<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16671"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000
CanvasTabStop="true" name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>><FONT face="Times New Roman"><EM>The source is
"...the long right turn of the Democratic Party since the 1970s, as
financialization of the economy led to shedding New Deal commitments so as to
compete with the Republicans for >corporate patronage."<BR><BR></EM>>And
the cure is to make the single-issue large enough. ("Be as radical as
reality," said Lenin.) </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman">I have no argument with the
above, although I do have some serious reservations concerning your
interpretation of what comprises "making the single issue large
enough>"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>> </FONT>Opposition to the war is the necessary if not sufficient
first condition for a serious politics. What is required is "a revitalization of
the founding tradition of civic virtue and republican values of liberty."
>And that's what the teapartiers are calling for, even if they need to
clarify their analysis.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>I serious question you assertion above and consider it
arguable that opposition to war is the necessary if not sufficient first
condition for a serious politics. I am also not sure what you specifically
consider to be the founding tradition of civil virtue and republican values of
liberty that needs to be revitalized or your documentation that the
interpretation you accept is the one that people (including the founding
fathers) operated under is clear-cut and not open to argumentation; nor am I
convinced that such a revitalization is essential for a serious politics - at
least for its re-establishment although it might be arguably a factor as a
condition for maintaining serious politics within a system once
established. To argue that a revitalization is necessary or desirable
presumes that the currently constitutive organization of the political, social,
and economic system we call society</FONT><FONT face=Calibri> is
</FONT><FONT face=Calibri>itself desirable and that serious politics within it
and grounded upon it would make the existing system better, fairer, more just,
more equitable, less violent, etc. I do not accept that. What I deem
to be a necessary, although not necessarily a sufficient, first
pre-condition for a serious politics would be a questioning and radical change
in the presuppositions and constitutive organizational features which underlie
and upon which the system itself is structurally grounded which comprises the
substructure of the system upon which the superstructure of serious politics is
built and operates. Any rules or practices of civil virtue or values of
liberty are secondary issues related to the functioning of the
societal processes under which the system operates that color its style of
operation, limit the possibilities of the system reaching its potential for
equity, fairness, justice, civility, productivity, and goodness as a provider of
the "general welfare." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Any discussion of or use of the current structures and
processes in my point of view is superficial with respect to real substantive
change, results in being co-opted by the system and having bought into the
constitutive organizational structure of the system and playing the game by the
establishment rules no matter what questions get asked or debated, and with
result at best in feel good peripheral symbolic results as usual when doing
business as normal. The corporate powers and their minions will still be
in power and control, the establishment interests will still be protected and
implemented although not necessarily as openly and crassly as previously.
The individual (especially the ordinary and poorer citizens) will continue to be
screwed domestically and internationally we will still attempt to expand and
protect our world dominance and colonialism in accordance with the changing
world scene even if it entails covert actions and the use of mercenary enforcers
to represent us. In short, what the tea party is doing and what you
suggest needs to be done is essentially engage in a reformist movement aimed at
changing the peripheral components of the system while leaving the substantive
premises of the system and its operation alone. Stop wars - not
necessarily all killing - and optimistically hope that this will result in the
system correcting other problems in and with the system seems to be what you are
suggesting. I don't see how that is really possible in a system that is
structured organizationally to favor the corporate establishment and wealthy and
in which the government officials - elected and civil service - represent
nothing more than a circulation of elites between private corporations,
organizations, and bureaucratic and professional interest groups and the
government.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:galliher@illinois.edu">C. G. Estabrook</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 17, 2010 2:45 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A
title="mailto:peace-discuss@anti-war.net CTRL + Click to follow link"
href="mailto:peace-discuss@anti-war.net">Peace-discuss</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [Peace-discuss] The source of our
problems</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT><BR></DIV>[Or, how not to be that terrible thing,
a "single-issue voter." Tsk, tsk.]<BR><BR><I>The source is "...the long right
turn of the Democratic Party since the 1970s, as financialization of the economy
led to shedding New Deal commitments so as to compete with the Republicans for
corporate patronage."<BR></I><BR>And the cure is to make the single-issue large
enough. ("Be as radical as reality," said Lenin.) <BR><BR>Opposition to
the war is the necessary if not sufficient first condition for a serious
politics. What is required is "a revitalization of the founding tradition of
civic virtue and republican values of liberty." And that's what the
teapartiers are calling for, even if they need to clarify their
analysis.<BR><BR>"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't
need to worry about answers."<BR><BR>Imperial war contradicts that
revitalization. And avoiding the question of the war disqualifies any
further discussion.<BR><BR>It's important that the Democrats do that, while the
teapartiers are conflicted on the matter. Although the polity is far from
democratic, a serious defeat for the Democratic party and the concomitant
rejection of their policies is the probably necessary beginning of an insistence
on different - and contrasting - policies. <BR><BR>Although it's true that
no one - outside of a few Greens - are clear on the matter.
<BR><BR>There's work for people like us.<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss mailing
list<BR>Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net<BR>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss<BR></BODY></HTML>