The double standards of pro-Palestinian defenders of ‘freedom of _expression_’
In recent days, I have been struck by the way ‘freedom of _expression_’ defending liberals identify a speck in the eye of their generally conservative opponents on the Palestinian issue but are blind to the plank in their own eye, if I may borrow an _expression_ from Matthew on the meaning of hypocrisy.
We have seen in the past week how a House committee hectored the presidents of three leading American universities over the way free speech on campus is being abused to further the Palestinian cause and to make open expressions anti-Semitism acceptable. The media also report on the strong-arm measures that donors to higher education have used to silence free speech on campus by withdrawing financial support to institutions that do not suspend or expel students chanting ‘Palestine from river to sea.’ Recruiters for law firms and other sought-after professional jobs are blacklisting students so identified.
In a prestigious ListServ digest distributed to diplomats and foreign policy experts in Washington a recent article spoke of ‘McCarthyism’ in the way that the powers-that-be seek to root out sympathizers for the Palestinian cause in the Israel-Hamas war.
I share the outrage over the recent flagrant examples of intolerance and denial of the right to a position on the conflict in the Middle East critical of or hostile to Israel’s savage pursuit of ethnic cleansing in Gaza. What I do not share is the belief that this McCarthyism is something new, something recent in American society. And I find it more than ironic that the very same Liberals and Progressives who now plead for free speech on Palestine have themselves been the most intolerant bigots with respect to Russia and its president going back more than 20 years.
I am very pleased that over the past year I have attracted many new subscribers to these pages. However, this obliges me to provide a bit of background on McCarthyism with respect to Russia that I have been writing about all these years. More details are available in my three collections of essays published between 2013 and 2017: Stepping out of Line, Does Russia Have a Future? And Does the United States Have a Future?
*****
From the end of the 1990s, when still on the Yeltsin watch Russia and the United States parted company over the NATO bombing of Serbia and the Kremlin moved out from under a de facto American protectorate, economic warfare with the Kremlin in the energy domain began in earnest. Russia nemesis Zbigniew Brzezinski was enlisted by Madeleine Albright to help set up energy flows to Europe that bypassed Russia. He worked alongside my Harvard classmate Richard Morningstar, who made a fast rising State Department career in the following years as a plotter against Russian gas and oil exports.
In the new millennium, the U.S.- Russia relationship deteriorated sharply following Russia’s joining Germany, France and Belgium in opposition to the planned invasion of Iraq in 2003 that deprived the United States of much-sought UN cover for its forthcoming war of aggression. However, the start of an Information War on Russia that used McCarthyite methods to silence critics of Washington’s Russia policies dates from the spring of 2007. This was the George W. Bush administration’s response to Vladimir Putin’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February of that year during which the Russian President denounced the United States for seeking to maintain world domination and optimizing its own national security and interests at the expense of all others, Russia in particular.
In the years that followed, there was a steady rise in the anti-Russian mood throughout American society that got full encouragement from the White House. I witnessed this mood in higher education during the 2010-2011 academic year, when I was a Visiting Fellow of the Harriman Institute. The Harriman was then the Russian studies center at Columbia University, as it had been from its founding in 1949.
In 2010-2011, the level of anti-Russian hysteria at Columbia was such that at talks and round tables organized by the Institute anyone raising a question about the statements of the hosted, anti-Putin speakers was immediately denounced as a ‘stooge of Putin.’ The level of discourse at this institution of higher learning had even then been reduced to a kindergarten.
The lead-up to the Winter Olympics in Sochi in 2014 gave free rein to the Russia-haters in media coverage of the wild beasts supposedly roaming the shoddily built Olympic Village. But the hysteria was raised to a wholly new level when the February 2014 coup d’état in Kiev placed in power radical Ukrainian nationalists backed by the United States, the Russia-speaking Donbas rebelled and the Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation. Following the MH17 plane crash that summer, never satisfactorily explained thanks to the U.S. withholding critical intelligence data, the American McCarthyite contagion was passed along to Europe to justify heavy economic sanctions being imposed on Russia by the allies on both sides of the Atlantic community.
At this point, in mid-2014, all ‘dissident’ views on Putin and Russia were no longer tolerated in U.S. mainstream media. Professor Stephen Cohen, who had been the darling of the U.S. television broadcasters in the late ‘90s thanks to his closeness to Gorbachev and the liberal West-loving Russian intellectual stratum, now found himself not merely ostracized by colleagues but blacklisted by major media. I know, because we were in regular contact at the time and he talked about it.
To be sure, there were a few rare exceptions to this blackout. One was the voice of University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, who wrote an essay on why the west was to blame for the Ukraine crisis that broke out in the Donbas and for the Russian seizure of Crimea. His article was published in Foreign Affairs magazine in the autumn 2014 issue and created a storm of critical letters to the editor from the foreign policy establishment. A video of his lecture on the same subject posted on youtube by the University of Chicago in 2015 went viral. It is still accessible and has been viewed by more than 29 million visitors to the site.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
However, Mearsheimer’s case was the great exception. He was a West Point graduate. He was not a Russia specialist and was perceived as having no axe to grind. Moreover, he had survived an earlier scandal over his authorship of a book that touched upon the sacred cows which only today may be publicly discussed, and then with great care:
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007), co-authored with Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard
But other academics, especially Russia specialists, were not unsinkable like Mearsheimer, and they chose to be silent, to keep their heads down lest they be summarily fired for exposing themselves as ‘Russian agents.’
The lowest point in freedom of speech with respect to Russia may have come in December 2015. It was then that the daily digest of Russia-related articles distributed by email to American universities and private subscribers, Johnson’s Russia List (JRL) published an issue that consisted of 100% anti-Russian articles. JRL re-publishes only what academics, journalists and other experts publish day by day, and on that day in December there was not a single article on Russia and Putin which was not vituperous or fake news. I wrote about this issue in “A Christmas Present to Russia-Bashers from Johnson’s Russia List.” (Does Russia Have a Future? chapter 12)
By the way, I saw the very same dismal, stultifying anti-Russian form of McCarthyism at work in Germany in 2015 when I was a guest of the SPD (Socialists) think tank conference in the Taunus mountains. I described this in an article entitled “2015 Schlangenbad Dialogue: The East-West Confrontation in Microcosm” in Does Russia Have a Future? (chapter 62).
But, as they say, it is always darkest before dawn, and in the new year 2016 we saw that a thousand flowers bloom with respect to expert literature on Russia. Why? Because that was the year of Donald Trump’s electoral campaign for the presidency. Trump said about Putin, about NATO and other holy of holies what ordinary mortals, not to mention timid by definition academics, dared not say, lest they find themselves out on the street, if not worse. Trump singlehandedly took on the McCarthyites in many domains, of which Russian affairs were just one. Trump did unwittingly and without any regard for intellectual freedom what Elon Musk has consciously sought to do with his takeover of Twitter. Take note: both defenders of free speech were-are Conservatives and the free-speech haters were Liberals-Progressives.
There has, of course, been backsliding towards McCarthyism as it applies to Russian affairs under Biden’s Democratic administration. Witness the whole “cancel Russia” campaign. I note that Columbia’s Harriman Institute is today, for all practical purposes, a center of Ukrainian studies while Russian studies are languishing in a ‘de-colonization’ purge of academics and courses.
To be sure, no one in the States today fears a midnight knock on the door by the Feds for questioning about his or her thoughts on Putin and his Special Military Operation. That cannot be said about Canada, where a certain former diplomat in the country’s Moscow embassy and widely read blogger on Russian affairs in the new millennium named Patrick Armstrong was pressured by intelligence operatives to fall silent ‘or else.’ He took their advice and closed his web platform. But then Canada has never had a Trump at the helm.
In closing, for those who want to read an excellent insider’s account of how The New York Times management has consciously trampled on the principles expressed in the founders’ motto “all the news that’s fit to print” and became, as Steve Cohen wittily said, “all the news that fits” its Progressive Democrat biases, I heartily recommend an essay by the paper’s long time Op Ed page editor James Bennett, “When The New York Times lost its way.” When the New York Times lost its way
|
The complete disregard if not contempt for other sides to an issue is an essential foundation on which today’s McCarthyism is built.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023