[Peace-discuss] Poliltical content of Carl's stance

[Tom Mackaman]

Even in affairs that appear to be purely "cultural" or
"media distractions" deeply significant political
questions always hide.   And so after all manner of
questionably-informed, ineffective, contradictory, and
puzzling legal and scientific arguments, Carl returns
to the subject of political perspective, thanks to
Susan's excellent and overdue posting.  And how else
could conversation possibly evolve?  Minus political
analysis, to seriously argue against the decisions
taken in the Schiavo case would ultimately boil down
to personal opinions, formulated most simply by the
four words:  "I think it's wrong"  

And so Carl  writes:

"But I'd suggest that the only way to end the war is
getting opportunists in government like DeLay to
declare themselves against it, because of public
pressure.  That's how the Vietnam War ended -- not by
replacing the DeLays of those days with
non-opportunists who could be trusted.  That didn't
happen. --CGE"

What a political manifesto!  Carl is not only alligned
with Delay on this issue, he is against "replacing"
Delay in the hope(!) that Delay might one day cast his
lot with peace.  And to think that some people call
socialists "utopians"!

We'll recall that this conversation began as an
indictment by Carl of liberals who refused to line up
with Delay and co. on Schiavo (even though few such
liberals exist, at least in the Democratic Party).  
Now Carl elaborates his political perspective:  he
believes that the way forward is to form an alliance
with the extreme right, and not only the "anti-war"
extreme right, but even potentially militarists of the
most die-hard persuasion such as Delay.  This is
opportunism of the most startling character.  It is
also a reactionary utopia.  Tom Delay does not
represent the "masses" on this or any other issue, and
to argue otherwise is to sew confusion.   

Carl, I don't doubt that you sincerely believe in the
morality of your stance.  Certainly you have an
admirable and outspoken track-record of fighting war
and oppression, and you are to be respected and
commended for these efforts.  

But it is clear to me that you also believe that this
event should be used to concretize an alliance with
right-wing elements that might eventually, in your
opinion, move against war and fight for a "true"
culture of life.  That is undoubtedly the motivation
animating the internventions of Jackson and Nader.    
  

If this is your outlook, I think you should pause and
reconsider.  There will be no short-cut to peace.  It
will require masses of people to understand that their
needs are not represented by either big business
party, or in the coterie of "personalities" who
surround the political establishment on the right and
left fringe, such as Buchanan, J.L. Jackson, and
Nader.  It will require, in other words, the political
independence of the working class.          


Regards,

Tom