[Peace-discuss] Major truth, completed

[Morton K. Brussel]

I've mentioned Democrats, not specifically Congressional Democrats.  
The paleo-conservatives mentioned as contrast generally are not  
Congressional, and I'm uncertain as to how they poll on the  
imperialist agenda. Also, Carl omits to note I included others "on  
the right". Moreover,  it is not that those such as  Kucinich, and  
others of similar mind not in Congress, would not want to effect  
policy—it is not their fault if they can't, so Marcuse's quote,  
although erudite, is inappropriate in this instance.

In any case, the point is that Carl seems overly enamored with paleo- 
conservatives (however conveniently defined by Carl) to the exclusion  
of those, even calling themselves Democrats, who resist the  
imperialist agenda. My (perhaps not significant) objection is to  
Carl's persistently one-sided  condemnations.

--mkb


On May 4, 2008, at 5:00 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> The point is that the paleo-conservatives, like the ones mentioned  
> and in stark contrast to the neo-conservatives, DO NOT support "the  
> imperialist agenda of Bush et al."
>
> The subsidiary point is that the Congressional Democrats, with the  
> exception of a few outliers who have no power, DO in practice  
> support the imperialist agenda of Bush et al., as has become  
> entirely clear since the 2006 election, even when they trumpet the  
> failures of the administration successfully to enact that agenda.
>
> One might argue that Kucinich and the few Democrat office-holders  
> like him are an example of Marcuse's "repressive tolerance": they  
> allow Mort and others to say, "See, there are some Democrats  
> against the war" -- on the condition that they have no effect on  
> policy! --CGE
>
>
> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>> This paragraph illustrates why I have problems with Carl's  
>> arguments: He homes in on specific groups/members, Democrats who  
>> are complicit in the administration's machinations, but he fails  
>> to acknowledge that there are many (most?) other Democrats who do  
>> condemn our government's belligerent policies, while omitting  
>> mention of all the paleo-conservatives and others on the right who  
>> totally support the imperialist agenda of Bush et al.  This is a  
>> biased picture. --mkb
>> On May 4, 2008, at 12:21 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>
>>> That's why, with few exceptions, we get principled opposition to  
>>> war in Iran
>>> (and Iraq and Afpak and Palestine) not from Democrats but from  
>>> paleo-
>>>
>>> conservatives such as those around the journal American  
>>> Conservative (and Ron
>>> Paul). A notable recent example is Bill Kauffman's new book,  
>>> "Ain't My America:
>>> The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle- 
>>> American Anti-
>>>
>>> Imperialism."  --CGE
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> ---
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080504/c8dc32d0/attachment.html