[Peace-discuss] Buchanan on our side

[C. G. Estabrook]

Some comments, Robert:

[1] We have to make a distinction between someone's general political view
and a position on a particular issue.  Thus I think Howard Dean's politics
are generally terrible, but he did (at least at one point) seem to oppose
the invasion of Iraq.  Same is more or less true of Buchanan.

[2] Buchanan is anti-immigrant but not necessarily a racist: he opposes
north European (and Irish) immigrants as well.

[3] The editors of CounterPunch are friends of mine, and I consider myself
quite close to their general political view (although I differ on
particular points -- see [1] above).  Their online journal publishes a
long list of people (including me), not all of whom they agree with
entirely.

[4] Cockburn (of CounterPunch), contrary to what you imply ("CounterPunch
went on this huge campaign of lies and deception against Lerner")
supported, if somewhat backhandedly, Lerner's speaking at the controverted
rally.  Cockburn writes of Lerner, "He's a flake, but on Israel,
considering the mostly awful spectrum of opinion here, he's often been
constructive."  (I'll post the piece separately -- it also contains a good
story about a well-known neocon.)

[5] I share your unwillingness to "coddle and cozy up to ... Buchanan,"  
but as for calling him a fascist, the piece I posted yesterday suggests to
me that "fascist" is more accurately applied to elements in the neocon
group like Michael Ledeen -- who was attacked by Buchanan's magazine.
There is a difference -- and animosity -- between Buchanan's self-styled
conservatives and the neocons.  I'm opposed to both in general, but on
specifics we'll find more common ground with the former.

[6] Back to point [1].  Look at <antiwar.com>, a right-libertarian site
that has been far more outspoken and cogent in opposition to the attacks
on Iraq and Afghanistan (and in giving a critique of US/Israeli
oppression) than many self-styled "progressive" anti-warriors.  They no
more approve suicide bombing than Cockburn or Chomsky, but they're also
not willing to let a tendentious definition of terrorism justify imperial
plans.  And we're going to need that sort of clarity if we're going to do
anything at all to put a crimp in the administration's plans.

Best, Carl


On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Robert Dunn wrote:

> But, we also need to remember that Buchanan is a racist. I realize
> that you Carl were not here last AWARE meeting. Our only African
> AMerican member of AWARE tried bringing the issue of racism to AWAREs
> attention, hence our so-called anti-racism stance or lack thereof.
> WHen Muwata,(forgive me if I misspelled your name), raised the issue,
> I sensed alot of arrogance and denial from the middle class white
> members of AWARE. Apparently denial is not just a river in Egypt. I
> understand that anti-semitism is played around with to suit the
> neo-conservative agenda. BUT, unfortunately just like with racism,
> anti-semitism towards Jews is a reality today. From so-called
> progressive rags like Counterpunch wailing against a certain infamous
> progressive rabbi who had the gall to pubicly denounce suicide attacks
> against innocent Israeli school children and the Metzer kibbutz which
> is a joint Israeli-Arab kibbutz which was attacked by Hamas killing
> both Israelis and Palestinians. Did COunterPUnch have any feelings of
> empathy for victims of terrorism? Hell no? They went into attacking
> Rabbi Lerner for caring for both sides. Then to top it all off.
> CounterPunch went on this huge campaign of lies and deception against
> Lerner. Was Cockburn privy to the actual happenings that was the
> reasoning behind Lerners banning from being a speaker? No. Ask
> Mitchell Plitnick from A Jewish Voice for Peace, I sure did in Chicago
> during the UFPJ conference. I learned that ANSWER was the main culprit
> of this tention and not Lerner. Lerner did not even ask to speak. UFPJ
> brought his name up, and then ANSWER came up with their anti-free
> speech rule of not allowing any one who did not tow the ANSWER line
> from speaking. Lerner and Tikkun not only does not tow the ANSWER,
> Workers World Party line but is courageously exposing ANSWER for the
> self-promoting lunatic fringe that they are. Tikkun did nothing
> different then what VVAW did in exposing the RCP. Check out VVAWs
> website to prove it. www.vvaw.org. And for that Lerner is ridiculed by
> so-called intellectuals and leftists such as CounterPunch. I know I am
> causing "disunity" as Mort has scolded me about before. Hey, tough
> shit. These issues need to be brought to bare. And no, I will not
> coddle and cozy up to fascists like Buchanan just to get allies.
> Regards, Robert
>