[Peace-discuss] A view from the UK

[C. G. Estabrook]

Isolationism has meant the much-pilloried and much-misunderstood anti-war 
position of the American 1930s, and it would be good if Palin shared it -- at 
least as Wayne says to the point of being non-interventionist.

And I was not predicting what the McCain campaign would do.  I was pointing out 
that -- given the possibility Paul Street noted a month ago, viz. "With a large 
part of the citizenry supporting serious progressive change in the wake of the 
hard-right Cheney-Bush nightmare, Obama's corporate-imperial centrism could end 
up costing him the White House" -- it might aid McCain with the voters to take 
up the opposition to the war that Obama only pretended to hold, as that pretense 
became clearer.  --CGE


Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> I believe that the author meant by the word "isolationism" that she was 
> isolated from the views of the rest of the globe's peoples and opinions. 
> Only this makes sense to me: I don't think that the author of the quote 
> is stupid.
> 
> And anyone who could think that McCain would possibly have been an 
> anti-war candidate is seriously misinformed, or unbalanced.  --mkb
> 
> 
> On Sep 15, 2008, at 10:18 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> [Palin has little or nothing to do with isolationism, in any sense.  
>> Would that she did: I've thought for a while that McCain could win as 
>> an anti-war candidate, but that's now looking to be unnecessary, as 
>> Obama's pro-war position becomes more and more obvious.  Here below is 
>> another view from the UK, sounder as it seems to me, although the last 
>> two paragraphs are blather.  --CGE]
>>
>>     Democratic activists should stop digging
>>     By Clive Crook
>>     Published: September 14 2008 20:00
>>
>> If Barack Obama loses this election to John McCain – something which, 
>> for the first time, I regard as a real possibility – history will 
>> point to August 29 as the pivotal moment. That was when Mr McCain 
>> announced that Sarah Palin would be his running-mate, and when livid 
>> Democrats and their friends in the media voiced their feelings about 
>> her and much of the electorate, and gravely harmed their candidate’s 
>> prospects.
>>
>> For Mr McCain to win the election against the odds that faced him 
>> pre-Palin – with the economy in the tank and the incumbent Republican 
>> president setting records for unpopularity – would be sensational 
>> enough. For this to happen because of his vice-presidential pick, a 
>> decision that is usually of next to no consequence, beggars belief. 
>> The Democrats had to bring all their resources to getting themselves 
>> into this fix. They proved equal to the task.
>>
>> As I argued last week, Mr Obama’s own initial reaction to the Palin 
>> nomination was exactly right. All the party had to do was follow his 
>> lead. Mr Obama, in effect, would give her enough rope; her 
>> inadequacies would reveal themselves in due course; it cost nothing, 
>> in the meantime, to be courteous, and to keep pressing on the issues, 
>> where the Democrats still enjoy an advantage with most voters. Ms 
>> Palin’s first television interview last week, an adequate but far from 
>> stellar performance, affirmed the wisdom of that course.
>>
>> But the Democratic talking-heads had to exult in their disdain for Ms 
>> Palin and all she represents – namely, a good part of the electorate 
>> whose support Mr Obama needs. In the space of a few days, they 
>> irreversibly damaged Mr Obama’s candidacy and transformed this election.
>>
>> Subsequent developments reflect poorly on both parties, in my view. 
>> Are the Democrats learning, and trying to correct their error? No, for 
>> the most part, just the opposite. Are the Republicans pressing their 
>> advantage with a confident, principled campaign focused on the issues 
>> that matter? Again, no.
>>
>> Certainly, the Democrats can see they are in a hole. Somehow, though, 
>> the word has gone out: “Keep digging.” Mr Obama is also urged to be 
>> less cool and lose his temper. Voters adore an angry candidate, you 
>> see. “Dig faster, and be more angry,” is the advice coming down from 
>> the political geniuses who decided it was a fine idea to laugh at Ms 
>> Palin in the first place. A recurring television image in the past few 
>> days has been the split-screen contrast between a serenely smiling 
>> Republican operative and a fulminating red-faced Democrat about to 
>> have a stroke.
>>
>> Efforts to smear the governor proceed at a frantic pace. My guess 
>> would be that there are now more journalists on assignment in Alaska 
>> than bothered to turn up for the Republican convention in St Paul, 
>> sifting through dustbins, interrogating Palin family acquaintances 
>> (extra credit for those with a grievance) and subjecting Ms Palin’s 
>> expenses claims to a fanatical scrutiny which I dare say their own 
>> record-keeping, or that of most senators, might not withstand.
>>
>> Of course, they will find things. They may even find something 
>> important. But the sheer swarming zeal for trivial malfeasance and 
>> family embarrassments is rapidly raising the bar for impropriety. I 
>> think that many voters – and not just committed Republicans – find 
>> this whole spectacle disgusting, so on top of everything else Ms Palin 
>> is now getting a sympathy vote.
>>
>> Among seasoned Democratic politicians, the picture is more mixed. Joe 
>> Biden, the vice-presidential nominee, appears to get it. His stump 
>> speech has started to include obliging remarks about Ms Palin, which 
>> suggests he is approaching the forthcoming television debate in the 
>> correct frame of mind. If he can stay polite and respectful while 
>> laying bare the gaps in Ms Palin’s knowledge and experience, and by 
>> highlighting her positions on social issues, which are unappealing to 
>> many centrists, he can undo some of the damage of recent days.
>>
>> But compare this with the comment of Carol Fowler, chairman of the 
>> South Carolina Democratic party, who said late last week that Ms 
>> Palin’s main qualification for office was that she has not had an 
>> abortion. Brilliant! Even now, with the polls giving their verdict, 
>> there is much more like that. And Democrats wonder why they cannot get 
>> the debate back on to their issues.
>>
>> Republicans are not going to help them do it while things are going so 
>> well for them. This may be understandable, but let us be clear – this 
>> is not to their credit. If Mr McCain were the kind of leader he claims 
>> to be, he would want to be elected for his platform. His policy 
>> proposals, not his vapid commitment to “change Washington”, would be 
>> to the fore. More than this, he would also want to bind the country 
>> together, and restore its moral strength and sense of purpose. He 
>> would strive to be a unifier. Mr Obama makes that claim, with seeming 
>> sincerity, and it is the best thing about his candidacy.
>>
>> Democrats will deny it, but they opened this new front in the culture 
>> war by their response to the Palin nomination. The mess they are in is 
>> their own fault. They still seem intent on driving significant numbers 
>> of women and moderates over to the other side and Mr McCain’s 
>> political instinct is doubtless to help this rift in the electorate 
>> widen further. It could be a winning strategy. But good politics is 
>> not the same thing as responsible leadership. I intend it as a 
>> compliment to Mr McCain when I say that if his means to victory in 
>> this election is to divide the country, it is a victory he should not 
>> want.
>>
>>     Send your comments to clive.crook at gmail.com
>>     Read and post comments at Clive Crook’s Washington Blog
>>     Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
>>
>> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0be814b0-828b-11dd-a019-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1 
>>
>>
>>
>> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>> From http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/14-3
>>> …
>>> Ms Palin is a symbol of deep American introversion, of the fact that 
>>> you have
>>> ceased to take yourselves seriously and, more important, don't much 
>>> care who
>>> knows it. Arguments over the relationship between the wider world and 
>>> your
>>> choices have become irrelevant. You have detached yourself, finally, 
>>> from the
>>> global community. This is isolationism as never before conceived. 
>>> "American"
>>> in my life has been lingua franca, for better or ill. Now you talk to
>>> yourself.
>>> And you talk, my friends, in the sort of gibberish that once you 
>>> spurned.
>>> It's not about Ms Palin, as such. It is about the process that creates a
>>> candidate-grin manipulated to serve darkness, ignorance, fear, a war 
>>> economy,
>>> and the flaunting of stupidity.
>>> Nice going.
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss