I can't say that the Euston Manifesto has changed my whole way of thinking, but progressives, whatever they call themselves, or each other, cannot afford to ignore it

While the left continues to fragment along the fault line of Iraq, even the names given to the new alliances have become confusing. Those who opposed the war, according to their adversaries, who call them "stoppers", are all Stalinist appeasers who have forged an alliance with extremist Islam. Meanwhile these "stoppers" accuse left-wing "muscular liberals" of being apologists for American imperialism, with the blood of thousands of Iraqi civilians on their hands.

At times it's easy to forget that the Stop the War Coalition, George Galloway's Respect and the

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (the stoppers) are on the same side as columnists such as Nick Cohen, Francis Wheen and Christopher Hitchens, who argued for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as an act of anti-fascist solidarity with the opposition activists and trade unionists of Iraq.

As we reported last week, the "muscular liberals" (or "decents" or "neo-progs", as they are called in some circles) are on the march. Cohen, Wheen and the Financial Times journalist John Lloyd have joined forces with the prominent Marxist blogger Norman Geras to launch a blueprint for the future of the progressive left, called the Euston Manifesto. Much here is uncontroversial: a commitment to democracy, human rights, feminism. But the manifesto's stance on anti-Americanism and reactionary Islamism is a direct challenge to the anti-war movement.

The New Statesman published a summary of the manifesto last week and it is available on our website. But there has been scant discussion of the document elsewhere in the press or by the political classes, who are perhaps wary of the authors' pro-war credentials. On the internet it is a different matter: the document has sparked an international debate about the nature of progressive politics.

Last week on the NS website I argued that the anti-war left should not write off the manifesto as the bleating of well-meaning interventionists who got it wrong about the war. Opponents of the war will find there is much to disagree with, including the invocation to "stop picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention". The neo-progs need to do a little more of this basic archaeology before they understand why the war went so catastrophically wrong. But there is also much to admire.

Some reader responses to my posting were depressing and predictable. Martin Wisse called me "spineless", "vaguely centrist" and "patronising" for suggesting the name-calling on both sides was not helpful. Others seemed to think the anti-war NS was endorsing the manifesto rather than facilitating discussion. But most responses genuinely engaged with the arguments of the Euston group. Frederic Stansfield provided an eight-point plan for moving the debate forward, including a demand that the authors clarify their position on British domestic politics. "What is the aim? To formulate ideas on the centre left in general? To exert pressure on the Labour Party? To help develop the next Labour manifesto? . . . To form a new party . . .?" It is, indeed, unclear. J M Hanes identified an orthodoxy on the left "which rejects even the possibility that reasonable people can disagree over Iraq. Bush, Blair and Iraq occupy fixed positions in the self-styled progressive cosmos and deniers are not to be engaged on any issue."

On the other side of the debate, Geoff Diggines put his finger on a central flaw in the manifesto: "You go on about Islamic fascism, but you seldom consider the disastrous invasion of Iraq as a catalyst of virulent Islamic fascism."

However, one response from a self-confessed "NeoCon" from Australia genuinely took me by surprise. Zoe Brain wrote in the long sentences beloved of bloggers. But bear with her, because she hints at the possibility of a new political alignment.

"If the 'genuine left' are against the principles in the manifesto, rather than disagreeing on implementation; and are so blind that partisanship leads them to bed down with murderers and thugs; if their faith insists that nothing on the left can be bad and nothing on the right can be good, then I'm awfully glad to be on the opposite side after all. Call it what you will, NeoCon, NeoLeft, whatever, labels don't matter."

I e-mailed Zoe to say that her posting was a refreshing contrast to the depressing stock responses of the self-appointed "genuine left". "How do you think it feels for me?" she replied. "I'm of the right, yet I find that this unashamedly leftist manifesto is far more in accordance with my beliefs and values than anything I've seen from my own side . . . It's not so much depressing as disorientating and calls into question my whole political belief system . . .". I can't say the Euston Manifesto has had quite this effect on me, but progressives, whatever they call themselves, or each other, cannot afford to ignore it.

Letters, page 32

To read the Euston Manifesto in full, go to: www.newstatesman.com/eustonmanifesto

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website