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

[C. G. Estabrook]

Surely you agree that ethical arguments can be considered rationally, Tom
-- they're not simply emotive.  "What then is to be done?" is a serious
question.

And you simply misunderstand me if you think that "I am against
'replacing' Delay in the hope(!) that Delay might one day cast his lot
with peace."  I'm very much in favor of replacing DeLay and most other
members of our gerrymandered national legislature, just I was in favor of
replacing our own pro-war Representative with an anti-war one in 2002 (and
subsequently).  That's why I ran against him.

What I wrote was that the successes of the anti-war movement in the 1970s
and '80s didn't come through replacing legislators -- it wasn't very
successful in doing that, although it was certainly correct to try, and it
would be right to try again. (I may run against Tim Johnson again.)

Success such as it was -- and it wasn't negligible -- came from putting
pressure on generally recalcitrant legislators -- recalcitrant of course
because of their wretched politics. The more pressure from the organized
working-class, the better -- especially since most people in the US are
working-class, by any consistent definition.

It's simply silly for you to say that I believe "that the way forward is
to form an alliance with the extreme right." I was no more proposing an
"alliance" (there's a bit of grandiosity in that) with DeLay than I was
"forming an alliance" with Kerry when I said that people in swing states
should vote for him in order to vote against the Bush administration --
not because I liked Kerry's politics. (But it is obviously not the case
that, just because Tom DeLay, George Bush, or John Kerry say x, x is
necessarily wrong; they may simply remark, e.g., that the sun is shining,
when it is.)

You also misunderstand the question I raised to start this discussion.  I
asked why some liberals seemed to feel it so important to insist that Ms.
Schiavo be made dead (as Nader put it).  And I speculated that for some
such liberals the horror of giving Tom DeLay anything that looked like a
victory was enough for them to demand Ms. Schiavo's life, and that seemed
to me monstrous.  In fact, I think there were other reasons as well for
this peculiar liberal passion.

I do think that there is a danger in some liberals' personalizing of the
matter. (I consider myself not a liberal but a socialist.)  It would seem
an elementary point to someone thinking in a Marxist tradition that the
problems we face are structural and institutional more than personal and
individual.  If the toxicity of DeLay's earlier career (or of his present
one) should do him in one night -- or if the pretzels should finally catch
up with George Bush -- we know that their absence wouldn't make much
difference, because they would be immediately replaced with people we
should oppose and try to pressure to the same extent.

So I reject also your bizarre suggestion that I believe that "this event
should be used to concretize an alliance with right-wing elements"; nor do
I see much evidence for what you take for granted, viz., "That is
undoubtedly the motivation animating the interventions of Jackson and
Nader."  For Nader, certainly, his statement is quite consistent with his
public concerns throughout his life.

I do think you're right, however, that "peace ... will require masses of
people to understand that their needs are not represented by either big
business party" -- in fact, surveys show that they understand that right
now. (A just peace, that is: DeLay and Bush are in favor of peace -- even
Hitler was -- so long as it was on their terms.)  The question is how to
make that understanding effective.  And of course this discussion began
with my objecting to liberals fetishizing personalities.

Regards, Carl


On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Tom Mackaman wrote:

> 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
>