Customer Reviews

Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Bernard Henri-Levy has a stellar reputation as a public intellectual in France; there is probably no domestic equivalent. Having read several of his articles, all of which were interesting, well-written and informative, I eagerly anticipated this book. I was greatly disappointed.

First, the book is written in a choppy and affected style. Perhaps in an effort to expand an essay-sized work into a book-length item, many paragraphs consist of single sentences. Worse, the sentence structure is annoying. Like this. And maybe also this. Perhaps this. Too. Get it?

Second, in what I assume must be a dazzling display of erudition, BHL name-drops galore. Just about every major and plenty of minor writers, opinion-makers, philosophers and arcane French intellectuals appear throughout the book. For no clear reason. I think.

Third, the elliptical threads of reasoning make the book hard to follow. I was simply baffled by BHL's continued allegiance to "the Left" after he took such pains to demonstrate it's manifest shortcomings. Of course, this rests on his definition of "the Left". That seems to encompass Enlightenment and secular ideals, empathy, a principled stance on anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, a frank characterization of political Islam; in other words, a gumbo of high-minded postures that are not unique to any particular political tendency. At least as far as I can tell. I suppose.

Fourth, his pivot point is the May, 1968 French demonstrations. Exactly why this should serve as the defining occurrence in relatively recent French Leftist tendencies was not made apparent. It seems, in some manner, to feature anti-authoritarian elements. But. Who knows?

Finally, the book has a distinctly parochial tendency. The opening segment on why BHL could not possibly vote for Sarkozy was fine, but not especially germane to the non-French citizen. I guess.

On the other hand, BHL does make some outstanding points and occasionally states them quite lucidly, for example his characterization of the general "world view" of The Left: "We are in a world in which, on the one hand, we have the United States, its English poodle, its Israeli lackey -- a three-headed gorgon that commits all the sins in the world -- and, on the other side, all those who, no matter what their crimes, their ideology, their treatment of their own minorities, their internal policies, their anti-Semitism and their racism, their disdain for women and homosexuals, their lack of press freedom and of any freedom whatsoever, are challenging the former."

In conclusion, this was not the profound indictment of the politically correct, intellectually befuddled, ideologically-driven and distracted Left that I had expected from the book's subtitle: "A Stand Against the New Barbarism". While it serves as a reminder of the very long catalogue of Leftist mistakes (ranging from "fellow-traveler" support of Uncle Joe Stalin to subsequent support of the USSR/Gulag State to impassioned identification with The Great Helmsman, Chairman Mao), it fails in it's presumed purpose.

I bought it the other night when BHL debated Zizek (and won, hands down!) and read it in two nights. But I'll have to think about for weeks.
It's hard to imagine a reader so closed-minded and parochical that he or she would not be totally fascinated by the opening scenes of this book: presidential candidates wooing a philosopher, the philosopher forced to question his deepest convictions and take a stand, the unease at seeing his own political allies follow their worst not their best instincts. The drama is there even if you don't know a Sarkozy from a Chirac--but of course we all do know a Sarkozy from a Chirac!
After the initial drama, the two-thirds of the book devoted to the traps that liberal-progressive politics has laid for itself in the current "dark times" of dictatorships, Islamist fanaticism, ethnic cleansing and genocides, etc., is really provocative. There is so much to argue with here, for AND against. It's making me rethink what we all mean when we glibly call the U.S. an Empire. Is that a genuine analysis or just a slogan that gives people an alibi for ignoring anything they can't blame on America--like Darfur--or for sympathizing with a rightist-disguised-as-a-leftist like Chavez just because he is anti-American?
BHL makes a very troubling argument that if a new anti-Semitism takes hold in the world it will be under the banner of progressive ideology not reactionary ideology. Very scary. Really worth thinking about. He's a leftist quite unlike anything we are seeing in today's political debates and blogosphere.

Like many of those on the sane Left Bernard Henri- Levy has become disturbed with the strange alliance of the Left with the neo- Fascists, the xenophobic, the American bashers, the Anti- Semites, the preachers of Radical Islam. The Left's abandonment of traditional values and allies is considered here by a writer who has shown not simply integrity in thought, but courage in action. Henri- Levy is one of the few well- known thinkers living today who is also a journalist in the best sense of the world, one who goes and covers the territory. He does this when its the friendly territory of the United States , and also when its the potentially hostile territory of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is here I think especially lucid in analyzing the Left's Anti- Semitism which expresses itself as showing repulusion towards the one democratic state in the Middle East, Israel and currying favor with Radical Islam.
As a person of the Left Henri- Levy particularly feels distressed at being abandoned by those who are his true intellectual home. But he makes an effort here to point out the way to a new sane Left, one as much concerned with Equality and Social Justice as he himself is.

Bernard Henri-Levy has a problem politically. He doesn't agree with the mainstream left but he cannot bring himself to migrate to the political right. He is searching in the book for some alternative. The unstated irony is that he is traveling down a century old road intellectually which has always led to the same destination which is some form of Fascism.

Henri-Levy wants to combine the social justice and economic program of the left with the xenophobic nationalism and militarism of the right. In trying to do that, he runs in circles in the book because he is never quite willing to accept where his conclusions would honestly lead.

The book is poorly written. But I am unable to attribute that writing to the author or a bad translator. So I would tend to give the author the benefit of the doubt and say that it was poorly translated. What cannot be excused however is the gossipy name-dropping style parts of the book are written in. Its as if the author thinks that he can an intellectual weight to the book by association to others. But for those, like me, on the outside of the walled garden of French intellectuals, it has the opposite effect.

In the core of the book, he runs himself in circles. He must be part of the left because of history, personal associations and so on. But he ultimately rejects the Enlightenment and secularism in favor of nationalism and xenophobia. He somehow can't see that you can't praise the left for its strong stand on anti-semitism as a core belief while saying at the same time the left must accept a anti-arab/anti-islamic point of view which in principle isn't all that different.

His view is that everything went wrong on the left in 1968. But thats ironic in the sense that the author, as part of the Nouveaux philosophes in France rejected the pre-1968 left in France as well. The author is somewhat trapped in looking for a golden age of the left in France that doesn't seem to have existed at least in his way of thinking.

And while he may be correct in saying that the anti-American/anti-Israel view of the institutional left is dishonest and unproductive, his view of re-making the world through wars led by the United States has its own substantial flaws. And the problem the author has in terms of Israel is that, like many, while he wants to be the good man of the left at home, he is a man of the far right in Israel. He could not vote for a rightest candidate in France, but he would be absolute in his support for the right in Israel. But that contradiction, like many, is not up for discussion.

In the end, the book serves more as a catalog of the author's deep political confusion and unresolved internal contradictions than it does as an indictment of the left. Henri-Levi is ultimately unhappy with both left and right. But combining the economic plan of the left with xenophobia, nationalism and foreign wars would land him at Fascism which he would seem to know (at some level) is an unacceptable answer.

The best answer he could come to would be to reject both the nonsense foreign policy views of the left and militarism/nationalism as a way of solving problems. He could be critical of crticism of Israel without falling into the trap of aligning himself with the far right in Israel or denoucing all critics of Israel as anti-semites. But those are conclusions beyond the intellectual reach of the author at present. And so he (and his readers) are left to wander with him in circles....

Don't know what audience he wrote this book for but it wasn't for me. Wordy and seems he was writing for himself. I only read a couple of chapters.

Inspired to read some of Levy's work because of his involvement in Libya - especially that President Sarkozy was convinced to act by Levy's encouragement - I found this for 1 penny plus postage. I suspect it would have been better in French. Who knows what has been lost in translation? Not because of the translator but because of the process itself. English is not French of course. Authors sing best in their own language. But in general I found his essays to focus on European events and history (doh!) that have little meaning to me - to my own chagrin of course. His critiques strike me as full of the lack of pragmatic awareness of things we find in authors like Jared Diamond or Francis Fukuyama - or even Christopher Hitchens. The most important aspect of reading this was becoming aware of all the things I was not before. Sorry if this is not very helpful! But he is important - and has really great hair. So I should be aware of his point of view and how so much of Europe may be in agreement with him. But further, reading this (admittedly already years old) and comparing it with other European thought - such as that of Zizek "Living in the End Times" leads me on an enquiry to find out why European thought seems so negative at the beginning of this century. By contrast books like David Brooks' "The Social Animal" are wonderfully positive.

In some respects, in 'Left In Dark Times' Bernard-Henri Levy has performed a similar service to George Orwell - to provide a critique of the political left's toleration of, and at times enthusiastic acceptance of, totalitarian thought, practice and personalities from a centre-left or social democratic perspective. Levy is not quite Orwell, however, and perhaps a better comparison is with his near-contemporary Christopher Hitchens. As with Hitchens' writing, here Levy poses some excellent challenges for the left today, together with a (admittedly limited and somewhat conditional) 'mea culpa' for personal support for (or ambivalence to) illiberal movements of the left (or otherwise approved of by the left, such as various Arab or Islamist movements or regimes). While I disagree with his conclusions, his argument defending his identification with the left of centre and it's consistency with individual liberty is passionate and a useful contribution to social democratic thought, while his defence of religion (of whatever stripe) as a matter of individual conscience and enlightenment while decrying its use as a vehicle for intolerance or violence is considerably more nuanced, reflective and humane than Hitchens' somewhat absolutist atheism. Levy's recognition that the US is ultimately a vigorous and important vehicle for individual liberty and human dignity - even when significant criticism of US policy or domestic conditions are possible - is a useful corrective to the reflexive anti-Americanism of assorted Chomsky's, Pinter's and Fisk's - even if his own dismissal of Bush appears to owe more to an offended stylistic sensibility than substantive criticism of policy.

There are quite a few jarring notes, however. Perhaps the circular and indirect style reflects a particular Francophone style (although Camus never seemed to have this problem), or is it a matter of imprecise translation? While one would expect a book by a self-described French philosopher to focus on the arguments and personalities of French intellectual life, he is inclined to make too much of their importance - and his own. Who else could think that Levy's references to the important speech made by Levy - or the little-known magazine founded by Levy - were really profound or pivotal moments that significantly influenced western thought or policy? While his self-regard and self-certainty is of the same order of magnitude as that of Hitchens, he has not been quite as reflective in abandoning his tribal loyalty to the left rather than repositioning his personal allegiances to amongst fellow liberals and democrats from the centre-left to the centre-right (which would seem to be the logical destination of his arguments, even if he personally remained firmly on the centre-left). This centre-right reader certainly tired of his apologia of centre-leftists who continued to flirt with the illiberal (such as Segolene Royal's Socialists) while never quite bringing himself to admit that right-of-centre personalities and ideas were at least equally as important to the Enlightenment, the defeat of Nazism, or the collapse of the Soviet Union as those of the left. His inability to recognise anything other than xenophobes or plutocrats on the right detracts from otherwise thoughtful arguments and encourages him to take excessive comfort in left-of-centre tribalism - as a consequence the book speaks far less persuasively to any reader even slightly right of centre than it could otherwise.

Recommended? Readers of a leftist persuasion should find resonant arguments to support a social democratic position while eschewing the extreme, although the moderate right will probably find it less compelling. Enthusiasts and apologists for authoritarianism of the Right, Left (or any other backward-looking direction) could benefit from reading it as well, although I fear the final product is neither clear, rigorous or persuasive enough the convince the latter of their error.

If for nothing else, this book makes a strong argument for universalism which I believe is too often ignored by the Left. Many professional colleagues or friends are unwilling to hold Arab countries accountable for human rights violations. They justify this position by stating that we can't impose our values on these cultures or we aren't perfect so how can we criticize others. Levy deftly decimates both these arguments. In addition he captures the inherent contradiction in their stance. Many people who identify as being on the Left, which is where I put myself, say that it is wrong (absolutely wrong) to murder people because of their race, sex, religion, nationality, criminal activity, etc. When you exempt groups from adhering to this standard based on cultural relativism you are really saying that cultures are inferior or backward. This is a greater insult to those culture than saying as Levy does, that there are no "good" or "bad" cultures, rather there are some cultures that have very bad elements that should be changed. I found this book comforting because helped me to understand my discomfort with the Left as I experience it everyday.

Seldom have I finished so poorly written a book. Yet, I agree with most of this "stand against the new barbarism." Lévy's fame as a public intellectual, coupled perhaps with his French good looks and penchant for celebrity, may lure readers. Yet, for we foreigners less than 'au courant' with Francophone politics, leftist history, and critical feuds among the intelligentsia, this may bewilder you as often as it instructs, alarms, or frustrates you about the "lyrical Left vs. the melancholy Left." The pun of the title? The original French title is absent from the copyright page, intriguingly.

I'm unsure if Benjamin Moser's translation's to blame, or the original text; full of periodic sentences that qualify themselves, swerve, veer, and hesitate, it reminded me of Céline's elliptical prose if not his politics. For, Lévy's bent on correcting the defiant direction of a neo-progressive Left determined to hate America, despise Britain, and especially denounce Israel, the Jewish people, and Zionism. In the current tendency of many on the Left to diminish suffering in Darfur, acclaim the shouts of "one Jew, one bullet" from the streets of Durban, and defend Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and Al Qaeda against Western democracies trying to stop "Fascislamism," Lévy strives to remind us of the legacy of the Left. He loves freedom, rationalism, and tolerance, He fears an alliance with those forces and their tenured and pampered advocates who defend despots and fanatics who persist in a twisted refusal to criticize any regime or faction-- as long as they hate the U.S.

It takes him forever to move beyond from his prefatory chat with Sarkozy that ticked him off. Apparently, the French leader's too mealy-mouthed when it comes to standing up for true liberalism. Lévy has an annoying habit of stating "not to mention" and "I won't get into the case of" and then digressing about exactly that. This attitude may work in person, or on a talk show, but on paper, it rankles me.

Lévy seeks, despite stylistic infelicities, to redress rhetorical and practical damage done by his colleagues in universities, the press, and in the trenches. They parrot the same short list of grievances. This may have made a better series of articles-- for in the press he relishes thrusting and parrying-- than a book. Like many pundits weighing in on current events, this screed may have a short shelf life. Or, it may prove a prescient warning. While I do not agree with all that Lévy asserts, he does remind us of how inconsistent, contrary, hateful, and foolish the cant of the pampered Left can be no less than the often-castigated Right.

However, when it comes to the "'cosmopolitan establishment of bankers and business lawyers' that dominate America," (128) I do not think as he alludes that this phrase masks antisemitism. Given the fallout from the Wall Street and mortgage bailouts that happened since this book was published last year, Lévy's assumption that this betrays some leftist phrasing equal to a far-right scoundrel appears doubtful. He seems too trusting throughout this book in altruistic intentions of global capital, the free market, and the lack of government regulation of commerce, He tends to ignore the job losses, ecological damage, and cultural conflicts that the market system cannot exactly extricate itself from, or claim only free choice as the market's impact. I know he has striven to promote moral causes, but he does appear rather naive in his defense of the inevitable capitalist triumph that he commends.

Lévy's best when defining the "four pillars of totalitarianism": the worship of the Absolute, the devotion to Dialectic, the obeisance to History, and the embrace of Evil. He aligns these on the far-Left with anti-semitism's three contemporary manifestations: the elevation of the Palestinian cause above all other oppressions by "competition among victims"; Holocaust denial or at least revisionism; and the determination to destroy Israel, and erase Zionism, which cloak, half-masked, the hatred of Jews themselves. He tracks the Nazi-fascist ties of many Middle Eastern parties, the persistence of "Elders of Zion" and "Secret Relationship" slave-trade libels among many ideologues, and the facile soundbite bromides vs. the private scurrilous prejudice peddled by many activists as public intellectuals-- in the East and the West-- purporting to advance a pluralist Islamic or Third World nationalism.

Haunted by his country's own Vichy collaboration and cognizant of the French who today wish to distort such capitulation to fascism and hatred, Lévy suggests we take on "Fascislamism" without dragging denial of Israel's right to exist into every debate; he reminds us that terrorism does not rely on the Zionist state for its current attacks. Palestine's marginal, a convenient symbol, but hardly even to compare with Kashmir when it comes to a jihadist's savage holy land to conquer. For too long, Lévy finds, the West tolerates bigots who would censor our cartoons, burn our embassies, kill those who do not adhere to one version of one creed, or plot to murder soldiers, civilians, innocents in the name of an intolerant one-world rule.

By separating beliefs from politics, Lévy seeks restoration of the Western balance. Tolerance rather than sectarianism, respect rather than belligerence, and maturity to get along with those with whom one disagrees: simple ideals, still hard to follow for so many who in the misguided genuflection to tolerance permit hatred to flourish. He separates "Judeo-Christian" from "Western," by the way. He finds that liberal principles rest on the autonomy of the individual subject within the public space constructed to allow inhabitants full expression of the "right of a body not to be tortured" but to obtain human rights, democracy, and mutual respect given and taken.

In the recovery of the secular Enlightenment, people everywhere can advance, Lévy argues, towards universal, inalienable, and identical rights for everyone. America may have revolted first to assert these rights, and they did spring first from Europe, but freedom deserves now to be the legacy of people everywhere. These ideals are beyond colonialism, and untethered now to imperialism. "Ideas, too, have no borders. European or not, the idea that an adulterous woman shouldn't be stoned to death is an idea worth universalizing." (193) "We can love a civilization and try to make it even more habitable, more breathable, for its inhabitants: that's the positive lesson from Europe." (199) "We have to imagine happy atheists." (211)

(P.S. This reminded me often of Oriana Fallaci's post-9/11 diatribe against Islamism, "The Rage and the Pride," also reviewed by me on 8-1-09.)

Part autobiography, part political essay & part ideological polemic, Left In Dark Times is a survey of this prominent leftwing French intellectual's political roots, a look at old & new varieties of authoritarianism and a plea for a fresh moral vision. Having observed the mindless and juvenile parroting of consensus ideas by the Stepford Left, he analyzed the development of Leftist thought, identifying the four pillars of its current manifestation as:

(a) Indifference to suffering using the excuse of relativism (b) A perverted notion of tolerance that excuses any type of barbarity perpetrated by non-Western cultures (c) Irrational & obsessive Anti-Americanism articulated in a juvenile & oddly uniform manner (d) Anti-Zionism which is the New Antisemitism, the favorite pastime of the parasites from the rubbish dumps of the planet that infest transnational bodies like the United Abominations.

Much of the book concerns French politics as Lévy struggles to justify his attachment to the term "left." I found this quest totally overwrought & pointless. He is attached to a certain romantic vision of this ideology but for most it brings to mind Stalin, Pol Pot and yes, the National SOCIALISTS of Germany - murderous collectivists all of them. He however redeems himself with unique insights & unusual perspectives on other issues.

Since the implosion of the Soviet Empire, the resentment of Western Leftists has consumed them to the point of rejecting Enlightenment values. The convenient scapegoats Israel & the USA are demonized as a matter of course whilst the most savage, cruel & barbaric regimes are excused merely because they oppose the West, or their atrocities utterly ignored. Amongst those he mentions is the mediocre playwright Harold Pinter who defended the butcher Slobodan Milosevic. Fur further evidence, check out The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion.

A very shrewd observation of his is that the collapse of Communism has obscured the evidence of its crimes, permitting certain apologists, predominantly academia's tenured termites in the humanities, to start nurturing that deadly dystopian dream again. Amongst these are also found the supporters of thugs like Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Putin and hardcore Islamists.

Lévy diagnoses European anti-Americanism as "power envy", resentment at having been liberated and protected by the USA plus the conspiracy theory of a Zionist cabal controlling the country - the latest version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This is common to both the Left & Far Right, not only in Europe but in the USA too, lest we forget Patrick Buchanan & the grinning peanut Jimmy Carter.

Lévy shows how (his) Left's ideals of sympathy for the oppressed and striving for justice have been replaced by hatred; how its body is being consumed by pathogens that grow by devouring what little remains of the good. Its intellectual bankruptcy & practical failure everywhere have turned Leftism into the champion of nihilism. (There was nowhere left to go).

Leftists despise (Classical) Liberalism - here to be understood as individual freedom - and the Enlightenment that gave birth to it. That is why they embrace collectivists of all stripes, from Baathist Fascists like Saddam to Fanatical Jihadists like Ahmadinejad to terrorists like Hezbollah, as Mr Wormtongue himself, the Pol Pot fan Noam Chomsky has done. On the international stage the most visible manifestation is an emerging gas cartel which might encompass China, Russia, Belarus, the Turkic states of Central Asia, Venezuela, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries - a new Axis of Evil. More recently, in his book The New Anti-Semitism: The Globalisation of the Oldest Hatred Denis MacShane has suggested that antisemitism has become a component part of international politics, a global export industry with an impact on geopolitics which the West underestimates at its great peril.

Lévy proposes a new vision based on a commitment to fight the new barbarism which is spreading worldwide. His warnings and sentiments have already been raised by an array of respectable writers on that side of the political spectrum, for example in the book A Matter of Principle edited by Thomas Cushman. I am afraid Lévy will find no takers for his sensible proposals amongst the leftists at media like Le Monde, The Guardian, The New York Times or the BBC. Even just recognizing the link between terrorism and religion is avoided by these & similar media that cannot now reveal their vacuity in judgment as this will further undermine their credibility.

Robert Kagan's The Return of History and the End of Dreams paints a very foreboding picture of the future, one that neither the mass media nor the new US administration will face squarely. But facts stubbornly continue to exist despite being ignored. Left in Dark Times confirms much of what others have already exposed - a global sinisterist convergence between collectivists around the spectrum, united by their hatred of capitalism, individual freedom, Israel & the USA.

I found the author's style slightly jarring in places but that pales besides what he has to say. In 2003 Jean-François Revel raised many similar points to ponder in his witty book Anti-Americanism, arguing that the phenomenon is a squalid psychological need. Another French author that I very highly recommend is Chantal Delsol, in particular her two magnificent works Icarus Fallen and The Unlearned Lessons Of the Twentieth Century. She writes with great empathy and understanding.