[Peace-discuss] re: anti-war right winger

[C. G. Estabrook]

That's exactly what I'm arguing, Tom ("that left anti-war folks should
form an alliance with [right anti-war people]").  We may want to specify
what "form an alliance" would mean -- it would begin for me with their
coming to our demonstrations, and denouncing the war in print and to their
representatives.

But I'm worried that "left anti-war folks" think that their position is
more unified and more distinct from "those people" than is the case.  
(You seem to think so, too.)  The result is an anti-war movement that
wants to deal only with what some of my New England friends would call
P.L.U. ("people like us").

I was a bit shocked last year during the local Green Party campaign for
Congress to find the number of people associated with the campaign --
good-hearted people who I'm sure are now firmly anti-war -- who seemed to
have a calm and settled contempt for most of the voters.  "Those people"
were regarded as stupid, uneducated, probably unwashed, and certainly
unaccessible by reason.  Therefore the task of the campaign, my friends
seemed to say, was to find a way to cover over what we really thought and
present it in an acceptable (read: lying) way.  (That these friends were
right and we should have done so is I admit one possible interpretation of
the results -- but I don't think it's the right one.)

When we come to spokespeople -- pundits and politicians -- we find that
"left anti-war folks" (hereinafter LAWF) are far from unified -- in fact
they're divided down the middle.  But the same is true of the Right.

First, the Left.  Read the bitter attack on Nader by Mike Tomasky, the new
editor of the liberal flagship publication AMERICAN PROSPECT, that
appeared three months ago --
<www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/07/tomasky-m-07-23.html>.  It's an
extension into the time of the Iraq invasion of the polemics by liberal
Democrats after the 2000 election.  Robert Kuttner, the founding editor of
that journal, was an early supporter of Wesley Clark.  There are many
LAWFers who agree with Tomasky and Kuttner. (Interestingly, the decisive
point of division among LAWF often turns out to be Israel, as the polemics
around Michael Lerner last spring showed -- and why that is so requires a
longer discussion).

But the Right is just as divided.  As I've tried to show with some of the
posts you mention, some of the severest critics of the Neocons are found
on the Right, among Libertarians (at antiwar.com and even in Congress, in
the person of Rep. Ron Paul), and around journals like CHRONICLES and THE
AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE -- people like Sobran, Thomas Fleming, Bill
Kauffman, (the best of the lot -- see his pieces in CounterPunch) -- and,
yes, Pat Buchanan.  The latter group have been called Paleocons (no more
helpful a designation than Neocon) but with Libertarians they form a
principled opposition to the invasion of Iraq and to the neoliberal
imperialism of the Bush administration.  (The index of the division is
again Israel -- the Bush administration like its predecessors being
willing to corrupt Israel with arms and money into a stationary US
aircraft carrier in the Mideast -- which the RAWP usually reject.)

What about the notion that such an alliance would make us complicit with
racism and anti-Semitism?  Take the hard case -- Buchanan.  His
anti-immigrant views may be tinged with racism, but he's no anti-Semite.
He has been a consistent critic of Israel and its role in American
imperialism, and that's far more than is necessary to win the anti-Semite
epithet, which is being thrown around today in a frenzied fashion not seen
since Joe McCarthy (with another epithet). BTW there's an excellent new
book on the subject just out: THE POLITICS OF ANTI-SEMITISM, ed. Alexander
Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair.

But my point is precisely that, just as I don't agree with all the views
of all the Left Anti-War Folks (even in AWARE), so I don't have to agree
with other views of Right Anti-War People in order to welcome their
opposition to the war.  In both cases, I might even learn something from
listening to them.  I think it's always salutary to remember where one has
been intellectually (otherwise, too, I suppose) -- I mean particularly the
political views that one has held at some time and then abandoned.  It's
not obvious that the process is over.  But it should go on as we actively
oppose our nation's enormities -- of which there are unquestionably more
to come.

Some particular points:

(1) I don't think it's just hyperbole to speak of "fascistic elements of
the right," but those elements are to be found among the Neocons, not
their right-wing opponents.  (I circulated a specific example -- a
criticism of Neocon Michael Ledeen from the Right.)

(2) Is the war (by which I mean the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq as
well as the "long slog" of the "War on Terrorism") based on "social and
racial inequality"?  In some sense it is, of course, (altho' racism seems
more a means than a motive).  But the US attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan,
with their tens of thousands of dead people, are (like the US attack on
South Vietnam, 40 years ago) *demonstration wars*, meant to show the
states of the world what happens if they don't follow US orders.

The "War on Terrorism" is an excuse for the US to assert more vigorous
military action (particularly in the region with the greatest geopolitical
prize of all, Mideast oil) to maintain US control of the world economy --
essentially unchallenged since WWII -- for the benefit of our corporate
elite and their allies elsewhere.  The "Crusade against Communism" was
once that excuse, but since 1991 the US has suffered from what Colin
Powell called then the "enemies' gap": 911 was a godsend for US policy.

And there are many who are spoken of as "on the left" who support the WOT
even if they criticize (not always on principle) Bush's wars (the liberals
in the Democratic party, for example).

I don't quite agree with you that "a principled left position would
advocate a relentless critique of Buchanan and his ilk" *in the first
place*. I think it would in the first place advocate a relentless critique
of US imperialism -- and some among "Buchanan and his ilk" offer such a
critique, although I may nevertheless have serious differences with them.  
And instead of "alienat[ing] many of the people the left needs to turn
to," Buchanan and his ilk often attract them, so we need to get into the
discussion -- not by covering our own views (pace my Green friends) but by
specifying where we agree and disagree.

(3) I agree with you that the first two paragraphs of Sobran's article are
not inconsequential, even if they are nonsense (about the Cold War). There
has been a remarkable unity among American liberals and conservatives on
the understanding of the Cold War.  That understanding needs to be
attacked if were to come to an accurate account of US imperialism.  It
would be part of assessing "*why* the extreme right has taken this stand"
-- as one of the four positions I've mentioned, which result from deep and
important divisions in both the "Left" and the "Right"...

Best regards, Carl


On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, mackaman wrote:

> Carl,
> 
> What is it about the right anti-war people that you find so
> interesting?  Are you arguing that left anti-war folks should form an
> alliance with them?  And if so, do we have any reason to believe that
> such an alliance is in the offing? I ask because, as a subscriber to
> this list, I've seen you bring this up on several occasions.
> 
> If you *are* insinuating that an alliance might be beneficial, as
> you've argued in the past, I think you're mistaken.  Here are a few
> reasons why:
> 
> 1) The first order of the day is not unity at all costs with any
> political persuasion opposed to the occupation, but a defense of a
> principled opposition.  This is true both on a national and a local
> level.  To engage with Buchanan-ites and the fascistic elements of the
> right, even if for supposed short-term gain, would lead to a good deal
> of confusion.  Hasn't so much of local anti-war effort insisted that
> war is based on social and racial inequality?  Where does Buchanan
> stand on these core issues?  And if Buchananites are embraced, in any
> manner, by a well-known spokesmen of local lefties, such as yourself,
> what does this tell to the minorities, foreign nationals, and poor
> that we aim to reach out to?
> 
> 2) What exactly is the short term or long term gain of a political
> alliance with the extreme right?  Extreme-right columnists are not the
> decisive social force that will be able to block US foreign policy.  
> That social force can only be based on the political awakening of
> broad masses of working Americans, who are also victims of social
> plunder and militarism.  Again, Buchanan's racist, xenophobic,
> anti-semitic, nationalist, and right-Catholic appeals alienate many of
> the people the left needs to turn to, and at the same time aims to
> corrupt sections of the white poor and working class population.  
> Rather than broaching the subject of alliance, a principled left
> position would advocate a relentless critique of Buchanan and his ilk,
> and their efforts to profit from Bush's debacle.  Furthermore,
> whatever Buchanan and the fringe right gain in terms of political
> support will be at the expense of the left, not it's benefit.
> 
> 3) You make reference to the "nonsense" of the below article's first
> two paragraphs, but then you pass them over as if they would be some
> sort of bizarre mistake that need not tarnish a political position
> that apparently, as you approvingly note, closely resembles your own.  
> However, those first two paragraphs, just like Buchanan's
> anti-semitism and crass nationalism, are not flukes-- they are part
> and parcel of the whole package.  By passing over as "cosmetic" or
> inconsequential these fundamental differences, you are essentially
> providing cover for a very dangerous political tendency.
> 
> If, on the other hand, your interest in Buchanan and the fascistic
> right is based on other motivations, than you owe it to local
> activists to make that clear.  An interesting way of addressing the
> issue might be to ask *why* the extreme right has taken this stand,
> but such a line of questioning would not lessen the obligation to
> differentiate yourself with a critique of the extreme right.
> 
> 
> Tom Mackaman
>