[Peace-discuss] Obama's Right-wing advance

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

>  But I do wonder what a thorough-going anti-war movement that was in fact
egalitarian (therefore necessarily democratic > and abolitionist) would have
looked like then.  (There were vestiges, of course.)

(Smile)  Don't you have to wonder what it would look like today?  You are
not going to tell me that we have more than mere vestiges of it today, are
you?

-----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, December 09, 2008 1:15 AM
To: Joseph Parnarauskis
Cc: Peace-discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama's Right-wing advance

Joe--

I think the piece you quote is good on Obama but not so good on Lincoln.  It

overstates "the historically progressive character of Lincoln and his 
government": it's not clear that they "embodied a profoundly democratic and 
ultimately revolutionary agenda, centered on the struggle against slavery
and 
the preservation of the union."

Lincoln was not a principled opponent of slavery (altho' he may have become
so). 
His position before secession was that the federal government did not
possess 
the constitutional power to end slavery in states where it already existed;
he 
supported the Corwin Amendment, which would have explicitly prohibited
Congress 
from interfering with slavery in states where it existed.

In the midst of the war, Lincoln wrote (to Horace Greeley), "My paramount
object 
in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to
destroy 
slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,
and 
if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could
save 
it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do 
about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save
the 
Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help
to 
save the Union."

And what was "saving the Union" about?  All would admit today that the
*effect* 
of Lincoln's policy was to establish a much more powerful central government
in 
the United States.  (Hence the old line that the Civil War was about a verb:

"the United States is" vs. "the United States are.")  But the *cause* of the
war 
was the conflict between two ruling groups who exploited labor differently
-- by 
slavery in the South, by the wage-contract in the North. They came into
conflict 
after the Mexican War and the vast increase of US territory that followed
it.

"Both groups wanted to control the western half of the continent, and the 
Northern agrarians became increasingly anti-slavery as they faced the
prospect 
of competing against a forced-labor system.  But favoring free soil did not
mean 
agitating to free the black man.  The majority of Western farmers were not 
abolitionists ... Their objective was to exclude both the white planter and
the 
black [workers] from the trans-Mississippi marketplace.  That goal, and the 
attitude which produced it, gave Abraham Lincoln his victory over the 
abolitionist element in the newly rising Republican party" (W. A. Williams).

I'm suggesting, I'm afraid, that the WSWS article is insufficiently Marxist,
in 
that it ignores the class interests that led to the rise of the radical 
Republicans (and Lincoln), who were not necessarily abolitionist and only 
adventitiously democratic. They just wanted the trans-Mississippi empire
farmed 
with wage-labor, not slave-labor.  (Hence the central Republican party plank
was 
"no extension of slavery.")

Remember that Marx himself, when he wrote on behalf of the International
Working 
Men's Association to congratulate Lincoln on his re-election (1864), gave as
his 
principal reason that, with the distraction of slavery removed, the struggle

between capital and labor was clearer: slavery had been the reason Northern 
workers "were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support
their 
European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to 
progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war."

I think a true democrat (therefore necessarily a socialist) would have
opposed 
the war in 1860 -- but obviously not because s/he would have supported
slavery. 
  But I do wonder what a thorough-going anti-war movement that was in fact 
egalitarian (therefore necessarily democratic and abolitionist) would have 
looked like then.  (There were vestiges, of course.)

Regards, Carl


On Dec 8, 2008, at 7:00 PM, Joseph Parnarauskis wrote:

> It is hard to ignore Obama's rapidly evolving recant of his pre-nomination
> promises to the American people.  As a Socialist Equality Party member and
> former local candidate for State Senate, I feel obliged to send you this
> article from the World Socialist Website, our Party's daily web-paper,
giving
> a clear and concise analysis of his incoming administration.  From a
> international and Marxist perspective, it will clarify his lies of "Hope
and
> Change".  I enjoy reading your banter daily regarding your views of his 
> turn-around.   I look forward to your comments. Best regards, Joe
> Parnarauskis
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's Team of Reactionaries
> 
> 
> 8 December 2008
> 
> In recent weeks, numerous media accounts have referred to President-elect
> Barack Obama's cabinet selections as a "team of rivals." The reference is
to
> a book of the same name by the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin on Abraham
> Lincoln's choices for key cabinet posts after his victory in the 1860
> election, when he confronted the secession crisis and then the Civil War.
> 
> The media comparisons between Lincoln's and Obama's cabinets are specious,
> betraying a combination of historical ignorance and political shallowness.
> The false analogy serves two political functions. First, it implicitly
> imparts to Obama a progressive and democratic aura which is, in fact,
belied
> by his cabinet selections, all of whom are advocates of militarism abroad
and
> austerity at home. Second, the analogy distorts and demeans the
historically
> progressive character of Lincoln and his government, which embodied a
> profoundly democratic and ultimately revolutionary agenda, centered on the

> struggle against slavery and the preservation of the union.
> 
> The use of the term "team of rivals" in relation to the Obama cabinet
rests
> on the president-elect's selection for secretary of state of his chief
> opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, and
his
> retention from the Bush administration of Robert Gates for defense
secretary.
> Obama won the nomination over Clinton, who was the early favorite, by
> appealing to broad opposition to the war in Iraq among Democratic voters
and
> the population at large, incessantly reminding voters that "she got it
wrong"
> in her support for the invasion and presenting himself as the candidate
who
> would bring a rapid end to the war. He then won the general election based
on
> a powerful voter repudiation of the Bush administration's militaristic
> foreign policy and its pro-corporate and anti-democratic domestic agenda.
> 
> Gates oversaw the conduct of the "surge" in Iraq that drowned the Sunni
> resistance in blood and ethnically cleansed vast areas of the country. He
has
> publicly opposed any timetable for the withdrawal of US forces.
> 
> Obama's top cabinet appointments thus represent a brazen repudiation of
his
> campaign rhetoric, a slap in the face to the millions of workers and youth
> who voted for him because they believed or hoped that the victory of the
> candidate of "change" would really signal a change for the better, and a
> clear signal to the ruling elite that his administration will, in all
> essentials, continue the imperialist and militarist policies of the Bush
> administration.
> 
> This is not only not analogous to Lincoln's approach, it is the opposite.
> Lincoln's key cabinet picks, while they had been rivals for the Republican
> Party nomination of 1860, in no way represented a retreat from the central
> principals of his campaign and the aspirations of his voters: preserving
the
> union and preventing the expansion of slavery. These appointments included
> William Seward as secretary of state, Salmon Chase as treasury secretary,
and
> Edward Bates as attorney general.
> 
> Lincoln rose to prominence in the young Republican Party by giving
political
> voice to mass popular sentiment against the expansion of slavery to the
new
> states and territories of the West. Largely because of his genius for
clearly
> presenting the critical political issues related to slavery, he bested
more
> prominent politicians such as Seward (senator from New York) and Chase
> (governor of Ohio) in the contest for the 1860 Republican presidential
> nomination. But despite numerous political and personal differences,
Seward,
> Chase and all of Lincoln's other cabinet selections shared the central aim
of
> the Republican Party-preserving the union and defeating the rebellion of
the
> Southern slave owners.
> 
> Lincoln did not invite rivals into his cabinet who disagreed with him on
> basic questions of principle, such as Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas,
who
> represented the northern wing of the Democratic Party in the 1860 election
> and who advocated further concessions to the southern elite on the slavery
> issue, or John C. Breckinridge, the candidate of the Democratic Party's
> southern wing, who favored the expansion of slavery. To have matched
Obama's
> cynicism, Lincoln would have needed to appoint Douglas as secretary of
state
> and Breckinridge as secretary of war.
> 
> The "rivals" he did appoint to his cabinet all shared his hatred of
slavery
> and his determination to defeat the pro-slavery forces, by force of arms
if
> necessary. As a senator in the 1850s, Seward earned a reputation as one of
> the most articulate opponents of slavery. He denounced the Compromise of
> 1850, which allowed for the expansion of slavery and sanctioned the
passage
> of the reactionary Fugitive Slave law. In so doing, Seward memorably
appealed
> to a "higher law" than the Constitution. In the wake of the
Kansas-Nebraska
> Act, which permitted slavery in the new states under the guise of popular
> sovereignty, he called the question of slavery the "irrepressible
conflict"
> that could not be avoided by the sorts of compromises favored by Douglas
and
>  other northern Democrats.
> 
> Edward Bates, from Missouri, was a former Whig who, after a long period of
> semi-retirement, regained political prominence based on his opposition to
the
> expansion of slavery to neighboring Kansas. His selection as attorney
general
> was designed to win support among the border states for the Lincoln
> administration and its struggle against the Southern slaveocracy.
> 
> Kearns Goodwin makes much of Chase's jealousy toward Lincoln. But Chase's
> opposition to slavery was never in doubt. He made his political name as a
> young Ohio attorney defending fugitive slaves against their masters, and
was
> a founder of the Free-Soil Party, a precursor to the Republican Party.
After
> Lincoln accepted his resignation as treasury secretary in 1864, he quickly
> appointed Chase as chief justice of the Supreme Court, where his decisions
> upheld Reconstruction in the South.
> 
> In securing the 1860 Republican nomination, Lincoln beat out his main
rivals,
> Seward, Chase and Bates. Then, after winning the general election, he
invited
> them to assume key cabinet posts. He did so not simply because he was a
> shrewd politician, but because he wished to unite the various sections of
the
> Republican Party behind the aspirations of genuinely democratic forces in
the
> country and create the best possible conditions for crushing the Southern
> planters' rebellion.
> 
> In contrast to Lincoln's Team of Rivals, Obama has chosen a Team of 
> Reactionaries, which embodies the president-elect's cynical and
contemptuous
> repudiation of his campaign rhetoric and the aspirations of the vast
majority
> of those who voted for him.
> 
> Tom Eley
> 
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list

> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto: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