[Peace-discuss] Liberal opinion

[C. G. Estabrook]

I think the administration is actually quite pleased with all the sound and fury
about what's essentially a non-issue.  (It's been obvious for a generation that
the US should have a healthcare system like the other industrialized nations;
it's equally obvious why we don't.)

What the health care argument does is crowd out much consideration of the
administration's frenzied attempt to expand (i.e., win) the war in Afpak. Polls
show a majority of Americans now disapprove of the war, but you wouldn't know
that from the media, where what we hear is puerile boilerplate like what Obama
gave the VFW this week, e.g.,

"Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left
unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which
Al Qaida would plot to kill more Americans.  So this is not only a war worth
fighting; this is fundamental to the defense of our people ... No matter the
mission, we must maintain America's military dominance."

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that
spectrum -- even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives
people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the
presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the
range of the debate" [Noam Chomsky].  --CGE


Robert Naiman wrote:
> I think this analysis is misleading. It takes as a barometer of whether a
> group of progressive activists care about the wars, whether they say it is
> their top issue, at a time when, understandably, there is a lot of focus
> among progressive activists on the health care issue. Not only is it
> misleading, I think it could be unnecessarily divisive. In order to reform
> U.S. foreign policy, we need the support of people for whom reforming U.S.
> foreign policy is not likely to be their top issue. Why piss on them
> unnecessarily?
> 
> It should be noted that Greenberg is not a neutral observer.
> 
> There was a lot of progressive activism around the McGovern bill. Now people
> are trying to figure out what the next hook is...
> 
> ...it would help significantly I think, if there were a hook in the Senate.
> Could we generate some pressure on Mr. Durbin...?
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>> The netroots agenda: War? What war? By: Byron York 08/15/09 11:22 AM EDT
>> 
>> It's not getting much attention, but the Netroots Nation conference 
>> (formerly known as YearlyKos, a spinoff from the left-wing website
>> DailyKos) is going on in Pittsburgh this weekend.  Democratic pollster
>> Stanley Greenberg has conducted a straw poll of the participants and found
>> that a majority of those surveyed, 53 percent, say they "cannot support a
>> health care reform bill that does not include a public option."  Other
>> results include word that most of the attendees are willing to compromise a
>> bit on environmental legislation, even though it gives a lot of benefits to
>> big corporations, and the finding that, amazingly enough, attendees voice 
>> near-unanimous approval, 95 percent, of the job Barack Obama is doing as 
>> president.
>> 
>> What's truly striking in Greenberg's poll is the degree to which the wars
>> in Iraq and Afghanistan have fallen off the progressive radar.  I attended
>> the first YearlyKos convention, in 2006, and have kept up with later ones,
>> and it's safe to say that while people who attended those gatherings
>> couldn't stand George W. Bush in general, their feelings were particularly
>> intense when it came to opposing the war in Iraq.  It animated their
>> activism; they hated the war, and they hated Bush for starting it.  They
>> weren't that fond of the fighting in Afghanistan, either.
>> 
>> Now, with Obama in the White House, all that has changed.  Greenberg 
>> presented respondents with a list of policy priorities and asked, "Please 
>> indicate which two you think progressive activists should be focusing their
>>  attention and efforts on the most."  The winner was passing comprehensive 
>> health care reform, with 60 percent, and number two was passing "green 
>> energy policies that address environmental concerns," with 22 percent.
>> Tied for eighth place, named by just eight percent of respondents, was
>> "working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."
>> 
>> Then Greenberg asked which one of those issues "do you, personally, spend 
>> the most time advancing currently?"  The winner was health care reform,
>> with 23 percent, and second place was "working to elect progressive
>> candidates in the 2010 elections," with 16 percent.  In 11th place -- at
>> the very bottom of the list -- was "working to end our military involvement
>> in Iraq and Afghanistan." Just one percent of Netroots Nations attendees
>> listed that as their most important personal priority.
>> 
>> Many observers have remarked that Obama's decision to escalate the war in 
>> Afghanistan, and also to escalate the campaign of targeted assassinations 
>> using drone aircraft, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will cause him 
>> trouble on the political left.  Indeed, some members of Congress have 
>> suggested that the president has just a year to show significant results in
>>  Afghanistan before lawmakers begin to pressure him to pull back.  But if
>> the Netroots Nation results are any indication, Obama may have more room
>> than previously thought on the war.  Not too long ago, with a different
>> president in the White House, the left was obsessed with America's wars.
>> Now, they're not even watching.
>> 
>> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-netroots-agenda-War-What-war-53296592.html