[Peace-discuss] Delay and Buchanan

[Susan Davis]

Carl,

you asked:



>But you don't mean you'd no longer oppose the war if DeLay did.  Buchanan
>does oppose the war, and you haven't stopped doing so because of that.

briefly, no I would not stop opposing the war if Delay did.  My point is I 
wouldn't give a right-wing militarist/corporatist any support or praise or 
political capital for being against the war.  I'd assume he was harnessing 
in antiwar position to his own agenda, and look elsewhere for allies.

>(And to call him a fascist is hyperbole.)


not really.  I think Buchanan believes in a white, Christian, male-headed 
nuclear-family based homeland America for white Christian people.  He's 
against the war because it distracts from that. he's not said a word Pro 
labor, pro civil rights, pro women's rights. he's quiet about corporate 
power and not critical of the military's effect on our culture and society 
(not to mention our economy) per se.  I do recall him calling for 
concentration camps for gay men back in the eighties.  It's true 
he's  anti-interventionist -- but so far no one is arguing that we need 
annex more of Mexico. what's odd about Buchanan is how reasonable he's 
begun to seem by comparison with some of the other nut cases.

on your last question below, I don't want go on at length. I simply meant 
that it's very important to think about who we think are on  "our" sides. 
delay got where he is by delivering black and Chicano disenfranchisement in 
Texas to the national Republican Party. since you are sincerely 
antiabortion as a Christian believer, I know you think very carefully about 
whether someone like Delay is one of your own, and whether his manipulative 
capers serve your ideals.  I said that in a backhanded unclear way before 
-- sorry for any confusion.   SD


>What counts as a "strategic alliance" or "lining up with the likes of
>DeLay"? On the Vietnam example, members of Congress and the Nixon
>administration were pressured into calling for the removal of troops and
>the ending of funding.  During the Reagan wars, Congress-members were
>pressured into passing the Boland Amendment.  Was this making a strategic
>alliance or lining up with them?  I wouldn't say so, but in any case it's
>the sort of thing we need to be doing now to oppose the corporate
>militarist authoritarian state.  --CGE