[Peace-discuss] Rewording

[C. G. Estabrook]

John W. wrote:

> ...The proper question is not "Who is most criminal?" but 
> rather "What can we do to attenuate the cycle of violence and predation 
> in the world and in our own community?"

The USG would reply, not without some semblance of reason, "Destroy 
oppressive dictatorships and suppress Islamofascism."  If they're wrong, 
it's important to say why.  It's not a matter of indifference.


> In the end, though, I'm not sure what difference it all makes.  Violent 
> revolution is generally not a desirable thing, and quite impossible in 
> America at the present time.  Institutional change is normally 
> incremental and cyclical.  And on the grand scale, nothing has really 
> changed in a thousand years except for the technological sophistication 
> with which we make war on one another.  The masses vary in their degree 
> of ignorance, but Joe Sixpack has no idea what the hell you're talking 
> about most of the time, and you don't have a corner on the "truth" 
> anyway...

Your world-weariness and contempt for the general populace is unearned. 
  On these matters it's important to say what the truth is.

Longitudinal studies by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at 
the University of Maryland and the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations 
show that the two political parties are far to the right of the 
population on issue after issue.

What's happened is that the public is far removed from the bipartisan 
political system and the carefully-constructed culture of the 
ideological institutions -- the academy and MSM.  The parties and those 
institutions are working frantically to pull them back in.  (For a good 
example, see the new book by Barack Obama -- who knows exactly what he's 
doing -- The Mendacity of Hope.) The main task of the Democratic party 
in the last six month has been to neutralize the anti-war vote last fall.

For example, we're told that your "Joe Sixpack" is irretrievably 
jingoistic, but since 1970 some 70% of our fellow citizens have been 
choosing "the war was not a mistake, it was fundamentally wrong and 
immoral," when asked to describe the Vietnam War in the CCFR poll.

A large majority of the public believe that the US should accept the 
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court, 
sign the Kyoto protocols, allow the UN to take the lead in international 
crises, and rely on diplomatic and economic measures more than military 
ones in the “war on terror.” Similar majorities believe the US should 
resort to force only if there is “strong evidence that the country is in 
imminent danger of being attacked,” thus rejecting the bipartisan 
consensus on “pre-emptive war” and adopting a rather conventional 
interpretation of the UN Charter. A majority even favor giving up the 
Security Council veto, hence following the UN lead even if it is not the 
preference of US state managers.

Overwhelming majorities of the public favor expansion of domestic 
programs: primarily health care (80%), but also aid to education and 
Social Security.  Similar results have long been found in these studies 
(CCFR).  Other mainstream polls report that 80% favor guaranteed health 
care even if it would raise taxes.

It is notable that such views are held by people in virtual isolation. 
They rarely hear them (except from groups like AWARE), and it is not 
unlikely that respondents regard their own views as idiosyncratic. 
Their preferences do not enter into the political campaigns, and only 
marginally receive some reinforcement in articulate opinion in media and 
journals.

Though it is natural for doctrinal systems to try to induce pessimism, 
hopelessness and despair, the real lessons are quite different.  They 
are encouraging and hopeful. They show that there are substantial 
opportunities for education and organizing, including the development of 
potential electoral alternatives.  As in the past, rights will not be 
granted by benevolent authorities, or won by intermittent actions -- a 
few large demonstrations after which one goes home, or pushing a lever 
in the personalized quadrennial extravaganzas that are depicted as 
“democratic politics.” As always in the past, the tasks require 
day-to-day engagement to create -- in part re-create -- the basis for a 
functioning democratic culture in which the public plays some role in 
determining policies, not only in the political arena from which it is 
largely excluded, but also in the crucial economic arena, from which it 
is excluded in principle.

These results indicate that activists have not done their job effectively.

The center of gravity of elite opinion has moved to the right in the 
Clinton-Bush years. But opinions of the public remain roughly social 
democratic, as they've always been.  It's up to the intellectual 
liberals to makes sure you dismiss them.


> I calls 'em as I sees 'em.  I'm not sure what the devil thinks of me, 
> but I don't fear him in the slightest.
> 

Perhaps you should.