[Peace-discuss] Major truth, completed

[C. G. Estabrook]

The Democrats in power (tho' they pretend they aren't) are not against the war 
(tho' they pretend they are) -- while the (few) Democrats who are against the 
"imperialist agenda" give the party in power cover.

This week alone Nancy Pelosi is preparing a parliamentary way to fund the Iraq 
war well into the next administration; and Congressional Democrats secretly 
voted $300 million for covert operations against Iran!  Don't these facts give 
you pause?  Is it enough to say, "Bet Kucinich was against it"?

Meanwhile, the paleo-conservatives (add to the ones I've mentioned Justin 
Raimondo and he website Antiwar.com) have been against the wars *on principle*
from the beginning and have given no cover to the Republican administration, 
which they've condemned.

But we tend to think that opposition to the war must come from liberals, whom we 
identify with (some segment of) the Democratic party.  But it doesn't.  Hence 
Zizek's demand to break "the vicious cycle of left-liberal blackmail and to 
profit from old Marx's insight into how intelligent conservatives often see more 
than liberal progressives."  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 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 
>>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>