for human beings to be politically equal as voters. However, with such great inequality in educational, economic and social opportunities, even the very nature of their political equality is affected. Therefore, this ethic of social democracy must be viewed as a premise for continual social reform, whether through programs such as social security, health and unemployment insurance, guaranteed minimum family income, and occupational safety, or through improved and extended public education. Post Katrina and Rita one might add infrastructure to the list.
Penn reminded me that today's condition is similar to that in which the British Labor Movement arose, namely chaos. He has charged us all to develop a perspective. He is eagerly waiting to hear what you have to say.
RADICAL ISLAM
There was a broad interest among the panelists on the issue of radical Islam, and it permeated much of the discussion. But not only did speakers approach the question from different perspectives, it sometimes seemed that they were not even talking about the same phenomenon.
The first panel took what might be called a geo-political perspective.
Marc Plattner, Vice President, Research & Studies, National Endowment for Democracy; Co-director, International Forum; Co-Editor, Journal of Democracy
"After their setbacks in Afghanistan and Sudan, [the Islamists] rule only in Iran where popular disaffection is deep. There is no sign that radical Islam can become an economically successful and militarily powerful state."
Inside the Muslim world "a genuine war of ideas is beginning to be waged... Outside of Islam, the doctrines of the radical Islam are not winning adherents and are not likely to in the future
The legitimacy of liberal democracy and its status as the only regime widely regarded as acceptable is higher than it has ever been."
Josh Muravchik followed in essentially in the same way:
Joshua Muravchik, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; author, Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism
"[Radical Islam] is not seriously universal, and it really, despite some larger pretensions, speaks only to the Islamic world.
[I]t is not so particularistic, because outside of Iran, it doesn't command any governments, and speaks to a world of Islam that carries across dozens of different states."
[O]verwhelmingly, our battle against the new totalitarianism must be on the plane of ideas that our cause, our message and our weapon is democracy; we are standing very much with the tides of history."
Ladan Boroumand focused on Islamism as a totalitarian ideology, not a product of religion.
Ladan Boroumand, Director, Abdorrahman Borourmand Foundation for the Promotion of Human Rights and Democracy in Iran.
"Islamism, as a legatee of modern totalitarianism, is targeting God's transcendence and in doing so is negating the tenets of Islam.She argues that Islamism, like other versions of "totalitarianism has been systematically at odds with the monotheistic religion."
That Islam has inherited like other monotheistic societies Judeo -Christian a tradition of: "Free will, freedom of conscience and fallibility, which are indeed man's defining character and, not surprisingly, the cornerstone of democracy."
"To vanquish God, totalitarianism targets its creature, the human being, by denying its autonomy. It is an ironic twist of fate, to see the latest brand of totalitarianism, which is today's Islamism, trying to shield itself behind a very God that has vanquished its antecedents, through his creature, the free willed and fallible man."
Boroumand appears to contend that the defense of democracy has to, at the same time, be a defense of Islam. We cannot avoid this connection. Our audience, after all, is not a small number of Westernized intellectuals, but the many millions of ordinary Muslims, who earnestly hold on to their faith.
Muravchik made the point in his presentation: "I take issue here with those who argue that Radical Islam must be defeated by something called moderate Islam... [T]he stakes are just too high for us to sit back and let it go without our most active efforts." I doubt Boroumand would disagree.
The question she appears to raise is somewhat different. Can the ideological battle be effective, if it posits democracy, in its secular form, against Islamists, who claim to be the true Muslims? The question is not to become theologians, but rather to show how democracy fits into a common tradition of free will, freedom of conscience, and the fallibility of man. Then, the interlocutor must demonstrate, how the Islamists are attempting to destroy the foundations of Islam.
It is they who represent the worst of the West the totalitarian mind. However, there are differences: "the new utopia we are facing does not promise anything for this world, and therefore, it is not easy to prove it wrong." Yet, Islamism has a weakness. Unlike other forms of totalitarianism which "( Is this the quote something seems wrong here were ideologically consistent to proven wrong.) Islamism is ideologically inconsistent because it refers to as set of values incompatible with totalitarianism."
[It is interesting to note that both Boroumand and Jean Bethke Elshtain, in a different connection, took the role of religion quite seriously, while it was ignored by other panelists.]
Paul Berman's intervention came in the form of provocative questions that exposed the different assumptions that underlie different conceptions of radical Islam:
Paul Berman, author, Power and the Idealists: Or, The Passion of Joschka Fischer, and Its Aftermath
"
[T]he debate [on radical Islam] has been going badly because of a whole series of unanswered questions. [F]irst, who is the enemy? What are the enemies' motives? What are the motives of the enemy's supporters?"
"There are two basic answers. One is that the enemies are terrorists, but the terrorists have essentially rational motives
[T]he second possible answer is that the enemy is in the sheer grip of mythology, and there is no rational basis for the enemy's actions."
Berman then raised a third question, that appeared to especially resonate with the audience:
"What is the size of the enemy? There are three theories here. One is that the enemy is essentially small terrorist groups, the other is that the enemy is essentially a large terrorist group, which may or may not, from time to time, benefit from state-sponsored support, and the third is that the enemy is essentially a mass, popular movement with an armed wing."
This lead to Berman's final question: "How to defeat the enemy? Again, the task is unclear, unless you decide who the enemy is."
The answer will pose quite different strategies. Berman came down on the side of the definition that terrorism and its ideology are part of what is essentially, a mass, popular movement with an armed wing. He castigated President Bush's confused messages and the failure to clarify who we are fighting. Berman said this was, however, a larger failure, that included those at the conference. We aim criticism at the administration and others, but fail to undertake responsibility for clarifying the situation.
The approach of Robert Leiken, Director, Immigration and National Security Program, The Nixon Center; Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, was also aimed at answering the question: "Who is the enemy?" He arrived at his position, by going through a detailed study of the organization and operations of radical Islam against the Communist movement of Hook's day. He did not find a mass movement with an armed wing or anything like the level of coherent structure implied in such a definition. His studies pointed instead to small, largely unconnected groups.
TRIBUTES TO THE WORK OF PENN KEMBLE
Below are excerpts from two of the tributes to Penn Kemble, who conceptualized the conference.
Ben Wattenberg, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; host, Think Tank; author, Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future
It is a rich honor to be included today in this company of men and women who have changed the world, for the better.
I would like to talk about my work with Penn, rather than the work of Sidney Hook.
I want to begin with a confession: I googled Penn. There were 29,600 entries with his name in it! We will come to that later.
I first met Penn Kemble in 1972. I figured I knew all about politics and democracy. After all, I had worked on President Johnson's staff, worked for Scoop Jackson's presidential campaigns and, with Dick Scammon, co-authored an important book on American politics. I was very impressed with me.
As it turned out I didn't know beans. As the huge magnitude of George McGovern's pending electoral defeat became clear, as it became clear that the McGovernites would take over the Democratic Party, Scammon suggested that "A New A.D.A" be formed. (The once-sensible Americans for Democratic Action had been following McGovern over the cliff.)
The new organization was to be called the "Coalition for a Democratic Majority" CDM. All agreed that young Penn Kemble should be the first Executive Director. It was a "Coalition" and support from the labor movement was critical. Penn had credibility in George Meany's House of Labor. How so? He had already worked on projects in concert with Big Labor. Most important, at a tender age Penn had already learned or perhaps designed and this is in another way another confession Penn revealed to me the secret YPSL[Young People's Socialist League] plan: to take over the world in a blizzard of letterheads. (I teased him about it, but he was profoundly right.)
So all through the Summer and early Fall of 1972, a troop of counter-revolutionaries met furtively in a proletarian hideout at the Federal City Club. It had to be kept secret: We couldn't be blamed for the Democratic catastrophe that we knew was coming. And so, under Penn's guidance, one more letterhead organization was born. We planned full-page advertisements for the Washington Post and New York Times. We decided who would be listed as the organizing committee. They included Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bayard Rustin, Ambassador Peter Rosenblatt, Velma and Norman Hill, Dick Schifter, Tom Foley, Max Kampelman and Penn Kemble. Among the listed sponsors was Al Shanker
Penn roared into action. Soon I found myself with Penn in the office of Al Barkan, who ran the AFL-CIO's Committee on Political Education, asking for money. There was a price we had to pay: listening to Barkan's tirades against every Leftist cause-group in America, in language that was less than politically correct. But we got the money.
After a while I was elected Co-Chairman of CDM, then Chairman. When Penn got press calls about CDM's position on an issue, he would answer them. When I got press calls, I would often say "I'll get right back to you" and call Penn for the right answer. Letterhead organizations, I realized could get ink for a point of view, and influence policy.
Later Penn became CDM's Chairman of the Executive Committee and ran the CDM military task force.
Penn tuned me onto the YPSL greats. I had known Tom Kahn from the Scoop Jackson campaign, but not Carl Gershman nor Josh Muravchik, nor the other leaders in the fight for freedom around the world.
Penn was the brains behind a PBS television documentary series I did in the early 1980s which included programs on the expanding Soviet blue-water navy, another about bringing freedom to Sri Lanka, yet another called "Specter Haunting Communism: The Polish Workers," which dealt with "the independent self-governing trade union" which came to be called "Solidarity." We needed an interview with Lech Walesa, who at first refused. Penn then sent in word that he was "a close friend of Lane Kirkland." Walesa sent word out that "everyone says he's a close friend of Lane Kirkland's." But we got the interview.
Penn has so often led me down the road toward Social Democracy and unionism without me realizing it, and many aspects of those causes remain appealing to me. Through Penn I learned what my life's cause would be, and how to go about helping make it happen. Penn, thank you, sir.
Penn was occasionally regarded as a behind-the-scenes operative. That is the only thing I know that he failed at. That's where those 29,000 Google entries come in, mostly friendly, linking him to most every letterhead organization that was designed to extend and promote freedom including to name a very few the Institute for Religion and Democracy, Freedom House, the Foundation for Democratic Education, the Committee for the Free World, and Prodemca.
The climate created by those letterhead groups helped major government-funded organizations to which Penn contributed so much of his energy: the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). And, of course, Penn also ran the United States Information Agency. Penn Kemble has been clearly recognized not only as a leader of Social Democracy, but as a global leader of "The Liberty Party." He is an American patriot, and never, ever, ashamed to say it.
Over the years, Penn and I have become very close personal friends. More than occasionally we argue, often about Social Democracy and unionism; we both enjoy that. But we argue about means, not ends. His friendship is an honor I treasure. His indefatigable courage, with Mal's constant help, is a lesson in how to live.
Dick Wilson, Director, New Economy Information Service
I have only come to know Penn during the last few years. Before that, it was a fleeting relationship. In fact, the picture of Penn in my mind for a very long time dated way back to a YPSL convention, when a gang of "cowboys" from Colorado suddenly made their appearance. They were clearly a bunch of know-it-alls, who obviously would never last.
It was only in working with Penn day-by-day, over the last couple of years that a different picture emerged. So when asked to write something, the image that immediately came to mind, that the most salient feature of this man, is his good manners, his politeness, his courtesy, and his consideration of others. A characteristic he shares with Mal, making their marriage a unique and indispensable part of his life and work.
All this about good manners doesn't sound very political. But in fact, it is, I think, his great strength. The late Edward Shils claimed that civility, his version of good manners, is essential to civil society, just as civil society is essential to a robust democracy. Civility is what draws people from quite different backgrounds to a cause. It is civility that helps to recruit those who don't especially like the rest of the crew, but will go along, if Penn is running the show.
Penn's civility is demonstrated day-after-day in his willingness to listen, and take seriously what others have to say. He might suggest an amendment, or offer a counter perspective, but always with genuine courtesy. A person may leave the conversation unconvinced, yet aware that he has been treated as an equal by Penn, regardless of their differences.
Treating people and their ideas with respect is carried over by Penn, even to his opponents. (At times, this has been a rather substantial group.) Penn debates, articulates his position with firm, and sometimes passionate arguments, yet he never demeans the character of his opponent or belittles their positions, which he assumes are honestly felt, even if wrongheaded.
The future, well, people are known change their minds. Penn always stands ready to renew the dialogue, and even, if necessary, to lend a helping hand. It's hard to stay very mad at a guy like this, and, if you are not careful, you may find yourself involved in one of Penn's new projects. One you surely would have opposed, not so long ago.
Civil society is Penn's arena. Electoral politics comes in fits and starts, but the continuing argument about rights, equality, and justice, which are the lifeblood of democracy, never stops. One advantage of civil society lies in the fact that party labels are much less important. People from widely different backgrounds can mobilized for issues that transcend day-to-day partisan political fights.
Penn's success depends on the trust that people have in him. They quickly learn that Penn is not in the struggle for what he can get out of it. Rather, it is about advancing the "common good," as Shils would say. That sounds a bit corny, but Penn is a corny kind of guy.
It's not hard to understand the impact that Penn's civility can have on other people. What is hard to understand, for some, is Penn's enthusiasm for the Social Democrats. It seems odd to those who know his great strategic sense that he clings to an organization that appears to have so little political weight.
Penn believes that there is a unique space out there, in the social body, for just such a community. It's a place for those who work in the Democratic Party, but find it a mess. It's a place for those who do not want to become neo-conservatives, but share their enthusiasm for democracy as a goal in foreign policy.
Finally, there's another necessary piece a close relationship with trade unionists. There is no Social Democratic community without it, as difficult as that may be in the current environment. Penn is not only a member of the Social Democrats; he is its strongest advocate and greatest activist in the organization.
THE ROLE OF ARGUMENT AND DEBATE
Finally, since argument and debate is at the essence of democracy, below is an excerpt from Fred Siegel's presentation on the sad state of argument and debate in many liberal circles. This is followed by comments from Alexis de Tocqueville and Sidney Hook, one of the19th, the other of the 20th century, whose influence continues.
Fred Siegel, Cooper Union, New York; author, The Prince Of The City: Giuliani, New York And The Genius Of American Life
"If you fail repeatedly, and you are snobbish at the same time, you are not likely to be thought of well. Liberals increasingly cluster in their own neighborhoods and university departments. Their opinions regularly reinforce, and they are not able to make a coherent case outside the circle of their shared assumptions. Many have given up on give-and-take political debate. Try going to a Manhattan dinner party and having a serious argument about anything. Their positions are typically posed in language either of feelings, I don't feel that that's right, or I have a right to do that, and that's the end of the discussion."
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America.
"This ceaseless agitation that democratic government introduces into politics then spreads to civil society. I am not sure that in the end, this is not the greatest benefit of democratic government, so that I praise it for more what it causes to be done than for what it does."
Sidney Hook, Reason, Social Myths, and Democracy.
"The healthy zest arising from conflict and interchange of ideas and personal taste in a free society is a much more fruitful experience than the peace of dull, dead uniformity.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL OUR READERS.
The next issue of Notesonline will contain more conference excerpts.
As always, we look for to hearing from you about items that you think deserve mention.
What Is Notesonline?
Notesonline is an electronic bulletin of news
and information for the social democratic community.
Dick Wilson, Rita Freedman and Vicki Thomas are the temporary volunteer editors of Notesonline
and are responsible for its contents and errors.
To update your own e-mail address, or to be taken off
our list, e-mail us at vickithomas@comcast.net.
We are eager to add to our list the names and e-mail
addresses of individuals who share our outlook and
might appreciate this bulletin.
As always, Notesonline is grateful for contributions
readers make to defray our costs. Please make
your tax-deductible check payable to The League
for Industrial Democracy, and mail it to: 1925 K Street, NW, Ste 401, Washington, DC 20006