[Peace-discuss] Response to Just Foreign Policy - J Street

[LAURIE]

> Well, there's you and I, Laurie, and a few other readers of this list,
> for starters.  There's Kathy Kelly and people like her.  There's Noam
> Chomsky and a handful of other writers.  Or are you talking solely about
the
> choices available to us at the ballot box?

I am taking about choices available to us at the ballot box; but not solely
restricted to that.  I am also talking about the fact that the whole
political spectrum has shifted to the right and there is nothing left of
center in terms of organized movements and actions operating in either the
polity or the economy and little in U.S. society.  While there may be a few
individuals who actually are to the left of center in ideology and even
fewer who are in both ideology and actions. Most individuals and
organizations have read the handwriting on the wall, recognizing current
fashionable political trends, and either gone underground and become docile
and apathetic or try not to do anything that would call attention to
themselves as being radical much less progressive - least they be called a
liberal or worse and have sanctions brought down on them.

Even in the 1930's and 1960's when there was an active radical movement and
active individuals to the left of center (which in that period was itself
much further left), there were few if any radical or progressive left of
center choices available to most of us on the ballot box.  I guess what I am
raising is the old end of ideology issues or question for the U.S.  Now the
radicals appear to be on the right if anywhere since they are the ones
challenging establishment values and premises; everyone else appears to take
a position that is superficially a variation of the establishment position
with the only real disagreements being in practical assessments and
strategies.  Even those to the left of today's center who call themselves
progressives are not challenging the current world view and offering
completely different alternatives or worldviews.  There is no challenge to
capitalism, private property, corporate socialism, the existing governmental
structure and processes only suggestions as to how they might be reformed
and improved upon, made more effective and efficient, opened up to more of
the population, etc. 

Of course, we still have other labels with some vague connections to
ideological positions such as "doves" and "hawks," "cold warriors,"
imperialists" and "isolationists," etc.  But none of these represents a
philosophical and ideological worldview which presents an ideal form of
state and society as a goal to be achieved.  They are more strategies as to
how to be an effective and efficient state corporate society where socialist
and capitalist elements are intermixed to the benefit of the corporations
who are the real holders of power and authority and the actual citizens.
The only existing philosophical and ideological worldview of an ideal
society is establishmentarianism with an emphasis on conformity, corporate
welfare and dominance over the individual, an amoral pragmatic opportunism,
and deception.

I think I will get of this soapbox now; I am getting dizzy from the height
and cold from the winds of alienation.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W.
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 6:18 AM
> To: LAURIE ; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Response to Just Foreign Policy - J Street
> 
> At 11:04 AM 4/27/2008, LAURIE wrote:
> 
> >Interestingly and ironically, I am inclined to agree with everyone
> here
> >with respect to the basics of the argument and with each regarding
> some of
> >the divergent points.
> >
> >First, the notion of "Liberal", which from my understanding stems from
> the
> >old English Utilitarians (Jeremy Bentham, James Mills, and J.S.
> Mills),
> >has totally lost any meaning in today's political environment
> >philosophically as a political, economic, or social label defining an
> >ideological perspective.  Indeed, today's Republican Conservatives
> >probably best represent the old Liberal tradition of the
> >Utilitarians.  There are no Conservatives in either party anymore who
> >represent the old Burkean Conservative political philosophy; just as
> there
> >are not any longer any radical left wing Socialists, Communists, or
> >Anarchists to be found in the U.S.  Thus from a philosophical and
> >ideological perspective the terms are merely contemporary labels with
> >positive and negative connotations attached to them but representing
> no
> >historic traditions.  This was also true in the 1960's; but to a
> lesser
> >extent in that the labels still had some connections to philosophical
> >traditions. In short, there no longer is any Conservative to Liberal
> to
> >Socialist continuum along which people can be ideologically or
> politically
> >measured in philosophical terms.  Yesterday's moderates and center of
> the
> >roaders are today's conservatives. And yesterday's Liberals are
> today's
> >moderates. There really is nothing left of center.
> 
> Well, there's you and I, Laurie, and a few other readers of this list,
> for
> starters.  There's Kathy Kelly and people like her.  There's Noam
> Chomsky
> and a handful of other writers.  Or are you talking solely about the
> choices available to us at the ballot box?
> 
> 
> 
> >Second, I am reminded of the Phil Ochs song, "Love me I'm a Liberal"
> when
> >discussing who are calling themselves Liberals in today's world and
> the
> >types of values they support and behaviors they exhibit.  As the Och's
> >song suggests, this is not a new phenomenon; it existed in the 1950'
> and
> >60's.  It is interesting that it appears that the only ones who
> discuss,
> >debate, or even are concerned about the label of Liberal are those who
> >have the discretionary free time and money, luxury of an unregimented
> >academic, artistic, or bureaucratic life style, or a polemical
> political
> >predisposition.  I have found it to be the case that many so-called
> >liberals, as they get older, become more and more intolerant,
> egoistically
> >self centered and self-interested, dogmatic, and resistant to change
> which
> >might affect them or theirs negatively.  They become less open to new
> >ideas and patterns of behavior, less willing to be involved in the
> down
> >and dirty nitty-gritty of community life in which they may not be seen
> in
> >a high visibility light as charitable public spirited actor, and less
> >willing to engage in substantive discussions and actions if they may
> have
> >negative consequences for their own self interests and life styles but
> >more willing to engage in symbolic and verbal combat with real and
> phantom
> >enemies.
> >
> >At any rate that is my two cents plain and simple.
> 
> And worth every penny!!!!  :-P
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> >[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W.
> >Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 6:12 AM
> >To: Peace Discuss
> >Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Response to Just Foreign Policy - J
> Street
> >
> >At 01:24 PM 4/26/2008, David Green wrote:
> >
> >
> >Point taken. Unfortunately, it was the cold war liberals who won out,
> in a
> >pretty decisive way. And even so-called social democrats like Irving
> Howe,
> >Michael Walzer, etc. vehemently opposed the New Left and stereotyped
> the
> >student antiwar movement in a really ugly way. That of course includes
> >Martin Peretz, first publsiher of new left Ramparts, later of the
> Zionist
> >New Republic. They were just uncomfortable with a clear challenge to
> >authority, again on a principled basis, which was seen as a threat to
> all
> >authority. The Old Left had a more top-down, authoritarian, sectarian
> >culture, in spite of their careless accusations that the New Left was
> >captivated by Maoism--just an insult, really. Again, liberals and even
> >some socialists chose to maintain their identity by rejecting the
> antiwar
> >left, even if they had to do so not by arguing in favor of the Vietnam
> >War, but by means of cultural stereotypes defining those who on a more
> >principled basis opposed that war. These folks were truly elitist.
> They
> >just hated the counterculture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >This is pretty much all over my head.  I basically agree with Mort,
> that
> >"liberal" and all of the other related political buzzwords are
> amorphous
> >in their definition.
> >
> >We young anti-war, anti-Military Industrial Complex "radicals" in the
> late
> >60s took our cue from the Black Power movement in looking down on
> >"liberals" as (predominantly white American) individuals who were
> somewhat
> >well-meaning but basically didn't have a clue about "the war on the
> >ground", broadly speaking.  White individuals who "talked the talk"
> about
> >equality, but didn't really "walk the walk" if it meant that they
> might
> >have to give up some of their own precious privilege.  That today is
> still
> >essentially my own definition of a liberal.  Al Gore is an example of
> a
> >"limousine liberal".  Champaign-Urbana is fairly bursting with
> >'em.  They're slightly preferable to neo-conservatives, but not by
> >terribly much.
> >
> >I THINK this is essentially what Carl is saying when he rails against
> the
> >Democrats, and what David is saying when he excoriates "liberal"
> Jewish
> >organizations.  With a "liberal", hypocrisy of the most basic sort is
> >never far away.  But, of course, each of us clearly perceives the
> splinter
> >in our brother's eye while being blissfully ignorant of the log in our
> own
> >eye.  Which is why the labelling of other people and groups is so
> >problematic and elusive.
> >
> >All of this other stuff just sounds like so much academic gibberish to
> >me.  Maybe it informs the thinking of Carl and David, but I'm not
> >knowledgeable enough to understand it.  I vaguely remember the
> internecine
> >ideological squabbles among, for example, the SDS leadership in the
> 60s
> >and early 70s, but all that didn't have any particular impact on the
> >"radical on the street" like me.  I didn't know much about politics
> per
> >se, but I knew a liberal when I smelled him (or her).  And I like to
> >imagine that I still do.
> >
> >John Wason
> >
> >
> >
> >"Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Language is often deforming. "Liberal", "left", "conservative", etc.,
> are
> >words often without any definite meaning, often used only in order to
> >excoriate or praise. There is no politically homogeneous block of
> >"liberals", although  as used in current discourse, those who promote
> >aspects of domestic social welfare, but who are aggressive in, or
> passive
> >about, expanding U.S. hegemony, are often called "liberals".  But
> there is
> >a continuous spectrum of beliefs of those characterized as "liberal".
> I've
> >known (self described) "liberals" who indeed were against American
> foreign
> >wars and interventions, against the cold war actions of our foreign
> >policy, against McCarthyism, but indeed there were "liberals" on the
> other
> >side.
> >("Liberal" in the European sense is used as an economic moniker to
> >indicate those generally promoting free trade and capitalism (albeit
> with
> >exceptions); we don't usually use the term in that way. )
> >So, I guess I'm saying that the critique of liberals or liberal
> ideology
> >in the following is overly broad brush, and hence disputable.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss