[Peace-discuss] Anti-war anti-Wall St. tactics in US politics

[C. G. Estabrook]

"President Obama's proven reliability as outsider president extraordinaire - putting a disarming smiley face on capitalism's depredations - is his administration's economic significance":

http://truth-out.org/news/item/22277-obamas-economic-significance


On Mar 9, 2014, at 12:44 PM, C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:

> As the Obama administration continues to run the world’s greatest terrorist campaign - drone assassinations and special forces death-squads around the world - and continues to prolong the economic misery of Americans in accord with the wishes of the 1% (vastly inadequate jobs, health care, and education support), it may be time to participate in Republican party politics in hopes of making it into an anti-war anti-Wall St. party - in opposition to the Democrats’ pro-war pro-Wall St. position, which will simply continue with a Clinton candidacy in 2016.
> 
> At the just-concluded Conservative Political Action Conference, Sen Rand Paul won the presidential straw poll with a third of the vote; Sen. Cruz, a distant second with 11%, immediately attacked Paul for his “non-interventionist” foreign policy. While not so clear as his father, the younger Paul has been a critic of Obama’s war-making.  
> 
> The anti-war movement has hung on to the fringes of the Democratic party for a generation, and it’s been important enough that Obama had to lie about being anti-war in order to be elected. But his betrayal - hardly unprecedented - should have made the place of the liberal, anti-war wing clear: on the outside.
> 
> As a Chomskyan anarchist, I’m committed to doing politics in whatever way will advance democratic control of the economy and the end of corporate imperialism. That’s why I ran for Congress as Green 12 years ago: the Greens continue to support an anti-war anti-WS position. But now it looks as though a major party might embrace such a position, in opposition to the Obama-Clinton Democrats’ pro-war pro-WS position.
> 
> Such realignments are not unknown in US political history; in fact they are the rule, over time:
> 
> COUNTERPUNCH November 08, 2012 
> An Anti-War / Anti-Wall Street Republican Party?    
> Could 2012 be a Realigning Election - Like 1968, 1932, 1896, 1860 ... ?
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/08/an-anti-war-anti-wall-street-republican-party/   
> 
> Since a generation of dickering with the Democratic Party has been a dead […] loss for the anti-war movement - as the pile of child corpses around Obama’s White House makes clear - it may be time to try some other tactics - like accentuating the growing split in the Republican party. The Democratic party unfortunately is not split - just disingenuous, to be polite.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/sen-ted-cruz-breaks-with-sen-rand-paul-on-foreign-policy/
> 
> ###
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>