Can anyone who has known racial oppression and, with it, a community of color’s endurance, defiance and memory, resist appeals to racial solidarity that foresee freedom in the rise of “the race”? Racial identity may be only a social construct imposed upon people of certain colors and cultures, but for anyone subjected to it, it can become all-defining, the more so if tempered by communal lore and love, and soon it binds everyone it touches. The danger is that the defensive side of racial identity—which insists, “I am excluded, therefore I am”—will incline its bearers to impose past experiences on new possibilities in ways that diminish them. Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School and former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, has tried through his legal scholarship, popular books and, sometimes, activism to reduce that danger. But Kennedy is so frank and exacting about the journey’s difficulties that his road is as demanding as Barack Obama’s campaign trail was. Obama the author has acknowledged some of the same difficulties in his accounts of his journeys in and out of racial constructions, but in Kennedy’s judgment Obama the politician finesses those challenges, often dropping the subject of race as if he could just put it behind him and lead us to… what? A neoliberal promised land where liberty and justice are receding?

If the title of Kennedy’s new book, The Persistence of the Color Line, like those of two of its predecessors, Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal (2008) and Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word (2002), suggests to some readers the work of a “race man,” pretty much the opposite is true. Kennedy doesn’t believe that the persistence of racism is proof of its perpetuity and, with it, racial destiny. He’s quick to spot racialism’s dimming actuarial prospects, noting that although Obama lost the white vote to John McCain, he not only won more of it absolutely and proportionately than had his white Democratic predecessors John Kerry and Al Gore but he “beat John McCain 54 percent to 44 percent among whites under thirty.” When Obama showed in the primaries that he might garner enough white votes to win, “blacks broke toward him in a frenzy and never looked back.”

Kennedy recounts being swept up in the euphoria (and, often, near incredulity) at Obama’s triumph. How could he not have been, knowing African-American history as he has from living it—he was born in South Carolina in 1954 but raised in Washington, DC, after his parents, a postal worker and a teacher, moved there to escape Jim Crow—and from trying to bend its arc toward justice? He was a guest at the inauguration, but even if he had not been invited, he makes clear he wouldn’t have missed being there for the world, carrying as he does the memory and dreams of ancestors and intimates who hadn’t reached this turn in the road. But Obama’s victory moved him more, he realizes, because it was a quintessentially American one. The Republic was taking a big step beyond racialism because “the race” was transcending itself, as Martin Luther King Jr. had envisioned when, forty-five years earlier at the other end of the Mall, he told America about his dream.

Kennedy is well aware that as a tenured professor at Harvard Law he can publicly parse the pros, cons and ironies of transracial strivings as few elected officials can. But Obama, too, has unusual advantages: having found transracialism in infancy and again in adolescence in Hawaii, he married into a South Side Chicago city worker’s family whose circumstances were marked by Jim Crow, thereby claiming an identity he could stand on but reinterpret for himself and others. His embrace of African-American blackness was existential and political more than “essentialist” in the way American constructions of race make it seem. His was an infinitely more “American” embrace in another sense, one that manifested itself in the transracial euphoria in Chicago’s Grant Park on November 4, 2008, and again at the inauguration. Obama’s segue from Hawaii to the South Side reinforced the cosmopolitan, multiracial ethos that Kennedy has long espoused. By dint of Kennedy’s experiences and choices, he’s especially well suited to assess Obama’s complicated affirmation and reinterpretation of an African-American racial identity this country still imposes.

* * *

Kennedy has often insisted that any race is little more than “a conglomeration of strangers.” In a 1996 lecture at Columbia I attended, Kennedy cast a cold eye on the apparent solidarity of the Million Man March (which, as he notes in The Persistence of the Color Line, Obama attended). He asked a less than receptive audience to consider how men who were calling one another “brother” at the march would have responded had someone asked, “Would you be willing to loan $100 to this ‘brother’?” Civic solidarity at Obama’s inaugural; a deficit of it at Louis Farrakhan’s rally. The Persistence of the Color Line is a tour through some of the many similarly dissonant, sometimes dizzying juxtapositions of race consciousness, liberal principle and cool political calculation that have persisted during Obama’s ascent. Kennedy subjects each kind of struggle—racial, liberal, tactical—to the strict scrutiny of the others. He does so with such subtlety, legalistic rigor and respect for the past that die-hard racialists of all colors and ideologues of all stripes will accuse him of coming down on too many sides of controversies whose lines they’ve drawn more sharply.

At a Harvard Law School class I sat in on in 1996, Kennedy challenged students to grant some credibility to police officers’ reasons for stopping black motorists more often than others in some high-crime, high-accident areas. As long as an officer is polite and just checking papers, he asked, why shouldn’t black motorists accept the stop as the price of greater safety for themselves as well as others? Kennedy didn’t tell his class then what he explained to me afterward and now tells readers of this book: his father, whom he likens somewhat to the defiant Rev. Jeremiah Wright, suppressed his rage and was extremely polite to Southern cops who pulled him over, calling him “boy” and demanding to know his destination as he drove his family to visit relatives in South Carolina. Kennedy saw it all, but to test and strengthen the only civic principles that might blunt racism, he provokes himself and others to look beyond personal and collective memory instead of imposing it summarily on the present.

What fascinates him is the paradox of the color line’s persistence amid its seeming implosion: many people on both sides of it seem to like it, or at least act and think as if they couldn’t live without it. He wants to push the envelope of racialist assumptions and risk venturing beyond them, and he’s hardest on those who evade his challenge. He criticizes conservatives who pretend that the only important color is dollar green but keep fiddling with color lines they have imposed in order to shield plutocracy, dividing and co-opting its challengers. Kennedy exempts McCain (though not his advisers) by noting that in 2008 he was “unwilling, on grounds of political morality,” to make an issue of the sermons by Obama’s pastor, Reverend Wright. Kennedy also finds fault with leftists who’ve challenged plutocracy with cries like “Black and white, unite and fight!” yet indulge a “politics of difference” that recapitulates the old divisions. And he faults liberals who’ve done so well by the present system of casino finance and corporate welfare that they can’t be serious about reconfiguring it. Yet they can’t defend it wholeheartedly, either, so they resort to draping it in the raiment of diversity, turning the better universities into cultural gallerias for a colorful global elite.

Kennedy skewers all these parties’ righteous furors over race and pious evasions of it. In Sellout, he provoked liberals by finding much to like in Clarence Thomas’s jurisprudence, acquitting him of racial treason in service to conservatives such as Antonin Scalia. Parsing the 2008 campaign in The Persistence of the Color Line, Kennedy decides in a similarly counterintuitive way that the liberal historian Sean Wilentz, writing for The New Republic, was “tendentious” and “went overboard” when accusing Obama of playing the race card against Hillary Clinton, and that liberal columnists such as Bob Herbert and New Yorker writer Hendrik Hertzberg went too far in accusing Clinton and McCain of playing it when they hadn’t—even though, in other instances, Kennedy finds that they had.

* * *

It takes a while to grasp the method behind the more Solomonic of Kennedy’s judgments. An economic progressive, he disagrees vehemently with most of Thomas’s jurisprudence and agrees often with Wilentz, Herbert and Hertzberg. But he wants to focus on a prize more elusive than a redress of grievances that are defined and brandished racially, and that is even more elusive than any grand progressive strategy. He wants to strengthen a liberal understanding of freedom that, because it’s ultimately individual, even when socially nurtured, can exist only beyond the reach of both race loyalty and the necessary oversimplifications of activists in struggle. True freedom requires a different solidarity, the transracial, civic-republican kind that Kennedy experienced in the inaugural but not in the Million Man March.

Far from wanting to drop the subject of race entirely, Kennedy would like to see Obama tackle frontally the high rates of black unemployment and “the mass-incarceration disaster that…dramatically decreases opportunities for employment, civic engagement, or family life” and “reinforces the stigmatization of African Americans.” He wants Obama to make clear distinctions between practices that produce racial inequities and polemics that produce only an ethno-racial moralism that steers progressive struggles off course: Kennedy has long opposed demands by black nationalists and the National Association of Black Social Workers for extensive restrictions on whites’ adoptions of black infants, and he disdains accusations of racism that are theatrically compelling but collapse under scrutiny.

Obama’s avoidance of race during the overheated, on-edge campaign probably enhanced America’s prospects of tearing down its Berlin Wall of color. Kennedy is not fond of the speech on race, “A More Perfect Union,” that Obama was constrained to give in March 2008 in Philadelphia amid the uproar over Reverend Wright. After parsing the speech at some length, Kennedy concludes that it was tactically successful—and received by Obama’s supporters like manna—because it was banal and evasive in “equating the racial wrongs of whites and blacks,” as Obama the politician bowed to “the formulaic imperative to distribute plaudits and blame equally.” Obama certainly wasn’t telling the whole truth in Philadelphia, but Kennedy thinks that with the candidate’s fate hanging in the balance, the speech mollified opponents and skeptics with bromides. He goes on to explain that for most blacks, it mattered more how Obama presented himself—that he was electable—than whether he had a plan for redress. Here, at last, was a national leader for whom they didn’t have to make excuses of the kind Obama was making for Wright.

Kennedy sounds less conflicted about Obama when he’s dismissing black conservatives such as Shelby Steele, who “was transfixed by the mistaken belief that most whites are racked by a pathological racial guilt that makes them vulnerable to black racial demagogues,” of whom Steele considered Obama a smooth example. And Kennedy is equally critical of black leftists such as Adolph Reed Jr., Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon, who, treating black grievances and assumptions as inherently progressive, condemned Obama for not pressing them. In the eyes of these leftists, Kennedy explains, Obama couldn’t or wouldn’t acknowledge that corporate capitalism relies on racism to justify marginalizing some in order to keep its elusive promises to others. So he offered too easy a way out: having reconfigured race for himself through his biracial provenance and introspection, he turned his odyssey into a national fairy tale. By contrast, Dr. King learned that justice comes only with jobs; when he was assassinated, he was leading a Poor People’s Campaign and defending sanitation workers in Memphis. Obama’s critics lamented that he had no intention of taking such risks.

Kennedy counters that while Reed, Ford and Dixon “rightly insisted on looking beneath the cosmetics of the Obama candidacy to its underlying ideological and programmatic innards,” they offered little but “support for utopian ‘revolution.’” They acted as if “Obama should have been ‘brave’ enough to articulate a platform that would have immediately resulted in his being cripplingly attacked as an irresponsible radical,” and as if “the presidential electoral competition” might be “an irrelevant sham.” Kennedy invokes Amiri Baraka’s warning that “no amount of solipsistic fist-pounding about ‘radical principles’ will change this society as much as the election of Barack Obama.” It was foolish to condemn him when unprecedented opportunities lay within his grasp, even though he’s missed some of them, as critics on the left had feared.

* * *

Kennedy has long resisted hopes that a “politics of difference” and “identity politics” can catalyze major social change. He remains an uncompromising critic of the presumptive historical and communal wisdom of “critical race theorists,” who rocked Harvard Law School in his early years there in the 1980s (and during Obama’s student years there shortly thereafter) by invoking racial knowledge to demand that the school offer tenure to a black woman it had turned down and, more fundamentally, to demand that courts adjust evidentiary and jury-selection standards to give special weight to claims of plaintiffs and defendants of color, who presumably understand best what’s true and at stake in cases involving them. Kennedy would have none of it. He argued in the Harvard Law Review that the very thing the “crits” wanted to tear down—the liberal tradition and the institutions that uphold it—was what had provided a forum for their views and allowed them the chance to earn the attention of others and, perchance, their respect and support.

Similarly, he writes in a nuanced chapter about Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court that she was wrong to express her hope “that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Kennedy notes that Clarence Thomas “famously experienced impoverishment and bigotry. But the lessons he draws hardly evidence ‘a sense of compassion.’” He wishes Obama had fought openly for a political philosophy instead of shadowboxing over Sotomayor’s qualifications and race: “Obama underappreciates…that sometimes a political leader can win in the long run by pushing a position (or an appointment) that loses in the short run. Ronald Reagan lost the battle over Robert Bork. But in waging that struggle for judicial conservatism, Reagan won a larger battle by showing fidelity to principle and loyalty to supporters.”

In contrast, Kennedy laments that “Obama’s much-vaunted pragmatism degenerates at key moments into sheer expediency, facilitating default on the difficult task of promoting progressive policies” by failing to stand up and fight, especially when pursuing justice demands recognizing racist practices. He doubts “that Obama will expend much political capital addressing America’s shameful penal policies” because, as “a professional politician first and last,” Obama is “willing to adopt, jettison, or manipulate positions as evolving circumstances require…. I demand that he be a president who governs as progressively as circumstances will allow.” Here Kennedy tries to join cool political calculation to liberal principles and consciousness of race. I think that he succeeds.

I’d want Kennedy on the bench were I or any other imperfect citizen in the dock, because he takes his bearings from the law’s demand for rigorous specificity in determining what’s true, even as he draws extralegally on historical experiences that remind him that no person can be purely liberal; all of us are raised in communities that cultivate public virtues (or don’t) in our formative years, among trusted (or untrustworthy) intimates who share with us resonant languages and narratives of hope or despair. Kennedy touches this truth memorably in the chapter “Reverend Wright and My Father,” and it tempers his insights throughout the book; but he doesn’t let it carry him as far as critical race theorists would.

If some of Obama’s critics feared that his election would deprive blackness of its prophetic, even angelic qualities, many more on the other side of the color line feared that it would bring to power an ethos destructive of America as they understand it. But to see black Americans running governments, military machines and multinational corporations is to see the angels of blackness withdraw along with the demons. It is to surrender white condescension along with contempt. Kennedy would have us do that and face up to freedom’s more fundamental republican challenges. He agrees with the left that Obama hasn’t shown us how to face up to them, but he credits Obama with showing that a politics based on racial grievance or paroxysm will never hit the moving target of plutocracy.

EYE OF THE BEHOLDER DEPARTMENT

Whitmore Lake, Mich.

What’s with those soulless zombie eyes in the November 26 issue? Steve Brodner’s caricatures are hideous! I couldn’t believe they were illustrating essays that were endorsing the candidates. The issue itself, however, was spectacular.

TRAVIS ROY

New York City

What a delight it was to see Steve Brodner’s caricatures of the candidates on your cover. Each one was dead on, and marvelously witty. Really remarkable.

EDWARD SOREL

HOLD THE SEQUINS

New York City

Graham Usher, in “Musharraf’s Emergency” [Nov. 26], writes that Benazir Bhutto “wears the soul of Pakistan like a sequined gown.” I’m all for colorful writing, and this is definitely the memorable phrase in a rather gray piece, but what does it mean? When I see photos of Bhutto, she is wearing nonrevealing robes and a headscarf. Does she have a secret life as a Cosmo cover girl? Does the soul of Pakistan, whatever that is, long to fling off its traditional garb and go to the Oscars? Is Usher saying that Pakistanis are as mesmerized by Bhutto’s claim to represent their aspirations as a pop star’s fans are drawn to her sultry, but tawdry, beauty? Or is his point that Bhutto has taken something organic and profound–the soul of Pakistan–and transmuted it into something Western and self-dramatizing? Are sequined gowns bad or good? Whatever, Bhutto has enough to answer for without being saddled with sexualizing metaphors.

KATHA POLLITT

CIVILIZED VERSUS SAVAGE

Vienna, Va.

Re “Voting for Torture” [Nov. 26]: since refusal to recognize waterboarding as torture seems acceptable in our Pax Americana, I suggest revisiting history. After the Spanish-American War, hearings before Henry Cabot Lodge’s Senate Committee on the Philippines, in 1902, caused national outrage when brutality by some US officers and soldiers was revealed. Witnesses testified on widespread use of the “water cure” developed by priests during the Inquisition. “His suffering must be that of a man who is drowning but who cannot drown.” President Theodore Roosevelt was outraged, too: “Great as the provocation has been in dealing with the foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder and torture against our men, nothing can justify…the use of torture or inhuman conduct…on the part of the American Army.”

DON W. LONG

SMILE WHEN YOU CALL ME PRE-EMPTIVE

New York City

In “Hawking War Guilt” [Nov. 12], Jim Sleeper carelessly includes me in a list of journalists who, before the Iraq War began, “struck pre-emptively at many who foresaw reruns of the Vietnam War’s trumped-up pretexts, overkill and quagmires.” He doesn’t cite specifics, and in my case he can’t, because I never did strike “pre-emptively” at anyone, except those who thought the war was a good idea. In fact, I praised Al Gore in Slate for his excellent antiwar speech in October 2002 and, as a brand-new columnist for Time in 2003, was extremely skeptical about the war. I foolishly expressed grudging support for the war once on Meet the Press on the eve of the invasion, but I never wrote anything in support of the war or against those who opposed it.

JOE KLEIN

SLEEPER REPLIES

New Haven, Conn.

Joe Klein is half right. He voiced doubts about the war during the run-up and so doesn’t belong on my list of pundits who “struck pre-emptively” at dissenters. But he leapt to triumphalist nation-building when Saddam’s statue fell and has been thin-skinned ever since about his boosterism for what he now calls a disaster born of others’ arrogance and stupidity.

Wasn’t it Klein’s responsibility to call it that earlier? Google “Joe Klein” and “anti-war,” though, and see a man who cannot stop excoriating the supposed strategic follies of a “left” that actually was powerless and whose members he never names. For instance, he replies to criticism in Huffington Post in 2006, “What I actually said was ‘the hate America tendency of the [Democratic Party’s] left wing’ had made it harder for Democrats to challenge Republicans on foreign policy.” Klein’s writhing exasperation with the left (which I sometimes share) is a pivotal default position for him, his way of ducking the hazards of being a pundit who cannot bear to be wrong.

Where he does belong, as I reported, is among those who not only can’t acknowledge their responsibility but applauded Peter Beinart, who did strike pre-emptively at dissenters and continues to do so in a book Klein coronated in the New York Times.

JIM SLEEPER

STANDING AGAINST JEWISH MCCARTHYISM

Berkeley, Calif.

Thank you for Larry Cohler-Esses’s “The New McCarthyism” [Nov. 12]. That an editor of Jewish Week is standing up to the enemies of academic freedom is a sign that more and more Jews are sick of the intimidation of people, on and off campuses, deemed to fall outside the narrow range of acceptable discourse about Israel.

In Connecticut a Palestinian dance troupe performance is canceled. In New York the United Jewish Appeal Federation withdraws its support from a film festival about Israel’s Arab citizens. In Sacramento a Jewish publication refuses to advertise a book tour by Dr. Alice Rothchild, author of Broken Promises, Broken Dreams: Jewish and Palestinian Trauma and Resilience. On and on it goes.

All these stories are followed on Muzzlewatch (www.muzzlewatch.org), a project of Jewish Voice for Peace (www.jvp.org). It is a must-read for those standing up for open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy.

HENRI PICCIOTTO, chair
JVP National Board

THE CAPTION, THE NAME & THE 501(c) 3,4

The caption for the photo above Jonathan Schell’s “A Colder War” [Dec. 10] misidentifies it as the first meeting between Gorbachev and Reagan, at the Geneva Summit in 1985, instead of as their meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland, in 1986.

In the same issue, in Laila Lalami’s “Beyond the Veil,” the last name of Joan Wallach Scott was given as Wallach Scott. It should have been merely Scott.

Re Ari Berman’s “The War Comes to Iowa” [Dec. 17]: Iowans for Sensible Priorities did not endorse John Edwards; its 501(c)4, Caucus4Priorities, did. Similarly, John Nichols’s piece on Joe Biden [Nov. 26], mentions ratings put out by a 501(c)3, Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It cannot rate candidates, but other groups do, based on its information.

One of the most dispiriting causes of the biggest strategic blunder in American history may be the least understood: from the run-up to the Iraq War in 2002 until at least the 2006 elections, it wasn’t the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters who stampeded the chattering classes and liberal audiences toward our still-unfolding disaster. It was the “best” thinkers, writing in the New York Times Book Review and The New Republic, who cued the orchestra of high-minded opinion to play a medley of half-truths and hosannas in support of the war.

There had been nothing like it since John Dewey and The New Republic supported America’s entry into World War I to “make the world safe for democracy”–a liberal intervention that won militarily but unleashed humanity’s darkest disasters. The Iraq venture, too, has been backed by Wilsonian “tough liberals” fighting a “good fight” for democracy. Now they’re trying to shift the burden of responsibility to dissenters, whom the war hawks marginalized so fully that they relieved them of any responsibility at all.

Before the first shot in the Iraq War was fired, its intellectual supporters–future Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus (then a contributing editor at Vanity Fair), New Republic editor Peter Beinart and literary editor Leon Wieseltier; and writers Paul Berman, Richard Brookhiser, David Brooks, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Ignatieff, Joe Klein, George Packer and Jacob Weisberg–struck pre-emptively at many who foresaw reruns of the Vietnam War’s trumped-up pretexts, overkill and quagmires.

The Iraq War would be different, its enthusiasts insisted, invoking the cautionary specter of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler in 1938 but never the equally ill-fated liberal war fevers of 1914. By the time Paul Bremer had to be spirited secretly out of the Green Zone, no antiwar movement or Congress had forced the United States to “fight with one hand tied behind our back,” as Vietnam warriors had charged. No Jane Fonda had visited a Middle Eastern Hanoi to aid and comfort the enemy. The Iraq War’s masterminds and cheerleaders had done all that themselves. (Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, for example, claimed the war’s aftermath would require only 75,000 US troops and $16 billion a year, and he accused dissenters of harming the democracy crusade, even after Abu Ghraib guards, not war critics, had demoralized the effort.)

Yet intellectual hawks’ assaults on leftists and liberals intensified in the Times Book Review and The New Republic. It was easy enough to condemn protesters who consider Islamist terrorists just anti-imperialists in a hurry and who ignore Norman Thomas’s admonition not to burn the American flag but to wash it. But even the silliest protests were reactive, not causal, to the storm of intimidation and lies.

As storm damage rose, the Times‘s Tanenhaus published a steady stream of put-downs of dissenters. Some critics were simply ignored: Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason wasn’t reviewed; nor was former Harvard College dean Harry Lewis’s Excellence Without a Soul, which argues that liberal education at Lawrence Summers’s Harvard was compromised by too much money, power and public relations. Others received prissy put-downs, as has Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman’s The Conscience of a Liberal in the October 21 Book Review. His The Great Unraveling, too, got condescending treatment, from Peter Beinart, in May 2003. Not all reviews of “political” books were unfair. But more typically we’ve had Berman sneering at Francis Fukuyama’s apostasy from neoconservatism, Brooks lampooning an academic psychologist for urging Democrats to get tough, Klein coronating Beinart’s term-paperish The Good Fight, Henry Kissinger coronating himself in a review about Dean Acheson and Brookhiser ruling that Hendrik Hertzberg’s time had passed.

Some of the reviews staged anthropologically perfect re-enactments of the Salem witch trials, which enlisted prominent opinion-makers of their time to identify scapegoats for a community’s sins and fears. The intellectual hawks, displacing their own terrors onto the left, fell into the arms of a dysfunctional militarism, without, of course, ever bearing arms themselves or, in most cases, even visiting Iraq.

Beinart greeted Krugman’s The Great Unraveling in the Book Review by announcing that “most Americans do not consider the Bush Administration corrupt, and Paul Krugman cannot convincingly prove it is.” Even when Beinart admitted, in The Good Fight, that he’d been wrong about the war, he leapt to cast Michael Moore as a greater danger to the Republic than Karl Rove. Tanenhaus assigned Beinart’s book to the peripatetic journalist Klein, once a biographer of Woody Guthrie, later a scourge of the left, now Time magazine’s apostle of civic virtue.

As Iraq fell apart, the Book Review became a neoconservative damage-control gazette, where Beinart atoned by hustling the embarrassing Norman Podhoretz’s World War IV offstage. His sniffing that Podhoretz writes as if “dodging I.E.D.’s on his way to Zabar’s” only highlighted the smallness of their differences.

No less embarrassing was the sophistical David Brooks, sometimes mentioned as liberals’ favorite conservative. Writing for a Yale student publication in 2002, he’d chided those who feared that “if we try to champion democracy in Iraq we will only screw it up.” Two years later, as we did screw it up, Brooks was writing, “Come on people, let’s get a grip.” By 2006 he was urging Americans to meet “savagery” with savagery in Iraq, where insurgents “create an environment in which it is difficult to survive if you are decent.” His scapegoats included supporters of Ned Lamont’s Senate race in Connecticut against Joe Lieberman–nihilists who “tell themselves that their enemies are so vicious they have to be vicious too.” In August, in a review for Tanenhaus of Drew Westen’s The Political Brain, Brooks lampooned liberal academics as would-be coup plotters.

Paul Berman, reviewing for Tanenhaus the ex-war hawk Francis Fukuyama’s second thoughts about neoconservatism, succumbed to his own obsessions with war critics. Trying to distinguish between Fukuyama’s neo-Wilsonianism and his own finer visions of apocalyptic struggle, Berman became diverted by his detractors: “The Nation has become The Weekly Purge,” he complained, meaning that it was holding the war’s deep thinkers accountable for its costs.

Berman is now shuttling in and out of the Times Book Review and Wieseltier’s literary section of The New Republic, which has become a halfway house for penitent hawks. Too full of himself for penitence, Berman devoted 28,000 words there last spring to the insidious Islamo-fascism in Western common rooms, with a snide aside about a supposed enabler, New York Review of Books contributor Ian Buruma. Berman attacked in his familiar faux-French, faux-simple style, an intellectual’s equivalent of “What part of that sentence don’t you understand?”

That only recalled Wieseltier’s own diatribe of August 2004, in Tanenhaus’s Times Book Review, against a novel by Nicholson Baker about a man who wants to kill President Bush because of the war. Wieseltier departed from the novel to excoriate liberals for demonizing Bush; he didn’t mention a letter to Bush he’d signed with forty neoconservatives in 2001 urging that “the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”

The New Republic recently published two pained elegies to American conservatism by Tanenhaus. In one, Tanenhaus insinuates himself retroactively into William F. Buckley Jr.’s early war skepticism. In another, he decides that anti-Communist crusader Whittaker Chambers escaped the “haunted air” of ideological certitude in his later years and would have dismissed Bush’s Manichaean zeal “with the sly half-smile of a melancholy man who knows better.”

Like other penitents, though, Tanenhaus still can’t resist a little left-bashing. Quoting George Orwell’s observation that English intellectuals’ attraction to Stalinism “betrayed ‘a secret wish…[to] usher in a hierarchical society where the intellectual can at last get his hands on the whip,” Tanenhaus instructs readers that “It is no less true today. The intellectual left, most conspicuously in its Ivy League, Manhattan, and Hollywood variants, still clings to its dream of the whip handle, just as the educated right dreams of the day when the intelligentsia will be the first to feel the stinging cord.” That closing gesture toward balance (“the educated right”) seems only a fig leaf for a hawkish lust to catch leftists dreaming of whips.

Writers who consume themselves this way resemble George Santayana’s fanatic, who redoubles his energy when he has forgotten his aim–and forgets that it is he, not his opponents, who lost the war. But to gloat would be to risk stumbling into the hawks’ abyss. It would be better to urge Tanenhaus, Wieseltier et al. to rediscover Eugene V. Debs and Martin Luther King Jr., who understood that civic-republican crusades and rebellions are best when grounded in affirmations of civic trust that require a canny strength to sustain. Debs, King, Gandhi and Eastern European dissidents learned how to extend trust in ways that elicit it, even in the teeth of violent oppression. Why can’t our war hawks learn it in New York and Washington?

Left and liberal wrongs acknowledged, the deeper danger now is American conservatism’s inability to reconcile its keening for a sacred, ordered liberty with its obeisance to every whim of capital. Why keep blaming the consequences on enemies abroad and traitors at home or indulging a Grand Inquisitor’s ritualized submission to whatever the national-security and corporate-consumer juggernauts are insinuating into our lives? Only someone denying the real dangers would give as much credibility and cachet as Tanenhaus and Wieseltier have to writers who can’t stop blaming a “hate-America” left.