[Peace-discuss] Antiwar movement: now Republicans, not Democrats

Sun Jul 28 14:00:12 UTC 2013

"...The establishment keeps the left and right populist factions at bay by demonizing them to each other — “let’s you and him fight” is the mindset — which is why MSNBC so often feeds hate of conservatives and Fox feeds hate of progressives. If they were to pay more attention to issues, they might break them down and it might become clear that there’s quite a bit the principled left and right agree on. Meanwhile, establishment Democrats and Republicans collude on war, Wall Street and much else, effectively reducing principled progressives and conscientious conservatives into pawns of the Democratic and Republican party establishments.

"A left-right alliance is extremely threatening to the establishment. Rep. King recently bemoaned about the NSA scandal: ”too many Republicans and conservatives have become Michael Moores.” Similarly, former Iraq war military spokesperson Dan Senor triumphantly declared: ”I think this further strengthens the center on national security. I think there was a real risk over the last couple weeks that there would be this left/right coalition that would backlash against the United States government…” Sen. Lindsey Graham commented back in 2010: ”You know what I worry most about: an unholy alliance between the right and the left.“ Dan Quayle in 1990 as George H. W. Bush, who Obama recently honored, was driving the nation to war attacked the 'McGovern-Buchanan axis'..."

[The whole article is at <http://www.votepact.org/2013/07/25/the-perennially-unusual-yet-somehow-ubiquitous-left-right-alliance-towards-acknowledging-an-anti-establishment-center/>.]

On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Carl
>  
> Ok, I get that, it makes sense to me now. I agree that if Congress were to vote "No" to Obama's war, that would be progress. I don't expect it to happen but its certainly a goal worthy of striving towards. I also agree that their motives aren't necessarily of concern, if they do the right thing. However, I do think motive is something one should always be aware of as it often predicts future behavior my reason for quoting Jeremy Scahill when he stated "that Republicans actually love the wars". I misunderstood yours and Waynes intentions, my apologies. 
>  
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Antiwar movement: now Republicans, not Democrats
> From: carl at newsfromneptune.com
> Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:11:50 -0500
> CC: ewj at pigsqq.org; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> To: karenaram at hotmail.com
> 
> I want to encourage Congressional votes against Obama's war, as we once did against Nixon's. 
> 
> I don't care too much what the Congress members' motives are. (And we've recently been warned by Ron against ascribing motives: he seems to argue that we can't really know why Obama kills kids with drones; but Ron is surely right to imply that, whatever his motives, he should be made to stop.)
> 
> In the House, Republican and Democratic votes are equal, and motives are not recorded.
> 
> In fact though, a left-right antiwar coalition is building up in the Congress - and even more in the country - in opposition to the neoliberal leadership of both political parties. (Note Rep. Pelosi's role in the Amash Amendment vote.)
> 
> The 'Death of the Liberal Class' - its co-option by Obama and the Democrats - means that an antiwar movement cannot rely on putative liberals, who have abandoned it. 
> 
> But two-thirds of the country opposes Obama's war (as it once did Johnson's and Nixon's). Obama's war policy can be reversed as theirs was.  --CGE    
> 
> 
> On Jul 27, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Sorry guys, I think you have rose colored glasses on, if you think the Republicans are going to lead the way to peace. 
>  
> When it comes to "the people" republicans, democrats they are individuals but they all tend to support their parties with whom they "identify", so now while a democratic President is in power, the republicans will reject war/him while the democrats wear blindfolders and allow themselves to be distracted. 
>  
> Get a republican or libertarian President as many call themselves who vote republican, due to privacy and fiscal conservative concerns, in power and there goes your peace. Rand Paul is espousing an anti-war foreign policy to become popular amongst the many who don't look deeper at the issues, they just buy into his rhetoric. The same rhetoric that Obama uses to fool liberal democrats. 
>  
> While it maybe true that a Rand Paul, maybe due to his fiscal conservatism may not wish to "spend funds" to support overseas wars, his motives are not a result of an aversion to "killing". In any event, its the machine of our system that has put in place the wars in the magreb, and control of Asia. So it doesn't matter who is the "reigning monarch", his power is limited by the forces that control him and our representatives. Until the people rise up against those forces, nothing will change and even then it maybe too late. 
> See: 
> 'Obey': Film Based on Chris Hedges' 'Death of the Liberal Class ... 
> 
> ► 51:47► 51:47
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH6UynI5m7Y
> Feb 25, 2013 - Uploaded by Legalis Pseudonym
> British filmmaker Temujin Doran has released a new movie that is based on the book "The Death of the ...
>  
>  
>  
>  
> > From: carl at newsfromneptune.com
> > Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:18:28 -0500
> > To: ewj at pigsqq.org
> > CC: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Antiwar movement: now Republicans, not Democrats
> > 
> > I entirely agree. 
> > 
> > Five years ago, I wouldn't have thought Obama and the Democrats could have co-opted the US antiwar movement to the extent that they did - although it was clear that they were trying to do so. But it was an autocratic Illinois politician who pointed out that you can't fool all of the people all of the time: it was bound to emerge elsewhere. The diversion of opposition to the Bush/Obama wars among the political class (roughly, the 20% of Americans who went to 'good' colleges) is nevertheless remarkable. 
> > 
> > --CGE
> > 
> > "If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated." --George Orwell, 1984
> > 
> > 
> > On Jul 27, 2013, at 8:59 AM, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" <ewj at pigsqq.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > I miss Kucinich more than I do Mr. Coffee or Paul Simon.
> > > 
> > > Chris Christie and a gaggle of neocons came out against the libertarian trend
> > > in the Republican party a couple of days ago.
> > > 
> > > It is refreshing to see McCain and Peter King labelled as the Nut Cases that
> > > they are.
> > > 
> > > The Democrat party is the War Party.
> > > 
> > > I havent been nearly as excited about Rand Paul as I am about the
> > > highly principled Old Man...
> > > 
> > > but it certainly is a fresh wind that blows against the Empire.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 07/27/13 14:32, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> > >> [Antiwar sentiment in the US, formerly found among Democratic (paleo)liberals - now largely extinct ("Where have you gone, Dennis Kucinich? / A nation turns its lonely eyes to you...") - is now more likely to be found among Republican paleoconservatives (as contrasted with neoconservatives). The following comment is from a right-wing website that in fact deplores the development. Cf.<http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/08/an-anti-war-anti-wall-street-republican-party/>. --CGE]
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> Posted By W. James Antle III On 9:43 AM 07/26/2013
> > >> 
> > >> What a difference six years makes.
> > >> 
> > >> In June 2007, a Gallup/USA Today poll found that a 32 percent plurality of Republican voters preferred Rudy Giuliani for president. John McCain was in second place at 19 percent. Ron Paul was near the bottom of the pack with just 1 percent of the vote.
> > >> 
> > >> Near the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, the GOP was still very much the hawks’ party.
> > >> 
> > >> But in July 2013, Rand Paul leads among Republicans nationally, at least according to a Public Policy Polling survey. At 16 percent, he is narrowly ahead of Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan. Marco Rubio is further behind.
> > >> 
> > >> Multiple polls have now found the younger Paul ahead in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states in the 2016 Republican primary calendar. This time around, it is likely that the single-issue hawks — think John Bolton or Peter King — would hover around 1 percent if they were included in the polls.
> > >> 
> > >> Liz Cheney is running for the Republican senatorial nomination in Wyoming to solidify support for foreign policy views that were once almost universal in the party while her father was vice president.
> > >> 
> > >> Depending on which poll you believe, Cheney is trailing by either 28 points or 34 points.
> > >> 
> > >> A narrow majority of House Republicans who have served in Congress for less than five years voted for Michigan GOP Rep. Justin Amash’s amendment to defund the NSA’s national surveillance program. Wisconsin Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a past chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and Patriot Act co-author, voted for it.
> > >> 
> > >> Even some Republicans who voted against it, like Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, voted with antiwar Democrats when President Barack Obama waged war in Libya without congressional approval. The Wall Street Journal editorial page called the 86 GOP lawmakers who joined her “Kucinich Republicans,” but maybe Robert Taft Republicans works better.
> > >> 
> > >> The party is changing on foreign policy and civil liberties, perhaps moving in the direction of the broader American public. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 15 percent of Americans favored military action in Syria. Just 11 percent are willing to even arm the rebels.
> > >> 
> > >> “Whether you voted for Romney or Obama, they have the same opinion on Syria,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff.
> > >> 
> > >> The polling on Iran is more mixed, but a recent CBS News/New York Times poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe Tehran can be contained, 21 percent believe the regime is not a threat and only 15 percent believe immediate action is required...
> > >> 
> > >> [Full at<http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/26/lets-grow-up-paleoconservatives/?print=1>]
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Peace-discuss mailing list
> > >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130728/61673764/attachment-0001.html>