There is much in the Manifesto that I agree with wholeheartedly and little that I find even mildly contentious, so I ought really to say that not only do I welcome it but also that I broadly support it.
On a personal note, I was very happy to see that it included this rejection of anti-Americanism:-
6) Opposing anti-Americanism.We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people.
I have noted before that, in certain circles, anti-Americanism has become a prerequisite for social inclusion. I am grateful that the authors of the Manifesto have chosen to publicly repudiate such bigotry.
Small Town Scribbles addresses the issue at length and traces the recent resurgence of anti-Americanism to 9/11 and its aftermath:-
Cast your mind back to the days that followed the September 11th attacks. At first people in the West, I believe, did really feel for America. It was an odd feeling. We are not used to pitying America. But it didn't last. Anti-Americanism was like a virus lying dormant. Very quickly a whole swathe of people came down with it. The press got it first. It started with a certain snideness, a suggestion that America was over-reacting to the attacks, that they were an overly sentimental nation. Sniffy op ed pieces appeared using minimalising terms such as America having got a "bloody nose," callous letters were printed moaning about the amount of coverage the attacks received, or dismissing three thousand deaths because at sometime somewhere else an even greater number were dying of something else.Read it all.
Before you knew it the virus had mutated and was affecting others you'd have thought were immune to it. Everyday conversations were had about the possibilities of the attacks being a set-up to frame Osama Bin Laden, there was talk of America getting a taste of its own medicine or deserving nothing less than what it got. Whispers of Jewish conspiracies. Eyes rolling at any suggestion that there was a real enemy here. America soon became the bad guy again. Much relief.
And where was all of this coming from, this desperate need to demonise America? Was it coming from all those angry Muslims I keep reading about who apparently carry so much hatred for the country? Nope. Not from my experience. It came from white liberals.
And just to put things in perspective let's play it the other way around. Can you imagine any of the above happening in relation to any other country? Is the Guardian going to print a letter from someone moaning about the media marking the first anniversary of the London attacks in July this year? As it did about the marking of the first anniversary of the American terrorist attacks? Did any columnist call the Madrid attacks a "graze on Spain's knee"? Has anyone said yet the bombings in Bali are insignificant because more people died in the Tsunami?
