COMMENTARY
QUESTION: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A LEFTIST COULD HAVE CRITICALLY SUPPORTED A CAPITALIST PARTY? ANSWER: SEE ABOVE. DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT TODAY.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
NOTE: The original intention of this writer was to produce two commentaries on the above-mentioned question, one for the Republicans and one for the Democrats. After some thought I realized that except for a change of names I would have been basically writing the same dreary commentary twice. In any case, how much can any writer endure of the same nonsense put out by these two parties over the last one hundred plus years? How much space should be taken up by separate commentaries even on the expansive Internet? Moreover, the little tidbits of wisdom I was going to write about the current crop of Democratic contenders can wait for another day. After all we have two long years to lambaste the likes of Hillary “Hawk” and the Johnnies.
I know some readers will be offended by my choice of Andrew Jackson as the last supportable Democrat. They will ask- What about William Jennings Bryan in 1896? Yes indeed, what about William Jennings Bryan. I am not at all sure that his “cheap money” Cross of Gold campaign was in the interest of working people (or ultimately farmers, for that matter) but that is beside the point. I do not particularly want to argue over the virtues of this or that candidate but to make the point that it has been a very long time since leftists could have supported a capitalist party candidate. As the commentary below will make clear as an almost universally acceptable choice of a ‘progressive’ capitalist politician Lincoln is better in every way.
For Andrew Jackson buffs. Yes, I know Mr. Jackson got waylaid in 1824 by the maneuverings of one John Quincy Adams but cut me a little slack. I was born in Mr. Adams’s hometown of Quincy, Massachusetts so call me a ‘homer’ on that one. Not only that but J.Q.'s position against slavery, the burning issue of the times, was light years ahead of the slaveholder Jackson's. Enough said. For Green Party buffs. Sorry, but leftists have no basis for voting for a modern capitalist third party operation. I did add an appropriate couple of sentences at the end of the commentary about the Greenies. That seems about right. Finally, remember when reading the commentary below where it says Republican put Democrat, where it says Hoover put Roosevelt, etc., etc. Here goes.
Today, after suffering through the likes of Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and various Bushes it is hard to believe these denizens claim the heritage of the party created by Lincoln and the other early stalwarts. Something went terribly wrong somewhere in the 1870’s (even before the Compromise of 1877 which only codified the defeat of the aims of Reconstruction, limited as they were) and it has been downhill ever since. Nevertheless, Lincoln, Chase, Seward, Staunton, the Radical Republicans and others can claim the respect of today’s militants, and the Republican Party presidential candidate Lincoln a retroactive vote in 1864, for two major reasons.
First, when the issue was hot on the fire and there was no way around it Lincoln and his compatriots organized an army and fought a Civil War to abolish black slavery. Now, not all of their motives were pure as the driven snow and to some extend Lincoln, in particular, had to be led kicking and screaming to fight for that aim-but in the end he did it. That is also why, in this writer’s opinion, it is a dicey thing to think that militants should have supported Lincoln-Hamlin in 1860. At that point Lincoln had not been tested and was essentially a sectional candidate, if that. But 1864 is a different question-then all the issues were on the table. Civil wars tend to such clarity. Lincoln passed the test.
Every militant abolitionist or unionist still alive after three years of war, could have, albeit critically, supported the ticket. Even with the War Democrat Johnson on it. That tactical concession could be justified by the need to rally plebian support in the Northern cities. There can be no second guessing that choice just because Johnson’s later career proved him a bust after Lincoln’s assassination. After the furor of the war was over and the Radical Republican elements during Reconstruction lost heart or faith in their program of emancipation for black people all hell broke loose and it broke over the head of those same black people. At that point the Republicans became just another in a long line of garden variety capitalist parties. And what of the program of those selfsame Republicans today toward the question of the oppression of blacks and other minorities? That can be stated in one phrase- their response to Hurricane Katrina. Enough said.
The second reason that militants tip their hat to the Republican Party and to Lincoln is less obvious but also related to the Civil War struggle-that is the preservation of the union or more appropriately the conditions for the formation of a unitary continent-wide national capitalist state. Support for such an outcome by militants today would seem strange but back then when capitalism represented a progressive trend in human history it was not. That system allowed the productive forces of society to be developed more fully than the previous localized, agrarian-dominated society.
Think of this- if the Southern armies, dominated by the planter classes, has won the war or more likely fought to a stalemate and had been allowed to keep their separate state it would have hampered the development of free labor to the detriment of working people. The United States would have probably become, as envisioned by some Southern thinkers, a large ‘banana republic’, an exporter of raw materials for the world market. Today we know that capitalism has outlived its effective useful life. We also know how to deal with that even if we today do not have enough forces to do something about it. But, back then the gods were on our side, the struggle against slavery was righteous and we were sustained by the spirit of the better angels of our nature.
As for the Green Party no commentary can be provided except maybe a comment on the similarities of the program and personalities of that party and the ill-fated Henry Wallace-led Progressive Party campaign of 1948. Sorry Greenies.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Friday, October 06, 2006
Thursday, October 05, 2006
*ON THE QUESTION OF CRITICAL SUPPORT TO SOCIALIST ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
Click on the headline to link to a Lenin Internet Archives entry from his Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder-Should we Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments?
COMMENTARY
WHAT TO DO (OR NOT TO DO) WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR OWN WORKERS PARTY CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR IN ELECTIONS
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY
In the run-up to the 2006 midterm elections working people are again being subjected to the "choice" between the dual parties of capitalist exploitation, imperialist war and racist oppression. It is a choice between the justly feared and despised Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Republican cabal in power and a Democratic "opposition" campaigning for a more effective plan for prosecuting the very bipartisan "war on terror" at home and abroad—in particular, how best to cut the losses of U.S. imperialism in the bloody occupation of Iraq in order to more efficiently deploy its forces against the peoples of the world in places like Cuba, Iran, North Korea and China.
It is thus appropriate now that we are in the thick of this downbeat 2006 electoral campaign season to highlight some points concerning what militant leftists can or should do when faced with the above choice while at the same time not having a mass socialist or labor party candidate to support. Unfortunately, the necessity for discussion of the subject matter of this commnetary reflects the continued weakness of the left and of our inability to field a mass socialist or labor party candidate of our own. If militants were strong enough we would not have to worry about supporting other small socialist formations or about the question of political support to them except on our own terms.
Anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists make a virtue out of necessity by abstaining on principle from parliamentary elections. Militant leftists do not. I would note, however, that on the basis of my observations on the 2004 election cycle something of the old hard anarchist opposition to parliamentary elections has been blunted- and not for the better. In the old days anarchists seriously opposed such elections and revolutionary socialists could half agree with them on the issue of opposition to electoral cretinism favored by reformist socialist parties as the path to socialism.
In 2004 I ran into any number of anarchists whose anti-parlimentary position was more frivolous and less well thought out. These types argued that parliamentary politics was so silly that it did not matter who one voted for-including capitalist Democratic Party candidate John Forbes Kerry. That is just plain wrong. Revolutionary militant leftists use such periods, when appropriate, to support candidates that at least provide some cutting edge against the heavy weight of capitalist politics. In short, as an elementary question militants must draw a class line in opposition to all capitalist parties. Thus it is important to know under what conditions support to socialist/labor candidates can be given.
While rejecting the notion that the working class can gain power through the vehicle of bourgeois electoralism it is necessary to recognize that there are times when the intervention of revolutionaries into the parliamentary/electoral cycle can provide a useful platform from which to put forward a socialist program and attempt to further socialist goals. Such tactics include revolutionaries standing as candidates, one can think of the heroic Karl Liebknecht in World War I campaigning on an anti-war platform while subject to conscription in the German Army in this regard. Another tactic is offering critical support to such parties as draw even a minimal class line against the capitalist parties.
In his powerful book on communist principles and tactics, "Left-Wing" Communism—An Infantile Disorder (1920), Bolshevik leader V.I. Lenin explained: "It is entirely a matter of knowing how to apply these tactics in order to raise— not lower—the general level of proletarian class-consciousness, revolutionary spirit, and ability to fight and win." Lenin advised the fledgling British Communists to extend critical support to the British Labour Party in order to expose the Labour traitors' pretensions to "socialism" and to break workers' illusions in them.
On the other hand, at times support for a labor party or socialist party may be precluded for other reasons, such as their participation in a national unity government with other classes (the so-called Popular Front), strikebreaking while governing on behalf of the capitalists (the General Strike in England in 1926 comes to mind) or when other ostensibly socialist formations may better represent the interests of the working class (various Socialist/Communist campaigns).
To give a different but symmetric error from the 'soft' anarchist position noted above in the 2004 campaign season I ran into many, too many leftist, particularly old ex-Communist Party members, who used the Leninist policy in order to "critically" support the Democrat Kerry. As if the the "big tent" Democratic Party was just some garden variety labor party. Wrong. While labor organizations, particularly the labor bureaucracy live by, die by and spend their money on this party neither by program, politics or inclination is it any kind of labor party. No support under any theory, including "lesser evil" politics is warranted by militants. Thus militants need to seek out candidates or organizations who draw the class line. Those who do not do so deserve no support.
As an example of a non-supportable candidate in California the International Socialist Organization is running one of its members for United States Senate on the small-time capitalist Green Party ticket. Aside from some individually supportable democratic demands in the Green Party program, especially on environmental issues, the Green Party is historically one in a long line of capitalist "progressive" third party operations that merely act as pressure groups on the Democratic Party. That precludes any support from militants. That is the clearest example that I know of on the class line question among socialist organizations. Readers may know of others on their local level that I am not aware of. Keep me informed. Enough said.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
COMMENTARY
WHAT TO DO (OR NOT TO DO) WHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR OWN WORKERS PARTY CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR IN ELECTIONS
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY
In the run-up to the 2006 midterm elections working people are again being subjected to the "choice" between the dual parties of capitalist exploitation, imperialist war and racist oppression. It is a choice between the justly feared and despised Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Republican cabal in power and a Democratic "opposition" campaigning for a more effective plan for prosecuting the very bipartisan "war on terror" at home and abroad—in particular, how best to cut the losses of U.S. imperialism in the bloody occupation of Iraq in order to more efficiently deploy its forces against the peoples of the world in places like Cuba, Iran, North Korea and China.
It is thus appropriate now that we are in the thick of this downbeat 2006 electoral campaign season to highlight some points concerning what militant leftists can or should do when faced with the above choice while at the same time not having a mass socialist or labor party candidate to support. Unfortunately, the necessity for discussion of the subject matter of this commnetary reflects the continued weakness of the left and of our inability to field a mass socialist or labor party candidate of our own. If militants were strong enough we would not have to worry about supporting other small socialist formations or about the question of political support to them except on our own terms.
Anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists make a virtue out of necessity by abstaining on principle from parliamentary elections. Militant leftists do not. I would note, however, that on the basis of my observations on the 2004 election cycle something of the old hard anarchist opposition to parliamentary elections has been blunted- and not for the better. In the old days anarchists seriously opposed such elections and revolutionary socialists could half agree with them on the issue of opposition to electoral cretinism favored by reformist socialist parties as the path to socialism.
In 2004 I ran into any number of anarchists whose anti-parlimentary position was more frivolous and less well thought out. These types argued that parliamentary politics was so silly that it did not matter who one voted for-including capitalist Democratic Party candidate John Forbes Kerry. That is just plain wrong. Revolutionary militant leftists use such periods, when appropriate, to support candidates that at least provide some cutting edge against the heavy weight of capitalist politics. In short, as an elementary question militants must draw a class line in opposition to all capitalist parties. Thus it is important to know under what conditions support to socialist/labor candidates can be given.
While rejecting the notion that the working class can gain power through the vehicle of bourgeois electoralism it is necessary to recognize that there are times when the intervention of revolutionaries into the parliamentary/electoral cycle can provide a useful platform from which to put forward a socialist program and attempt to further socialist goals. Such tactics include revolutionaries standing as candidates, one can think of the heroic Karl Liebknecht in World War I campaigning on an anti-war platform while subject to conscription in the German Army in this regard. Another tactic is offering critical support to such parties as draw even a minimal class line against the capitalist parties.
In his powerful book on communist principles and tactics, "Left-Wing" Communism—An Infantile Disorder (1920), Bolshevik leader V.I. Lenin explained: "It is entirely a matter of knowing how to apply these tactics in order to raise— not lower—the general level of proletarian class-consciousness, revolutionary spirit, and ability to fight and win." Lenin advised the fledgling British Communists to extend critical support to the British Labour Party in order to expose the Labour traitors' pretensions to "socialism" and to break workers' illusions in them.
On the other hand, at times support for a labor party or socialist party may be precluded for other reasons, such as their participation in a national unity government with other classes (the so-called Popular Front), strikebreaking while governing on behalf of the capitalists (the General Strike in England in 1926 comes to mind) or when other ostensibly socialist formations may better represent the interests of the working class (various Socialist/Communist campaigns).
To give a different but symmetric error from the 'soft' anarchist position noted above in the 2004 campaign season I ran into many, too many leftist, particularly old ex-Communist Party members, who used the Leninist policy in order to "critically" support the Democrat Kerry. As if the the "big tent" Democratic Party was just some garden variety labor party. Wrong. While labor organizations, particularly the labor bureaucracy live by, die by and spend their money on this party neither by program, politics or inclination is it any kind of labor party. No support under any theory, including "lesser evil" politics is warranted by militants. Thus militants need to seek out candidates or organizations who draw the class line. Those who do not do so deserve no support.
As an example of a non-supportable candidate in California the International Socialist Organization is running one of its members for United States Senate on the small-time capitalist Green Party ticket. Aside from some individually supportable democratic demands in the Green Party program, especially on environmental issues, the Green Party is historically one in a long line of capitalist "progressive" third party operations that merely act as pressure groups on the Democratic Party. That precludes any support from militants. That is the clearest example that I know of on the class line question among socialist organizations. Readers may know of others on their local level that I am not aware of. Keep me informed. Enough said.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Sunday, October 01, 2006
ON CARD, CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS, CANDIDATES AND A PREDICTION
COMMENTARY
RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE CURRENT POLITICAL LANDSCAPE.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY
WHAT KIND OF MONSTER IS RUMSFELD ANYWAY?
On a couple of occasions over the past several months I have commented on the question of calls for Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. The first time was when some retired generals were clamoring for his resignation in the spring. The second time was this summer, the summer of 2006, when New York Senator Hillary Clinton, hands trembling, put in her bid for this year’s Profiles in Courage Award after hearings of the Senate Armed Forces Committee.
At that time I noted, tongue in cheek I thought, that my mother a life-long Republican had called for that resignation a couple of years ago. Now comes news that other very influential Republicans had the same thought. According to Bob Woodward’s new book former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and apparently the President’s wife, First Lady Laura Bush, also sought to get rid of the bastard. Card has since confirmed the truth of that information. Thus, this begs the question of how much real political courage it took for Congressional Democrats to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation. and just how vile a character the man is if elements in the inner circle of his own Administration wanted his head on a platter. Yes, we are definitely dealing with some kind of monster here. I am republishing my blog from the time of the generals’ armchair revolt in the spring to provide the real solution to the Rumsfeld problem.
IN THE CASE OF ONE DONALD RUMSFELD- RESIGNATION IS NOT ENOUGH!
In the normal course of events leftists, including this writer, have no particular need to comment on, much less advocate or support a call, for the resignation of one of the ministers of a capitalist government. In this case, we are talking about the controversy over the possible resignation of one Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, Minister of War in the Bush Cabinet. Let the capitalist politicians sort it out among themselves is this writer’s usual stance on such matters. Let the beady-eyed “talking head” liberal and conservative media pundits spout forth on behalf of the best interests of “their” system. After all this is not exactly like the summer of 1917 in Russia where the Bolsheviks were agitating around the slogan –“Down with the Ten Capitalist Ministers”- as a stopgap political ploy against the Popular Front Provisional Government on the way to overthrowing that government. This current controversy nevertheless has my interest.
The case of Mr. Rumsfeld is special. Every once in a while a politician comes along in American public life who leftists can use to personalize everything that is wrong with the capitalist system. And epitomize what the rest of the world has come to fear and loathe as the dark side of the American spirit. One Richard M. Nixon, once President of the United and now residing in one of Dante’s circles of hell, comes to mind from an earlier generation. In that sense we need our Donalds. Hell, I have enjoyed politically kicking Mr. Rumsfeld around when he was riding high. And, excuse my manners; I enjoy kicking him around when he is down. (To give credit where credit is due, the late two lines were inspired by the late Dr. Hunter Thompson.) Nevertheless this specimen must go. There will be no tears shed here for Mr. Rumsfeld.
Many liberals , and some not so liberal, in Congress looking to rehabilitate their sorry records on Iraq, including the key question of voting for the war budget, are having a cheap field day on this one. However, in any moderately effective European parliamentary system guys like Rumsfeld would have been long gone. Although I should perhaps qualify that statement since the august members of the British Labor Party could not muster enough votes to vote 'no confidence' in Mr. Rumsfeld’s fellow hawkish crony, Mr. Anthony Blair.
I must admit that I am a little uncomfortable when all manner of retired general are coming out of the woodwork aiming at Mr. Rumsfeld’s head. We militant leftists are after all respectable people and THESE are certainly not our kind of people. Except under normal circumstances these types, despite an occasional candidate for the role of American Napoleon Bonaparte like General Douglas MacArthur, keep quiet and take their consultant fees. Things must be far, far worst than we suspect in Iraq if the chiefs are abandoning ship already. Moreover, the thrust of the former generals’ criticism is that Mr. Rumsfeld did not adequately provision them with enough troops to get the job done. This is a veiled, and maybe not so veiled, call for escalation. There are differences between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War which we need to appreciate but escalation would dramatically close the gap between those differences. We could go from the Big Muddy of Vietnam to the Big Sandy of Iraq. Watch out.
Finally, and to get back on the left on this issue, if there is any justice in this world Mr. Rumsfeld, despite his probable cabinet immunity defense, clearly should be tried as a war criminal. He exceeds by orders of magnitude the standards necessary for such an indictment. However, my vision is not to have him tried before some bogus Court of International Criminal Justice. My suggestion is that he be sent, alone (or with a few of his neo-con conspirators), to Baghdad, without armor. There he should be tried by a tribunal of the victims of his war crimes, the impoverished and desperate urban and rural masses of Iraq. Resignation is not enough- Indeed!!
ON THE WILES OF CONSERVATIVE POLITICANS
In a blog posted this summer I commented on the effect of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling on the question of the Executive Branch’s authority to try detainees in military commissions under very much less than even the inadequate conditions of what passes for justice these days. At that time I noted that once the smoke cleared Congress would give the Bush Administration what it wanted. This week, the week of Septemeber 25th, after much wrangling by fellow Republicans apparently solely for effect, the Senate gave the administration pretty much what it wanted, including the virtual suspension of habeas corpus in these cases.
Two points. First, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, a hard fought for and important right going back centuries, is definitely not a good sign for the rest of us. Some commentators have declared that these provisions will not pass constitutional muster. Grow up. I will take bets at 5 to 2 that the current Supreme Court will defer to the so-called legislative intent and bow before the executive authority on this one. Believe me, I would rather lose this bet.
Second, this legislation shreds the concepts that are embodied in the Geneva Conventions concerning the status of enemy combatants. Without having illusions in the effectiveness of these Conventions and noting the weaknesses of the protections in them, militant leftists fight to keep them in place as a legal avenue of redress. Otherwise someday we might be reduced to dependence on what amounts to the goodwill of governments who wish us nothing but ill-will. No thanks. Below I have republished my comments at the time of the Supreme Court decision.
SUPREME COURT OUTLAWS PRIVATE PRESIDENTIAL MILITARY COURTS-FOR NOW
PRESIDENT MUST BEG CONGRESS REAL HARD FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
Just as I started feeling good about beating up on the United States Supreme Court justices this week, calling them black-robed closet Nazis and Neanderthals (see June archives) the justices vote by 5-4 (oops, 5-3 Chief Justice Roberts recused himself on this one- but WE all know where he stands) to deny President Bush the right to use his own executive-derived and organized private Star Chamber proceedings against detained ‘enemy combatants’.
This decision would seem to negate this writer’s usual uncanny grasp of which way the political winds are blowing. Not so. Without trying to weasel out of this squeamish situation by lawyerly argument I would point out that in The Angels of Death Ride Again (see June archives) that the Court was positioning itself just to the left of the medieval Star Chamber. And I am correct on this. The Court’s decision did not strike down the executive military commissions as the vehicles for show trials that such commissions had become but only that the President must ask Congress nicely to set them up with all due regard for those shopworn concepts- the rule of law and the constitutional balance of powers. When the Court starts bringing these arguments in it’s definitely time to head for cover. How hard do you think the Bush administration is going to have to fight Congress (presumably in an election year) to get approval for legislation for military commissions to try a bunch of Moslems fanatics. Damn, they live and breathe for these kinds of soft ball votes.
We live in desperate times as the above commentaries for only ONE WEEK make abundantly clear so we have to take even small victories, such as this decision when we can get them. Any limitation, no matter how small, on the Imperial Presidency can only help give us a little breather. Enough said.
WHAT FOURTH AMENDMENT?
I had expected Congress by now to give the Administration its desired open-ended program to wiretap domestic operations to its heart’s context without the niceties of Fourth Amendment protection. The Congress adjourned without taking up a final vote on this legislation. Presumably it will do so in an aptly named “lame duck” session after the November 7th elections. More then. Until then below is a republication of a blog commenting on Judge Diggs Taylor's ruling that such previous practices were unconstitutional.
A VICTORY (IF ONLY TEMPORARY) FOR THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
COMMENTARY
SHOCKING REVELATION: A FEDERAL JUDGE ACTUALLY KNOWS THE 4th AMENDMENT EXISTS. APPARENTLY NOT EVERY LAW SCHOOL TUITION WAS WASTED.
Every once in a while a judge does something right. While militant leftists have no illusions in the bourgeois judicial system, as such, we will grasp in both hands every little minor victory, even if temporary, that comes our way. In this case a federal district court judge, Judge Diggs Taylor, has held that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping of every piece of information not nailed down and that the agency can get its hands on is unconstitutional. Judge Diggs Taylor will not be getting invited to any Federalist Society seminars or other such cozy affairs any time soon.
Naturally, the Bush Administration, normally slow to act when democratic rights are to be enforced, has ordered the Justice Department to appeal this decision- immediately, with all deliberate speed. When the 6th Circuit Appeals Court or the Supremes get this one you know its fate. I will take bets, even up, on a 5-4 quashing of this decision even though I have it on good authority that Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy et. al are all unaware that there IS a Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Now for the politics. Yes, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are pretty faded as working documents for any kind of just society today. But, damn, something like the Fourth Amendment against general searches and seizures even though its parameters are getting narrower and narrower with virtually every new court decision is something every militant leftist must defend. WE WOULD WANT THIS SAFEGUARD UNDER A WORKERS GOVERNMENT- WE DESPERATELY NEED IT NOW.
We are the best defenders of that right against unreasonable searches and seizures if for no other reason that it makes our work easier. Hell, what do you think the original American revolutionaries, particularly those at the base, were fighting against? Yes, that very same prohibition against general writs of assistance that the National Security Agency and the Bush Administration are more than happy to flaunt in our faces. Do we really want to have big brother having the right to look at everything we do. On the other hand we are not Pollyannas. We are not blinded by a mistaken believe in the “sweet” rule of law that gets bandied about in the media when it gets misty-eyed about democracy. Moreover, such rights are honored more in the breech than the observance. If this government wants to get information (even if not usable in court) it will find a way to get it, warrant or no warrant. Notwithstanding that premise we will savor this decision a little for now.
ON THE GOVERNOR’S RACE IN MASSACHUSETTS
The focus of these commentaries under the writer's byline described below generally reflect an interest in the national political scene. However, here in Massachusetts where the writer resides there is a Governor's race that has drawn some media attention due to the fact that it pits a Harvard-trained Republican woman, Kerry Healey, against a Harvard-trained black male Democrat, Deval Patrick. While this contest may be of interest to elitist affirmative action devotees and the like the gist of the campaign has the all to familar ring of a traditional Massachusetts dogfight.
That, in any case, is not what interests me here. What interests me is one question that I would pose to Mr. Patrick (Ms. Healey is beyond the pale on this one) and every militant leftist or anti-war activist should do the same. If you are elected Governor will you as Commander-in-Chief of the Massachusetts National Guard refuse to provide troops to the federal government for service in Iraq? YES OR NO.
Mr. Patrick is the darling of the liberal anti-war element in the state but I do not believe those 'folks' would like his answer. Nevertheless, this question is really the complement, on the state level, to the question of voting on the war budget by Congressmen at federal level. In short, at the state level it is the only real way to stop the war in Iraq. Ask away.
DO I HAVE ANY TAKERS?
Probably the only real fun for a leftist looking at the 2006 elction cycle is taking a bet or two on the results of the elections for the the major parties. In order to bet on such outcomes it is necessary to be, as with all smart bets, detached from the hurly-burly of the campaigns. This writer can affirm his disinterestedness in these campaigns with both hands held high.In any case here is the proposition-the early October line is 3/2 that the Republicans will retain both Houses of Congress. What? If one looked uncritically at the mainstream media one would have thought that 2006 was going to be a sea-change kind of election. And certainly we need a change. However, as we get closer it is apparent that the Republicans can hang on because, for the most part, the Democrats are playing the Republican-lite tune. Even with the Congressman Foley scandal.
Christ, any party that cannot separate itself out from and get outmaneuvered on the national security/Iraq quagmire against a genuinely dingbat Republican party deserves to go the way of the Whigs. Moreover, there was really a lot of wishful thinking by the media about Democratic changes from the get-go. Before the media got a hold of the story last spring there were not that many close races. So to keep the story alive the media conveniently doubled the number of close electoral contests to 50. Looking at the polls recently show that, like last spring, there are really only about 25 real contests in the House and a half dozen in the Senate. Inertia and gerrymandering have struck again. I can hardly wait for the Democratic post-election sniffles about what went wrong. However, at 3/2 I consider it like finding money on the ground. Any takers?
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE CURRENT POLITICAL LANDSCAPE.
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY
WHAT KIND OF MONSTER IS RUMSFELD ANYWAY?
On a couple of occasions over the past several months I have commented on the question of calls for Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. The first time was when some retired generals were clamoring for his resignation in the spring. The second time was this summer, the summer of 2006, when New York Senator Hillary Clinton, hands trembling, put in her bid for this year’s Profiles in Courage Award after hearings of the Senate Armed Forces Committee.
At that time I noted, tongue in cheek I thought, that my mother a life-long Republican had called for that resignation a couple of years ago. Now comes news that other very influential Republicans had the same thought. According to Bob Woodward’s new book former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and apparently the President’s wife, First Lady Laura Bush, also sought to get rid of the bastard. Card has since confirmed the truth of that information. Thus, this begs the question of how much real political courage it took for Congressional Democrats to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation. and just how vile a character the man is if elements in the inner circle of his own Administration wanted his head on a platter. Yes, we are definitely dealing with some kind of monster here. I am republishing my blog from the time of the generals’ armchair revolt in the spring to provide the real solution to the Rumsfeld problem.
IN THE CASE OF ONE DONALD RUMSFELD- RESIGNATION IS NOT ENOUGH!
In the normal course of events leftists, including this writer, have no particular need to comment on, much less advocate or support a call, for the resignation of one of the ministers of a capitalist government. In this case, we are talking about the controversy over the possible resignation of one Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, Minister of War in the Bush Cabinet. Let the capitalist politicians sort it out among themselves is this writer’s usual stance on such matters. Let the beady-eyed “talking head” liberal and conservative media pundits spout forth on behalf of the best interests of “their” system. After all this is not exactly like the summer of 1917 in Russia where the Bolsheviks were agitating around the slogan –“Down with the Ten Capitalist Ministers”- as a stopgap political ploy against the Popular Front Provisional Government on the way to overthrowing that government. This current controversy nevertheless has my interest.
The case of Mr. Rumsfeld is special. Every once in a while a politician comes along in American public life who leftists can use to personalize everything that is wrong with the capitalist system. And epitomize what the rest of the world has come to fear and loathe as the dark side of the American spirit. One Richard M. Nixon, once President of the United and now residing in one of Dante’s circles of hell, comes to mind from an earlier generation. In that sense we need our Donalds. Hell, I have enjoyed politically kicking Mr. Rumsfeld around when he was riding high. And, excuse my manners; I enjoy kicking him around when he is down. (To give credit where credit is due, the late two lines were inspired by the late Dr. Hunter Thompson.) Nevertheless this specimen must go. There will be no tears shed here for Mr. Rumsfeld.
Many liberals , and some not so liberal, in Congress looking to rehabilitate their sorry records on Iraq, including the key question of voting for the war budget, are having a cheap field day on this one. However, in any moderately effective European parliamentary system guys like Rumsfeld would have been long gone. Although I should perhaps qualify that statement since the august members of the British Labor Party could not muster enough votes to vote 'no confidence' in Mr. Rumsfeld’s fellow hawkish crony, Mr. Anthony Blair.
I must admit that I am a little uncomfortable when all manner of retired general are coming out of the woodwork aiming at Mr. Rumsfeld’s head. We militant leftists are after all respectable people and THESE are certainly not our kind of people. Except under normal circumstances these types, despite an occasional candidate for the role of American Napoleon Bonaparte like General Douglas MacArthur, keep quiet and take their consultant fees. Things must be far, far worst than we suspect in Iraq if the chiefs are abandoning ship already. Moreover, the thrust of the former generals’ criticism is that Mr. Rumsfeld did not adequately provision them with enough troops to get the job done. This is a veiled, and maybe not so veiled, call for escalation. There are differences between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War which we need to appreciate but escalation would dramatically close the gap between those differences. We could go from the Big Muddy of Vietnam to the Big Sandy of Iraq. Watch out.
Finally, and to get back on the left on this issue, if there is any justice in this world Mr. Rumsfeld, despite his probable cabinet immunity defense, clearly should be tried as a war criminal. He exceeds by orders of magnitude the standards necessary for such an indictment. However, my vision is not to have him tried before some bogus Court of International Criminal Justice. My suggestion is that he be sent, alone (or with a few of his neo-con conspirators), to Baghdad, without armor. There he should be tried by a tribunal of the victims of his war crimes, the impoverished and desperate urban and rural masses of Iraq. Resignation is not enough- Indeed!!
ON THE WILES OF CONSERVATIVE POLITICANS
In a blog posted this summer I commented on the effect of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling on the question of the Executive Branch’s authority to try detainees in military commissions under very much less than even the inadequate conditions of what passes for justice these days. At that time I noted that once the smoke cleared Congress would give the Bush Administration what it wanted. This week, the week of Septemeber 25th, after much wrangling by fellow Republicans apparently solely for effect, the Senate gave the administration pretty much what it wanted, including the virtual suspension of habeas corpus in these cases.
Two points. First, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, a hard fought for and important right going back centuries, is definitely not a good sign for the rest of us. Some commentators have declared that these provisions will not pass constitutional muster. Grow up. I will take bets at 5 to 2 that the current Supreme Court will defer to the so-called legislative intent and bow before the executive authority on this one. Believe me, I would rather lose this bet.
Second, this legislation shreds the concepts that are embodied in the Geneva Conventions concerning the status of enemy combatants. Without having illusions in the effectiveness of these Conventions and noting the weaknesses of the protections in them, militant leftists fight to keep them in place as a legal avenue of redress. Otherwise someday we might be reduced to dependence on what amounts to the goodwill of governments who wish us nothing but ill-will. No thanks. Below I have republished my comments at the time of the Supreme Court decision.
SUPREME COURT OUTLAWS PRIVATE PRESIDENTIAL MILITARY COURTS-FOR NOW
PRESIDENT MUST BEG CONGRESS REAL HARD FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
Just as I started feeling good about beating up on the United States Supreme Court justices this week, calling them black-robed closet Nazis and Neanderthals (see June archives) the justices vote by 5-4 (oops, 5-3 Chief Justice Roberts recused himself on this one- but WE all know where he stands) to deny President Bush the right to use his own executive-derived and organized private Star Chamber proceedings against detained ‘enemy combatants’.
This decision would seem to negate this writer’s usual uncanny grasp of which way the political winds are blowing. Not so. Without trying to weasel out of this squeamish situation by lawyerly argument I would point out that in The Angels of Death Ride Again (see June archives) that the Court was positioning itself just to the left of the medieval Star Chamber. And I am correct on this. The Court’s decision did not strike down the executive military commissions as the vehicles for show trials that such commissions had become but only that the President must ask Congress nicely to set them up with all due regard for those shopworn concepts- the rule of law and the constitutional balance of powers. When the Court starts bringing these arguments in it’s definitely time to head for cover. How hard do you think the Bush administration is going to have to fight Congress (presumably in an election year) to get approval for legislation for military commissions to try a bunch of Moslems fanatics. Damn, they live and breathe for these kinds of soft ball votes.
We live in desperate times as the above commentaries for only ONE WEEK make abundantly clear so we have to take even small victories, such as this decision when we can get them. Any limitation, no matter how small, on the Imperial Presidency can only help give us a little breather. Enough said.
WHAT FOURTH AMENDMENT?
I had expected Congress by now to give the Administration its desired open-ended program to wiretap domestic operations to its heart’s context without the niceties of Fourth Amendment protection. The Congress adjourned without taking up a final vote on this legislation. Presumably it will do so in an aptly named “lame duck” session after the November 7th elections. More then. Until then below is a republication of a blog commenting on Judge Diggs Taylor's ruling that such previous practices were unconstitutional.
A VICTORY (IF ONLY TEMPORARY) FOR THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
COMMENTARY
SHOCKING REVELATION: A FEDERAL JUDGE ACTUALLY KNOWS THE 4th AMENDMENT EXISTS. APPARENTLY NOT EVERY LAW SCHOOL TUITION WAS WASTED.
Every once in a while a judge does something right. While militant leftists have no illusions in the bourgeois judicial system, as such, we will grasp in both hands every little minor victory, even if temporary, that comes our way. In this case a federal district court judge, Judge Diggs Taylor, has held that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping of every piece of information not nailed down and that the agency can get its hands on is unconstitutional. Judge Diggs Taylor will not be getting invited to any Federalist Society seminars or other such cozy affairs any time soon.
Naturally, the Bush Administration, normally slow to act when democratic rights are to be enforced, has ordered the Justice Department to appeal this decision- immediately, with all deliberate speed. When the 6th Circuit Appeals Court or the Supremes get this one you know its fate. I will take bets, even up, on a 5-4 quashing of this decision even though I have it on good authority that Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy et. al are all unaware that there IS a Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Now for the politics. Yes, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are pretty faded as working documents for any kind of just society today. But, damn, something like the Fourth Amendment against general searches and seizures even though its parameters are getting narrower and narrower with virtually every new court decision is something every militant leftist must defend. WE WOULD WANT THIS SAFEGUARD UNDER A WORKERS GOVERNMENT- WE DESPERATELY NEED IT NOW.
We are the best defenders of that right against unreasonable searches and seizures if for no other reason that it makes our work easier. Hell, what do you think the original American revolutionaries, particularly those at the base, were fighting against? Yes, that very same prohibition against general writs of assistance that the National Security Agency and the Bush Administration are more than happy to flaunt in our faces. Do we really want to have big brother having the right to look at everything we do. On the other hand we are not Pollyannas. We are not blinded by a mistaken believe in the “sweet” rule of law that gets bandied about in the media when it gets misty-eyed about democracy. Moreover, such rights are honored more in the breech than the observance. If this government wants to get information (even if not usable in court) it will find a way to get it, warrant or no warrant. Notwithstanding that premise we will savor this decision a little for now.
ON THE GOVERNOR’S RACE IN MASSACHUSETTS
The focus of these commentaries under the writer's byline described below generally reflect an interest in the national political scene. However, here in Massachusetts where the writer resides there is a Governor's race that has drawn some media attention due to the fact that it pits a Harvard-trained Republican woman, Kerry Healey, against a Harvard-trained black male Democrat, Deval Patrick. While this contest may be of interest to elitist affirmative action devotees and the like the gist of the campaign has the all to familar ring of a traditional Massachusetts dogfight.
That, in any case, is not what interests me here. What interests me is one question that I would pose to Mr. Patrick (Ms. Healey is beyond the pale on this one) and every militant leftist or anti-war activist should do the same. If you are elected Governor will you as Commander-in-Chief of the Massachusetts National Guard refuse to provide troops to the federal government for service in Iraq? YES OR NO.
Mr. Patrick is the darling of the liberal anti-war element in the state but I do not believe those 'folks' would like his answer. Nevertheless, this question is really the complement, on the state level, to the question of voting on the war budget by Congressmen at federal level. In short, at the state level it is the only real way to stop the war in Iraq. Ask away.
DO I HAVE ANY TAKERS?
Probably the only real fun for a leftist looking at the 2006 elction cycle is taking a bet or two on the results of the elections for the the major parties. In order to bet on such outcomes it is necessary to be, as with all smart bets, detached from the hurly-burly of the campaigns. This writer can affirm his disinterestedness in these campaigns with both hands held high.In any case here is the proposition-the early October line is 3/2 that the Republicans will retain both Houses of Congress. What? If one looked uncritically at the mainstream media one would have thought that 2006 was going to be a sea-change kind of election. And certainly we need a change. However, as we get closer it is apparent that the Republicans can hang on because, for the most part, the Democrats are playing the Republican-lite tune. Even with the Congressman Foley scandal.
Christ, any party that cannot separate itself out from and get outmaneuvered on the national security/Iraq quagmire against a genuinely dingbat Republican party deserves to go the way of the Whigs. Moreover, there was really a lot of wishful thinking by the media about Democratic changes from the get-go. Before the media got a hold of the story last spring there were not that many close races. So to keep the story alive the media conveniently doubled the number of close electoral contests to 50. Looking at the polls recently show that, like last spring, there are really only about 25 real contests in the House and a half dozen in the Senate. Inertia and gerrymandering have struck again. I can hardly wait for the Democratic post-election sniffles about what went wrong. However, at 3/2 I consider it like finding money on the ground. Any takers?
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
THESE ARE NOT SALAD DAYS FOR LIBERAL HAWKS
BOOK REVIEW
THE GOOD FIGHT: WHY LIBERALS-AND ONLY LIBERALS-CAN WIN THE WAR ON TERROR AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, PETER BEINART, HARPERCOLLINS, NEWYORK, 2006
In the normal course of events these days the tasks of working class socialists, particularly during the electoral cycle, are to create and distribute propaganda in favor of socialist solutions to the crisis of humankind and to organize around a socialist program. Since we are not in an immediate struggle for political power that is more than enough work. Thus, usually the goings-on among capitalist propagandists and ideologues have no direct relation to working on those tasks. However every once in a while, as now during a electoral cycle, it is interesting to take note of what is going on in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Why? Make no mistake, while the relation of forces today is totally on their side, in the final analysis we will have to directly fight the liberal wing of that party for the political allegiance of the better elements of that party. Does any militant leftist believe that today in 2006 that our recruiting grounds are located anywhere in the vicinity of the Republican Party?
With that thought in mind Mr. Beinart’s book, the Good Fight, is an outline of a plan to undercut the so-called liberal-pacifist wing of the Democratic Party in order to draw back the allegiance of what at one time were the elements that made the Democratic Party a governing party during much of the 20th century. In short, Mr. Beinart is fighting for what appears to him to be the ‘soul’ of the Democratic Party. Mr. Beinart’s central argument is that while he and other liberal hawks were wrong, dead wrong, on support to the Bush Administrations war in Iraq those who did at least get that question right are nevertheless wrong on a strategy to either defeat or contain Islamic terrorism. Of course, in the process Mr. Beinart thus retroactively absolves himself of his ‘little error’ on Iraq in the interests of the greater war on terrorism. Nobody ever said democratic ideologues were incapable of the occasional sleight-of-hand.
The predicate for this thesis is that there is vast ‘conspiracy’ underfoot by those, apparently led by the filmmaker Michael Moore and kindred spirits, who want to take over the Democratic Party and emulate Neville Chamberlain's capitualtion to Hitler at Munich as a reaction to the current "war on terror". The result, according to Mr. Beinart, is that the centrist/ Lieberman wing will have no home and the Democratic Party will not rule again like in the good old days of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. In answer, this writer makes this observation-what planet does Mr. Beinart live on? If memory serves Mr. Moore supported one General Wesley Clark, the mad commander of NATO forces in Serbia who attempted to bomb that country back to Stone Age conditions, in the presidential primaries of 2004. Moreover, do any rational liberal politicians or activists take political counsel from Mr. Moore? Certainly he is a political gadfly and provocative filmmaker but, please, go after the big game. And spend less time on the Internet.
Moreover, and I do not need to rely on memory for this one, who in the Democratic Party opposed the now crumbling war in Afghanistan? There were very few of us in those days, even those who were allegedly opposed to all wars on pacifist grounds, out on the streets protesting that invasion in the aftermath of the hysteria over 9/11. I saw no Democratic Party opposition, hawk or dove, to that little adventure. No, overall, as we are painfully aware every day, the Democratic Party is nothing more than a somewhat loyal parliamentary opposition. They take no more risks than the Republicans. The real problem is that on foreign policy, either in its containment or confrontational stages, the Democratic Party is Republican-lite. That in a nutshell is their political malaise-the Republicans do better at and are perceived to be better at protecting the long term interests of the ruling classes-end of story.
Mr. Beinart’s book does bring up a serious political question about how to fight the war on terror for those who favor a workers government and we duck the issue at our peril. Be forewarned, Islamic fundamentalism is a present threat to not only democratic forms of government but ultimately also to socialist forms as well. Thus, without being forced to outline an abstract blueprint to a theoretical question- How would a workers government in power respond to the actions of the Islamic terrorists? Fair enough.
The obvious first answer is that a workers government would try to break the stranglehold of Islamic fundamentalism at the base by, yes, throwing lots of money and organizers at the problems which keep the Islamic masses in poverty. Beyond that the breaking up of the Islamic terrorist organizations appears to be much more of police problem than a military one. A workers government, like any responsible government, would mercilessly track down every one of these cells in the appropriate manner. Finally, a workers government under foreseeable conditions would not be a pacifist government, even though its long-term aim is a peaceful world. There is a long way to go before humankind gets to that stage.
Let me suggest the following as one possible scenario that a future workers government might follow. The Soviet Union’s intervention into Afghanistan in 1979 drove the West, including the American Democratic Party headed by one President Jimmy Carter, to support the Islamic fundamentalists of that time as a proxy against the Soviets. The Soviet Union, even if eventually only half-heartedly committed to the intervention, in retrospect, was then the vanguard of the fight against Islamic fundamentalism. Does anyone today want to rethink that Western opposition to Soviet intervention into Afghanistan? One should. A workers government today would follow the Soviet lead demonstrated in Afghanistan and in earlier fights in the 1920’s against counterrevolutionary Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia as it attempted to consolidate the Soviet state. That is a sketch of some aspects of a workers government policy to think about. As these thoughts suggest in the fight against Islamic fundamentalism the real options are fairly narrow.
THE GOOD FIGHT: WHY LIBERALS-AND ONLY LIBERALS-CAN WIN THE WAR ON TERROR AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, PETER BEINART, HARPERCOLLINS, NEWYORK, 2006
In the normal course of events these days the tasks of working class socialists, particularly during the electoral cycle, are to create and distribute propaganda in favor of socialist solutions to the crisis of humankind and to organize around a socialist program. Since we are not in an immediate struggle for political power that is more than enough work. Thus, usually the goings-on among capitalist propagandists and ideologues have no direct relation to working on those tasks. However every once in a while, as now during a electoral cycle, it is interesting to take note of what is going on in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Why? Make no mistake, while the relation of forces today is totally on their side, in the final analysis we will have to directly fight the liberal wing of that party for the political allegiance of the better elements of that party. Does any militant leftist believe that today in 2006 that our recruiting grounds are located anywhere in the vicinity of the Republican Party?
With that thought in mind Mr. Beinart’s book, the Good Fight, is an outline of a plan to undercut the so-called liberal-pacifist wing of the Democratic Party in order to draw back the allegiance of what at one time were the elements that made the Democratic Party a governing party during much of the 20th century. In short, Mr. Beinart is fighting for what appears to him to be the ‘soul’ of the Democratic Party. Mr. Beinart’s central argument is that while he and other liberal hawks were wrong, dead wrong, on support to the Bush Administrations war in Iraq those who did at least get that question right are nevertheless wrong on a strategy to either defeat or contain Islamic terrorism. Of course, in the process Mr. Beinart thus retroactively absolves himself of his ‘little error’ on Iraq in the interests of the greater war on terrorism. Nobody ever said democratic ideologues were incapable of the occasional sleight-of-hand.
The predicate for this thesis is that there is vast ‘conspiracy’ underfoot by those, apparently led by the filmmaker Michael Moore and kindred spirits, who want to take over the Democratic Party and emulate Neville Chamberlain's capitualtion to Hitler at Munich as a reaction to the current "war on terror". The result, according to Mr. Beinart, is that the centrist/ Lieberman wing will have no home and the Democratic Party will not rule again like in the good old days of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. In answer, this writer makes this observation-what planet does Mr. Beinart live on? If memory serves Mr. Moore supported one General Wesley Clark, the mad commander of NATO forces in Serbia who attempted to bomb that country back to Stone Age conditions, in the presidential primaries of 2004. Moreover, do any rational liberal politicians or activists take political counsel from Mr. Moore? Certainly he is a political gadfly and provocative filmmaker but, please, go after the big game. And spend less time on the Internet.
Moreover, and I do not need to rely on memory for this one, who in the Democratic Party opposed the now crumbling war in Afghanistan? There were very few of us in those days, even those who were allegedly opposed to all wars on pacifist grounds, out on the streets protesting that invasion in the aftermath of the hysteria over 9/11. I saw no Democratic Party opposition, hawk or dove, to that little adventure. No, overall, as we are painfully aware every day, the Democratic Party is nothing more than a somewhat loyal parliamentary opposition. They take no more risks than the Republicans. The real problem is that on foreign policy, either in its containment or confrontational stages, the Democratic Party is Republican-lite. That in a nutshell is their political malaise-the Republicans do better at and are perceived to be better at protecting the long term interests of the ruling classes-end of story.
Mr. Beinart’s book does bring up a serious political question about how to fight the war on terror for those who favor a workers government and we duck the issue at our peril. Be forewarned, Islamic fundamentalism is a present threat to not only democratic forms of government but ultimately also to socialist forms as well. Thus, without being forced to outline an abstract blueprint to a theoretical question- How would a workers government in power respond to the actions of the Islamic terrorists? Fair enough.
The obvious first answer is that a workers government would try to break the stranglehold of Islamic fundamentalism at the base by, yes, throwing lots of money and organizers at the problems which keep the Islamic masses in poverty. Beyond that the breaking up of the Islamic terrorist organizations appears to be much more of police problem than a military one. A workers government, like any responsible government, would mercilessly track down every one of these cells in the appropriate manner. Finally, a workers government under foreseeable conditions would not be a pacifist government, even though its long-term aim is a peaceful world. There is a long way to go before humankind gets to that stage.
Let me suggest the following as one possible scenario that a future workers government might follow. The Soviet Union’s intervention into Afghanistan in 1979 drove the West, including the American Democratic Party headed by one President Jimmy Carter, to support the Islamic fundamentalists of that time as a proxy against the Soviets. The Soviet Union, even if eventually only half-heartedly committed to the intervention, in retrospect, was then the vanguard of the fight against Islamic fundamentalism. Does anyone today want to rethink that Western opposition to Soviet intervention into Afghanistan? One should. A workers government today would follow the Soviet lead demonstrated in Afghanistan and in earlier fights in the 1920’s against counterrevolutionary Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia as it attempted to consolidate the Soviet state. That is a sketch of some aspects of a workers government policy to think about. As these thoughts suggest in the fight against Islamic fundamentalism the real options are fairly narrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)