[Peace-discuss] Liberal/Left

[Dan Schreiber]

Hopefully, this T.A. Frank isn't Thomas Frank, who wrote "What's the matter
with Kansas" and contributes to Baffler magazine, whose writings I usually
enjoy.  This would seem out of character if it is the same person.   Can
anyone verify?

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net]On Behalf Of C. G.
> Estabrook
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 11:15 PM
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Liberal/Left
>
>
> [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.
>
> 	###
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss