[Peace-discuss] Obama and the anti-war
movement
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Sun Aug 28 14:14:20 CDT 2005
I think you're right, Matt, that "Identity Politics ... so
clearly differentiates the American Left from the Left in most
other countries ... that it must have a role in explaining the
feeble state of affairs here." If one looks at what's
happened on the Left in the US since 1968, it becomes clear
that IP are an alternative to -- rather than an aspect of --
Left politics. It's the blind alley that some progressive
people in the US turned into a generation ago, when their
hopes for a democratic and egalitarian society were defeated
and destroyed by the "Reagan revolution." (Of course the
counterattack of the American business class ca. 1980 is no
more properly named for one man than that ca. 1950 is called
"McCarthyism.")
American society is a good deal more civilized today than it
was in 1968, in part because of that explosion of criticism
and creativity (of course mixed with some contradictory
elements) that goes by the name of the decade, the Sixties,
that it fit (very roughly -- some of the most politically
creative elements were from the 1970s). The Sixties are
therefore condemned or dismissed by liberal and conservative
pundits alike, precisely because they contained fundamental
challenges to the American ruling class, and its agents moved
heaven and earth (not entirely a metaphor) in the generation
just past to suppress those challenges. (See THE CRISIS OF
DEMOCRACY, 1976.)
Prompted by the war and the civil rights movement, the
Sixties' (re)discovered forms of oppression, awareness of
which the so-called "greatest generation" had consciously
suppressed. (That's one of the things World War II and its
American aftermath were about.) Consciousness of the
fundamental oppression of modern society, that of class (by
then an unmentionable subject in America, after the profound
fright of the ruling in the first decades of the century)
struggled into awareness in the course of the anti-Vietnam War
movement (see the mid-sixties "name the system" debate in
SDS), followed by the second wave of feminism (the first being
the Suffragists), and attention to racial and even religious
minorities.
But the counterattack by a far from etiolated regime was
rather successful. And so, like some French radicals (in our
sense) after "the events of May '68," some American
progressives stared into the abyss of what was necessary if
there was to be "a long march trough the institutions" -- and
drew back. But the revolutionary enthusiasm had to go
somewhere: why not champion the abused sensitivities of other
oppressed groups, not workers -- especially if all it took was
condemning the language used (usually by other former
progressives) about those groups? IP and "culture wars" (cf.
the now largely-forgotten Postmodernism) could allow one to
adopt a "radical" stance -- without risking tenure...
Yes, "Identity Politics run completely contrary to the goals
of the Left, which should be understood as greater
democratization and economic equality." --CGE
---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:41:14 -0500
>From: "Matt Reichel" <mattreichel at hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama and the anti-war movement
>To: prorobert8 at hotmail.com, galliher at uiuc.edu,
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>
>Identity Politics: Since this is something that so clearly
differentiates
>the American Left from the Left in most other countries, I
believe that it
>must have a role in explaining the feeble state of affairs here.
>Lefty politics in the United States boil down primarily to
not what one does
>nor believes, but what one says or looks like: and whether it
fits a
>stringent script of what is allowable (or even cool...)
>
>One in a long list of examples: Hunter S. Thompson was widely
shunned by the
>American Left for being a critic of PC-politics and for being
a gun
>advocate. He didn't fit the scripted identity perfectly, so
thus was written
>off despite being one real institutional pain in the ass to
Richard Nixon
>and the cultural cleansing of successive conservative
administrations.
>
>1968 was an important turning point, and can probably be read
as partially
>"where the left went wrong." As syndicalists and
situationists were flirting
>with control of the Parisian state apparatus,, "radicals" in
the US were
>experimenting with acid and long hair. The Americans weren't
talking about
>struggle against the state and business interests: their
focus was cultural
>revolution.
>
>The slippery slope was then in place: from there on "cool"
has been the goal
>of budding Leftist children. But it wasn't just the radicals
who wanted to
>be "cool," the parties in power would love for an opportunity
to align
>themselves with this all-powerful identity. Over time, monied
interests
>fully took control of the minions, as now "cool" is handed
down by the
>corporate thugs in charge...largely emanating from that ever
godly presence,
>MTV.
>
>Identity Politics run completely contrary to the goals of the
Left, which
>should be understood as greater democratization and economic
equality. PC is
>one way to seem "cool" at UFPJ conferences and the like. But
if we actually
>want to liberate Iraqis from the American yoke, it might
require being a bit
>more innovative than PC allows.
>
>cheers,
>mer
>
>
>>From: "Robert Dunn" <prorobert8 at hotmail.com>
>>To: galliher at uiuc.edu, peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama and the anti-war movement
>>Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:21:12 +0000
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Carl, i for one, am in full agreement with you. It seems
that the PC
>>liberals are so adept about not offending anyone that is not
a White
>>Heterosexual Male is inhibiting actual critical discussion
and inquiry. So,
>>if someone does not like what you have to hear, instead of
coming up with a
>>logical, rational counterargument or syllogism, they just go
into ad
>>hominem attacks with McCarthyite charges of racism, sexism,
homophobia,
>>anti-Semitism, etc. when i attended the UFPJ conference in
Chicago back in
>>2003, i was astonished on how they spent an entire half day
bickering over
>>"representation." A pro peace conference turned into a
charade of political
>>correctness and fights over "identity" quotas in the
leadership. Carl, this
>>is one of the reasons why the "Left" irritates me. Instead
of having a
>>unified theme or goal, more time is spent on petty identity
politics, Maybe
>>that
>>is why the "PaleoCons" seem more appealing to me right now.
What can save
>>the "Left" is to unify, judge individuals as individuals,
and give
>>criticism when its due, and praise when its due. Stop with
this constant
>>white heterosexual male confessionals that are meaningless
when you have a
>>more important task ahead of you, stopping the NeoCon
globalists! You work
>>on getting them out of the liberal side, ill work on getting
them out of
>>the Conservative movement. I am reading Pat Buchanans,"Where
the Right Went
>>Wrong." It talks about the NeoCon takeover of the
Conservative movement. I
>>wish someone on the Left could write an expose on "Where the
Left Went
>>Wrong." Because, im seeing both sides being hijacked by the
same
>>"anti-Christ" if you will permit the expression. What is
interesting, is
>>that locally here in the Inland Empire of Southern
California, the John
>>Birch Society is sounding more anti-war then when Robert
Welch first
>>started.
>>Yes, the John Birch Society while still very secretive, is a
part of the
>>anti-war right, same with New Right founders Paul Weyrich,
Phyliss Schlafly
>>sp?, and even some members of the "Christian Right" are
critical of the
>>NeoCons.
>>Regards,
>>Robert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>>To: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama and the anti-war movement
>>Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:41:23 -0500
>> >"...we need to treat black politicians differently than white
>> >politicians..."
>> >
>> >That's dangerous, Al. Are you really saying that we should
>> >say to Obama, "Look, your views on the war are as bad as the
>> >typical white Democratic senator, but since you're black, we
>> >won't condemn them quite so clearly"? That's patronizing, if
>> >not hypocritical or worse.
>> >
>> >And where does it stop?
>> > --to Hillary: "Look, your views on the war are as bad
as the
>> >typical male Democratic senator, but since
>>you're a woman, we
>> >won't condemn them quite so clearly"?
>> > --to Joe Lieberman: "Look, your views on the war are as bad
>> >as the typical gentile Democratic senator, but since you're
>> >Jewish, we won't condemn them quite so clearly"?
>> >
>> >I suppose we could concentrate on (while male gentile) Richard
>> >"The Troops are Nazis" Durbin, as the guy in the DI called him
>> >this morning. --CGE
>> >
>> >
>> >---- Original message ----
>> > >Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:37:23 -0500
>> > >From: Alfred Kagan <akagan at uiuc.edu>
>> > >Subject: [Peace-discuss] Obama
>> > >To: peace-discuss at chambana.net
>> > >
>> > >Of course, individuals are empowered to write whatever they
>> >like in
>> > >their own names, but when it comes to an AWARE position,
I am
>> >sure most
>> > >of
>>us want to be more deliberate. We have already got quite a
>> >bit of
>> > >feedback on how we approached the Obama event, and I have
>> >participated
>> > >in several very useful and self-critical discussions. I am
>> >looking
>> > >forward to further discussion at our meeting on Sunday
night.
>> > >
>> > >I think we are very lucky that several members of the
>> >African-American
>> > >community have come forward to tell us about their reactions
>> >to the
>> > >event. We need to pay attention and digest these
perceptions.
>> > >Immediate defensive reactions can't serve our purposes. We
>> >need to
>> > >seriously think about how we get to where we want to go,
that
>> >is, we
>> > >need to find ways to reach people who may be receptive
to our
>> >politics
>> > >but
>>don't read what we read, watch what we watch, and discuss
>> >what we
>> > >discuss all the time. Our own perceptions of how we
organize
>> >are
>> > >limited. Constructive criticism from outside can be quite
>> >valuable.
>> > >
>> > >I think we have already learned that the African-American
>> >community
>> > >sees Obama very differently than most of us in AWARE.
Obama
>> >is seen
>> > >as an advocate for African-Americans on domestic issues. I
>> >haven't
>> > >carefully studied his record, but I imagine there is good
>> >reason for
>> > >this perception. Even if he doesn't have much of a record
>> >yet, he does
>> > >talk the talk and he is convincing. He gives a good speech.
>> > He is
>> > >seen as a bit of hope rather than
>>politics as usual.
>> > >
>> > >If we are going to be serious about our anti-racism work, we
>> >need to
>> > >understand these perceptions and build our message around
>> >what folks
>> > >are thinking. I am not suggesting that we change our
>> >opinions, I am
>> > >suggesting that we need to organize better. We need to
>> >clearly state
>> > >our anti-racist views at the same time we advocate our
anti-war
>> > >positions. We need to show some respect for Obama's
domestic
>> >agenda
>> > >and advocacy for the black community at the same time we
try to
>> > >influence him to change his foreign policy positions. We
>> >need to
>> > >remind him of his anti-war position before the war, and urge
>> >him to
>> > >reconsider. As a politician, he should
>>not want to be too
>> >far behind
>> > >his constituency for a long period of time. I don't
think we
>> >should be
>> > >calling him a warmonger, rather we should be trying to
engage
>> >him in a
>> > >productive dialog to show him the winds of change.
>> > >
>> > >To sum up, we need to be sensitive to the perceptions of the
>> >black
>> > >community. To be taken seriously by the black community, we
>> >need to
>> > >treat black politicians differently than white politicians.
>> >We need to
>> > >clearly state our anti-racist values in the course of our
>> >work. We
>> > >need to forthrightly criticize in a constructive way, with
>> >the ultimate
>> > >aim of changing Obama's and others' foreign policy
positions.
>> > We need
>> > >to engage black
>>politicians, not beat them up.
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Peace-discuss mailing list
>> >Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> >http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Peace-discuss mailing list
>>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today
- it's FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list