FW: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Now Obama's in, is anti-war anti-racism activism out?

Sat Nov 8 22:59:26 CST 2008

I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding your insistence on "fair
and equal" criticism and condemnation of  disproportionate amounts of
criticism being leveled at only one side.  First, there was little such
concern expressed by progressives and the "left" when they
disproportionately criticized Bush and the Bush Administration, Republicans,
the Democratic leadership and members of the Senate and House who took
positions which were opposed by the progressive community, the corporate
establishment and their representatives, etc. to the point of demonizing
them and engaging in a" vendetta" without aiming similar sorts of attacks on
the people that the progressives  supported when they deviated from the
party line or presenting the positive spin on the positions of those who
held positions that were in opposition to the progressive party line.  I
fully understand and accept why this was the case and the arguments that
were made in justification of  the progressive one sided criticism.  The
elected officials and their appointees as well as the corporate powers held
positions of authority and power and have regular and constant access to the
media and what messages were being put out which the progressive community
was deprived of and lacked wide spread fair and equal access to.  But if
"fair and equal criticism" by the progressive community of  those that they
support is not insisted on, they why should it be insisted on and respected
when it comes the criticism of those the progressives view as their
opposition?  

Why shouldn't Aware be  presenting in positive terms as well as criticizing
pro-war positions and policies?  The reason is that those positions are not
the ones that the community advocates so they feel no compulsion to promote
and give free advertisement to those positions and policies; and besides the
establishment press is already giving disproportionate favorable
non-critical space to  those establishment positions, and pro-war policies.
The progressive anti-war community feels the need to focus on attacking the
pro-war positions and giving positive spin on anti-war positions to counter
the disproportionate  promotion by the establishment media to the pro-war
people, positions, and policies.  This brings me to the second reason why I
disagree with your condemnation of disproportionate critical attention being
given to Obama over McCain.  Everyone - or almost everyone - within the
progressive community and most others who the progressive community had any
chance of convincing otherwise already knew what McCain stood for or
potentially stood for, they knew what they might expect from him, and how it
was different from what they wanted; thus, there was no need to critically
discuss McCain/Palin, their positions, potential policies, decision-making
stances, campaign promises, etc. at any length - especially since the
establishment press and media were already  promoting McCain's positions,
policies, and campaign promises and even pointing out some of their flaws
and weaknesses.  This, was far less the case for Obama/Biden; thus the
critical focus naturally turned to the direction about which there was less
clear and certain information, more ambiguity and vagueness, and many
contradictory positions that undermined the progressive communities
expectations.  People felt the need to make themselves and others in the
progressive community aware of critical contradictory, ambiguous, and vague
positions and promises that the Obama/Biden team were articulating, how
Obama had and was changing the flavor of his positions over time depending
on the audience that was being addressed, and who  had his ear as an advisor
of significance as well as the potential impact of these things in terms of
the future should he be elected.  The significance of this increased mainly
because Obama had become the progressive's "Great White Hope" and they did
not want to be fooled again like they were with the Democratically
controlled Congress which wound up caving in and supporting  the neo-cons,
the neo-liberals, the old cold war crises-politics hawks, who saw terrorists
around every corner.  In short, there was no point in critically analyzing
or attacking McCain/Palin from the left when talking to people on the left
or the progressive base, since they were not going to vote for McCain/Palin
anyway.  As for addressing the middle and independents, most of the
conversation being referred to took place on the Aware email list and was
not addressed to the public per se or directed to the independents and
middle of the road voters who could go in any direction.

Thirdly, I really fail to see how and why the critical attention paid to
Obama was disproportionate when it came to the presentation of positives
versus negatives pertaining to him, his positions, his record, or his
actions since each critical negative analysis that appeared on the list was
responded to by one or more critical positive analysis or refutations.  I
think that that was well in tune with the notion of an overall  "fair and
balanced" assessment within the confines and context of the email list.  To
me that is the more important realm in which to assess fair and equal
treatment and not a comparison between the quantity of negative critical
analysis that were addressed to Obama versus that addressed to McCain.

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Jenifer
Cartwright
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 6:16 PM
To: Morton K. Brussel; Neil Parthun
Cc: Peace-discuss; C. G. Estabrook
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Now Obama's in, is anti-war anti-racism
activism out?

Friends,

Speaking for myself (and maybe others?): MY concerns were not that there
were criticisms of Obama then nor now, but rather first, the
disproportionate amount of criticism against Obama, with virtually none
against McCain (the word "vendetta" comes to mind), and second, the way in
which the criticisms were levied (the phrase "smear tactics" comes to mind).

If you don't see the difference between the Chomsky/Zinn/Klein and the
Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Coulter approaches (other than the politics involved), I
don't think I can  say anything on the subject that will enlighten you.

 --Jenifer   

--- On Fri, 11/7/08, Neil Parthun <lennybrucefan at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Neil Parthun <lennybrucefan at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Now Obama's in, is anti-war anti-racism
activism out?
To: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at illinois.edu>
Cc: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>, "C. G. Estabrook"
<galliher at uiuc.edu>
Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 6:01 AM

The very essence of puerility was not allowing criticism of Obama in the
buildup to the election by saying those who held a consistent anti-war ethic
somehow wanted McCain/Palin to win the election.  It was intellectually lazy
and the sticking of one's head in the proverbial sand. 

Now that Obama's elected, may we start saying the uncomfortable facts about
He Who Shall Not Be Criticized?  Your lesser evil argument is now negated,
so what else do you have to prevent our criticisms of Obama's bellicose
rhetoric and acts (i.e. FISA) outside of ad hominem attacks on Carl, me and
others?

May we begin our work to light a fire under his ass to ensure that he ends
the wars and actually does some things to assist the working class?

In a similar fashion, many "anti-Bush" Democrats in the 1990's defended
Clinton's bombing and genocide of Iraqis, defended his ending "welfare was
we know it", expanding the use of capital punishment, the Defense of
Marriage Act etc. for many of the same reasons people have used to defend
Obama -- the idea of if Clinton/Obama didn't do or say X, he would be slimed
by the Republicans/it would assist the right wing in winning the next
election/as bad as that was, the Republicans could be worse.

Well, with so many of the anti-progressive acts taken by Clinton and the
increasingly bellicose rhetoric of Obama along with his surrounding himself
with the Clinton-era hawks -- with friends like that, who the Hell needs
enemies?

Smile and keep fighting,

     Neil

 We absolutely have to refuse to attribute any kind of permanency to that
which is simply because it is.

[angela v. davis, 1944-]

Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Some
blunders and absurdities have crept in; forget them as soon as you can.
Tomorrow is a new day. You shall begin it serenely and with too high a
spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense.

[ralph waldo emerson, 1803-1882]

_______________________________________________
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/20081108/f07c7e93/attachment.html