[Peace-discuss] Liberal/Left

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Here's what a Democrat writing in the liberal New Republic (it supported
Gore and Kerry) has to say about peole who want an end to the war. --CGE]

	The New Republic
	WASHINGTON DIARIST
	Left Out
	by T.A. Frank
	Post date 01.27.05 | Issue date 02.07.05

I wasn't supposed to be here. I was supposed to be at a ball, a genuine
inaugural ball with tuxedos and presidential-seal-emblazoned square
napkins and succulent miniature crab cakes. Regrettably, we're a liberal
magazine and, consequently, many of us are less than perfectly organized
(although, at TNR, some of us prefer to think of ourselves as
neo-disorganized) -- and, well, I failed to honor certain
press-credentialing deadlines. Now, instead, I would be covering
"counter-inaugural events." As a result, last night I was sitting in a
low-budget church on G Street in downtown Washington listening to speakers
at an International Socialist Organization-sponsored gathering by the name
of "Town Hall: Empire and Resistance."

Needless to say, this wasn't much fun. I could have thrown a stone as far
as my strength allowed and still have been certain of not hitting a crab
cake. On the other hand, everyone else seemed to be having a good time.
The hundred or so people there frequently applauded and hollered, and, as
expected, phrases like "exposing Bush for what he is -- a cold-blooded
killer" were particular hits. I didn't even think there was much to report
on. After all, who cares what the ideological fringe of the losing side
has to say? But the more I heard, the more I became convinced that I had
discovered something truly threatening: This band of socialists was the
most effective recruiting tool for the Republican Party I'd ever
encountered.

To begin with, there were the posters on the wall: MONEY FOR JOBS AND
EDUCATION, NOT FOR WAR AND OCCUPATION. Let's leave aside that the meter is
somehow dissatisfying (nine syllables followed by eight -- no flow at
all). The main point is, if the shallowness of this statement bothers you,
to what party do you look for comfort? To the Democrats, many of whom
condemn building firehouses in Baghdad and closing firehouses at home? Or
do you say to yourself, in that moment, "I don't much care for Newt
Gingrich -- nor does anyone else -- but I bet he hates that goddamn poster
as much as I do"? I know where I was leaning.

Then there was the pooh-poohing of elections -- any elections. Former
soldier Stan Goff (supposedly of the Delta Force, Rangers, and Special
Forces) spoke at length about the evils of capitalism and declared, "We
ain't never resolved nothing through an election." This drew loud,
sustained applause. Nothing to get worked up about, I thought; just a
leftist speaker spouting lunacy. But today it seemed particularly bad. It
wasn't just that I was missing what might be lovely canapés (or perhaps
spring rolls being brought about on trays with delectable dipping sauce);
rather, it was the thought that the speaker was dismissing something that
Afghanis of all ages had recently risked their lives to participate in,
something Iraq's insurgents view as so transformative that they are
murdering scores of Iraqis to prevent it. No, what I needed to counter
this speaker was not a Democrat like me who might argue that elections
were, in fact, important. What I needed was a Republican like Arnold who
would walk up to him and punch him in the face.

But the worst came with the final speaker, a woman by the name of Sherry
Wolf, who is supposedly on the "editorial board of International Socialist
Review." She talked, and talked, and talked; terms like "architects of the
slaughter," "war criminal," and "Noam Chomsky" wafted about the room; and
my eyes grew so bleary that I ceased taking notes. But then she brought up
the insurgents in Iraq. Sure they were bad, she admitted: "No one cheers
the beheading of journalists." But, she continued, they had a "right" to
rebel against occupation. Then she read from a speech by the activist
Arundhati Roy: "Of course, [the Iraqi resistance] is riddled with
opportunism, local rivalry, demagoguery, and criminality. But if we were
to only support pristine movements, then no resistance will be worthy of
our purity." In sum, Wolf said, the choice boiled down to supporting
occupation or resistance, and we had to support resistance.

So there it was. I even forgot about the Constitution Ball for a minute.
Apparently, we were to view the people who set off bombs killing over 150
peaceful Shia worshippers in Baghdad and Karbala as "resistance" fighters.
And the audience seemed entirely fine with this. These weren't harmless
lefties. I didn't want Nancy Pelosi talking sense to them; I wanted John
Ashcroft to come busting through the wall with a submachine gun to round
everyone up for an immediate trip to Gitmo, with Charles Graner on hand
for interrogation.

I left early (I couldn't stomach the question-answer session) and made my
way to the Metro. In the station were people wearing fur coats and tuxedos
and lovely gowns and shiny shoes. I assumed they were in town to celebrate
Bush's reelection, and, for a moment, I wanted to join in. After my
session with the ISO, they suddenly looked -- well, so appealing.

Having attended college in New York City, I know what it's like to be
confronted with some of the more irritating forms of campus leftism. Yet I
never quite understood why, ultimately, such leftism should drive sensible
people away from liberalism. But yesterday's display made it a little more
understandable: Maybe sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever
is more likely to take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy.

	###