[Peace-discuss] dear brooke, AWARE, et al

[C. G. Estabrook]

Robert--

Your candid and personal comments on your relation to political groupings
includes a passing but generous comment about me, and it may be churlish
of me to do anything other than thank you for it -- but I do have a few
observations:

[1] You're surely correct that in this country what is generally called
the Right, rather than the Left, contains more principled criticism of the
neoconservative program, especially its war policy.  I've posted a number
of essays to this list on that point.  The problem is that the Left in
common parlance has been reduced to (a) liberal imperialists, mostly in
the Democratic party, and (b) defenders of various forms of identity
politics; while the Right is split between (a) statist reactionaries
("neocons") and (b) libertarian capitalists ("paleocons"). It's this last
group who've been severe opponents of the Iraq war. (See, e.g., the site
<anti-war.com>.)  But there are others who don't fit into this scheme --
e.g., my own mentor, Noam Chomsky, and the people around the site
<counterpunch.org> (whose views are not identical).

[2] It seems to me that it's necessary to re-think the terms Right and
Left and rescue them from the discourse we find in the press, where Bush
exhausts the meaning of Right and Kerry (or Clinton) of Left.  It's
generally admitted that the terminology arose from the seating
arrangements in the French National Assembly of 1789, but if we want a
consistent usage for the Left/Right distinction, we might think of
political groups ranged along a line according to how authoritarian or
democratic they are. The further Right one goes, the more authoritarian
the parties, and the further Left, the more democratic. (At the far Left
end are true socialists, who want not just a democratic polity but a
democratic economy as well -- investment decisions made not by
corporations but by elections.) Lenin's Bolsheviks, then, must be seen as
a *right-wing* Marxist party, as must all twentieth century communist
parties in the Marxist-Leninist tradition, owing to their
authoritarianism.  (And they were indeed so described by left-wing
Marxists in the 20th century.)

[3] The Left under this definition would be the extension into the era of
industrial and post-industrial capitalism (if there is such a thing) of
18th-century Liberalism -- the development, in other words, of the
democratic impulses of a Jefferson who distinguished between "those who
fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into
the hands of the higher classes," and those in contrast who "identify with
the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most
honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public
interest."  I'm constantly shocked to find how alive that distinction is
today, even among people who think of themselves as on the Left.

[4] A Left of this sort, where left-Marxism joins anarchism -- sometimes
called "libertarian socialism" -- appealed to me first when I was your age
(long ago).  In the intervening years different issues have arisen, from
Vietnam to Iraq, from civil rights to feminism, but the general approach
still seems to me correct.  As Chomsky says, "Either the general
population will take control of its own destiny and concern itself with
community interests guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern
for others -- or there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long
as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to
set policy in special interests that it serves -- but the conditions of
survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the
interests of the community as a whole and by now that means the global
community."

[5] It's certainly correct that, as you say, "some on the left [given the
ambiguities of the term], do by their demeanor and attitude sound pompous
and elitist." (I don't happen to have a copy of Tom Frank's book with me
[and it's three in the morning], but I would say that he agrees entirely,
indeed that he blames many Democrats in his native Kansas for alienating
the working class in just that way.)  The 20th-century authoritarian
"Left" -- M-L parties -- suffered mightily from that: after all, their
position was that a group of official smart guys (the party) should run
things in the name of the masses, who were too stupid to do it themselves.  
It's a popular view, not limited to Marxists. The principal practitioners
today are the neocons.

[6] But it's also true that privileged people -- perhaps especially people
who "got a job right out of college and never had to work for anything,
had everything handed to them" (like me) -- have a special obligation to
seek first the kingdom of God (if we can get away with a little political
language).  I've always liked Gore Vidal's remark, "Thank God I wasn't
born middle-class!" -- implying that it's not those at the top or the
bottom but those in the middle who are really whip-sawn by this society.  
I think he may be right.  He also said that our society is made up of the
"1% who own the country, the 20% who want to be like them, and the rest."
Our politics usually concentrate on that 20%, when they should concentrate
on the rest.

Finally, in the midst of reading your thoughtful piece, I did wonder
whether the growing up you refer to may involve de-personalizing your
analysis a bit, in regard both to fiends and enemies.  "Judge not," it's
been suggested [Mt. 7] -- or more prosaically, that you don't have to like
someone to work with them -- and it seems to me a good rule for political
work, and elsewhere...

Regards, Carl


On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Robert Dunn wrote:

> I am opposed to the war still and am fighting from the right against
> the neoconservative movement. My defection has to do with what i see
> as the rigidity of the left and the potential self-destruction that it
> could lead to. I entered the left when I joined the Progressive
> Resource/Action Cooperative(PRC). At that time I was a young 16 year
> old who was looking for a family that I was lacking in my life. I took
> the left-wing cause as a substitute family which led to disastrous
> emotional consequences for me. For a few years, I followed "the party
> line" without question even though it went against my moral beliefs.
> But I met people like Carl and others who did not accept the PC way
> and developed his own opinions based on his moral principles and sound
> reasoning. That has been lacking in quite a few left groups. These
> organizations such as the PRC run on emotion and propaganda, not facts
> and principles. Brooke, Can you answer a question for me? You talk
> about broadening the anti-war movement? What about anti-war folks from
> the right? Are they allies or the enemy? What do you feel about the
> DNC banning pro-life delegates from the Democratic Convention. They
> were anti-war and progressive on other issues but they were pro-life
> so they were the enemy, correct? Meanwhile the conservative movement
> has gotten broader and broader. Now, evangelical Christians, tax
> reformist, neoConservative Jews and other warhawks have formed a broad
> coalition that includes pro-choice Republicans. Why is that the left
> has to be more rigid than the right is now. Dont believe me, then
> which party is controlled by identity politicians and poverty pimps
> such as yourself, the Democratic and Green parties. If you alienate
> anti-war conservatives, then you are losing a huge potential ally. I
> have tried when I was active in AWARE to get the evangelical churches
> who had a significant number of anti-war folks involved. However they
> are also pro-life and some may have religious objections to
> homosexuality but have the attitude of "love the sinner, hate the
> sin." Some even came to "the PRCs' large anti-war emergency response
> rally. But, i guess they are just a bunch of dumbass fascists hicks
> because they are pro-life? Correct? Also, you want people of faith to
> shut up and keep their moral convictions to themselves. Thats fine
> with me if you and your atheist buddies at IDF shut your trap up and
> keep your secular humanism to yourself. Deal? By the way Carl, my
> criticism of Thomas Frank is that he tends to overlook that some on
> the left, do by their demeanor and attitude sound pompous and
> elitists. If he did cover that, I stand corrected then and could you
> cite the page that its on? my anger in this message is addressed at
> the arrogance that Brooke has shown, proving my point that the
> identity politics movement is not about liberation but about some
> upper class snobs to feel good about themselves making working class
> folks such as myself feel bad for having the wrong opinion, dont use
> words such as "people of color", "LGBTGAIQ and whatever new letter of
> the alphabet may be added." I support issues and will work with anyone
> who shares my beliefs regardless whether I agree with them on other
> issues. No, i must have missed the class where i learned the
> politically correct way of saying things so not to offend anyone. I
> was too busy trying to support myself with a job. I envy you Brooke,
> got a job right out of college and never had to work for anything, had
> everything handed to you. I bet you were someone who threw temper
> tantrums as a child. Maybe thats where you get that desire to protest
> anything and everything. hey, i did it, but I had to learn the hard
> way that nothing in life is going to be handed to you on a silver
> platter, you have to earn it, work for it, and grab it. I used to look
> up to you as that insecure 16 year old. I think i have grown up now
> that I am 22. I still have more to growing up to do. Regards, Robert
>