[Peace-discuss] Mort on the news

[C. G. Estabrook]

Mort sent me the appended draft of his remarks at the last AWARE meeting.  Some 
comments:

[1] As I've said, I'll no longer prepare the 1000/1500-word news summaries that 
I've been doing for some time at the request of AWARE. I agree heartily with the 
suggestion that "individuals take responsibility of contributing news items," 
but I think that our real task is to pool our wisdom to try to understand what's 
really going on, in spite of the programmatic misrepresentation of the "news" 
that's brought to us by the major corporations.

[2] To try to understand what "Obama, liberals and Democrats" are doing, and 
what they propose, is an important part of that task.  They're the ones who have 
been in a position to co-opt and neutralize the anti-war movement, and they've 
largely done so. The present pathetic weakness of the anti-war movement 
contrasts sharply with the largest anti-war demonstrations in human history, 
just over five years ago.  We should try to understand how that's happened -- 
and how it looks like continuing to happen.
      Bush, the neoconservatives and the Republicans said rather clearly what 
they intended to do, and their propaganda ("weapons of mass destruction," 
"spreading democracy") has generally been transparent lies. "Obama, liberals and 
Democrats" have been subtler, by which I mean that they've lied better: remember 
that Obama was presented as an anti-war candidate? that the Democrats were given 
Congress to end the war in 2006 and tied themselves in knots to explain why they 
kept voting money for the wars?
      It took some effort to put lipstick on a wild boar -- the USG -- that ate 
a million people in Iraq and threatens more elsewhere, but "Obama, liberals and 
Democrats" managed it. It seems that one of the first responsibilities of an 
anti-war movement would be to call things by their right names and resist 
co-optation.  We haven't done that very well.
      The result is that Obama will probably be inaugurated in three months' 
time to continue the war and expand it (the Bush killings in Pakistan are just 
"baby steps" -- he calls for much more) -- with support of some of what used to 
be an anti-war movement.  It's hard to see how attempting to give an accurate 
account of "Obama, liberals and Democrats" can be "destructive of the 
possibility of a change, small but significant, in the direction of American 
foreign but especially domestic, policy" -- when refusing to do that is to 
acquiesce in comfortable lies about them and negate the anti-war movement.

[3] I "would not be unhappy to see an Obama defeat" if there were a serious 
candidate opposing him, but the confiscation of those elements of democracy that 
may have once existed in the US system is fairly complete.  We lack the 
democracy of a Brazil or a Bolivia, where a popular party can produce a 
president.  Our system insures that Obama's opponent is worse than he is.

[4] When Mort writes, "It sometimes almost seems that Carl would prefer someone 
like a Palin in office; this would be consonant with some of his particular 
social preferences," that seems to be his sly way to refer to abortion.  That's 
hardly surprising: as Princeton's Larry Bartels summarizes  the survey data, "In 
contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites."  If 
the choice were between Palin and Obama for president, I'd prefer Obama to Palin 
because a Democratic administration might do marginally less damage on domestic 
issues that a Republican administration.

[5] It's charmingly liberal of Mort to concede, "I do not advocate stopping Carl 
from voicing his opinions..."  I too hope that McCain will not be elected 
president, but it's an illusion to think that an "Obama victory" will "move us 
in a proper policy direction" or even that "there is a degree of uncertainly 
about Obama, and this uncertainty allows a hope for humane and progressive 
change."
      Obama has in fact been unusually direct about his views -- and about 
hiding them when he wants to: he seems to have a lot of faith in his own 
rhetorical ability.  We'd know that, if only we would listen to what he says, 
note who his advisers are, and not replace his pro-war and pro-business views 
with what we hope for.
      I couldn't agree more with Mort's last line, if it implies that it's Obama 
whom he'll be "fighting with for the next 4 years" (and not those trying to 
describe accurately what Obama is doing...)  But of course I won't "punch the 
card for Barack Obama on election day" -- that's pointless in Illinois.

CGE

=====================================================
“News of the week at AWARE”. A five minute statement.

• Repeat my suggestion: That individuals take the responsibility of 
contributing news items, replacing Carl’s “News”.

My reasons:

First, I have to say that Carl has done a conscientious and admirable job in 
preparing his News of the Week, and I agree with much of what he says about the 
nature of our government’s actions and the positions of the major candidates, 
McCain and Obama, in the presidential election.

But I feel that his repeated harangues against Obama, liberals and Democrats, 
although not all wrong in substance, have become more than tiresome; they have 
become destructive of the possibility of a change, small but significant, in the 
direction of American foreign but especially domestic, policy.

I can only conclude that, despite some weak denial to the contrary, the effect 
of Carl’s repeated condemnations of liberals, Democrats, and Obama is that he 
would be not be unhappy to see an Obama defeat. This, I believe, is not a policy 
to which AWARE should be complaisant. As Paul Street says McCain is a 
dangerously vile and stupid human being. It sometimes almost seems that Carl 
would prefer someone like a Palin  in office. This would be consonant with some 
of his particular social preferences.

Especially on questions of race, civil rights, judicial nominations—very 
important now for our constitutional republic—, international relations, 
education, health insurance, the environment, energy, … Obama is better.
I am convinced that a McCain presidency, looking forward, could even be worse 
than a  continued Bush presidency, and we must not make such a possibility  easier.

I do not advocate stopping Carl from voicing his opinions, but I do not believe 
that these should have a special place in our discussions, as is presently the 
case. I feel so strongly about this—that it is important not to encourage a 
McCain presidency and hence undermine an Obama victory—that if the present mode 
continues, I will be very unhappy.

• Some argue that the presidential elections are not that important; I strongly 
disagree. It is true that we should have no illusions about radical changes in 
policy, especially corporate, imperial or foreign, with an Obama presidency—we 
will be disappointed—, but we have to be sensible and take whatever we can get 
that moves us in a proper policy direction, and to accomplish this we have to 
continue to exert whatever pressures we can to change such policies.

• I have said in the past that there is a degree of uncertainly about Obama, and 
this uncertainty allows a hope for humane and progressive change.

Quoting a commentary on Paul Street’s opinions about the election:  I hate 
playing the same game every election cycle, but I don't see any easy way out. I 
guess that's the point. There is no easy way out. It's going to take some kind 
of revolution in this country to move beyond the wreckage of our current 
political carnival sideshow. I was going to call it a circus, but that gives it 
a grandeur I don't think it deserves.

So I'll punch the card for Barack Obama on election day and then wait to find 
out who I'll be fighting with for the next 4 years.

	###