Trying (foolishly perhaps) to comment on three threads at once here...
Bill Mandel (and someone else who referred back to the Gitlin/Gulf War
controversy) continued the discussion re. 'purity' and organizing, the
thread that goes back to the abolitionists & civil war. Bill made the
wise comment:
>"Pure" leaps forward simply do not occur. If one waits for
consciousness on any issue >to reach that level, nothing will ever
happen.
If we on the Left (those of us who are) are ever going to take advantage
of increasingly favorable organizing circumstances (rich-poor gap,
ecological erosion, market society mania, sprawl, privatization &
exclusivity of health care, social security, education, etc., etc.) to
organize a world-wide people's pro-democracy movement, we must (in my
humble opinion) get beyond the old purity hangups of the past and
realize that we must work with people who will support the right things
even if they do so for the wrong reasons. I'm not sure where it came
from --perhaps the Movement's basis in an ideological perspective rather
than a community-based "interest" (e.g., labor)-- but we fought, and
continue to fight, over what's in people's heads. It makes sense to
keep working on this via powers of persuasion, etc. --which in a way we
do here-- but not to the point of letting that get in the way of
organizing & mobilizing a pro-democracy force. We have to get past the
factionalism that has (always?) plagued the Left.
That being said, there are reasons for drawing a line. I do so with the
Democratic Party (at least the Democratic Party that is in hock to
corporate money, elites, and globalization policy). Stew comes back to
the argument that Gore is 5% better than Bush. Given (a) the state of
the world and the direction it is going, with considerable (probably
dominant) assistance from the Clinton-Gore team, (b) the considerable
structural obstacles built into the current (so-called) 2-party system
(campaign finance, fund-raising, media attention, election laws,
Congressional organization, etc.), (c) the Democratic Party's conscious
move to the center in the post-McGovern 1970s (with considerable help
from corporate money --cf. Ferguson & Rogers' "Right Turn"), and (d) the
Democratic Party's central, on-going contribution to the problems
outlined above, 5% "better" totally fails to persuade me to pull a
Democratic Party lever (though, if there is a true Progressive running
locally, with no progressive 3rd Party opposition, I'd surely vote for
her/him). I can't see it as rational behavior. Sorry.
Bill Mandel suggests that the "best" reason for voting for Nader is that
the next Dempub candidates may "see the light" and move to the Left.
Well, long term, this is one conceivable outcome: a growing progressive
3rd Party may well cause some leftward drift among the Democrats; there
are other potential outcomes, too --a 3rd Party eventually emerging as
the alternative to the DemPubs, and/or structural reforms (multi-seat
districts, proportional representation (or "cumulative") voting, etc.
which opens up the opportunities for real participation by a Left party
(which might also help open up the media to a Left point of view
--something that is entirely lacking today. But let me suggest
another. Nader got 5.5% in a national poll (vs. c. 3.5% for Buchanan)
right around the time he announced his candidacy --with no national
campaign in place. He has pledged to campaign in every state (assuming
he gets on the ballot --push, push). If the Green Party (assuming they
nominate him this weekend in Denver) gets 5% of the vote for President,
they will qualify for federal funding in the next election (as the
Reform Party --Buchanan's-- has for this election). That is a crack in
the system of structural obstacles, that may contribute significantly to
a serious Progressive challenge (which I see, ultimately, as being based
on a coalition of existing Left 3rd Parties: Greens, Labor, New & others
--cf. also the organization IPPN, "Independent Progressive Politics
Network, contact at: indpol@igc.org for information; you might also get
information via www.igc.org). So, that's another reason to vote (and
work) for Ralph. Check his web page: www.votenader.com.
Finally, I followed with interest Jerry West's response to Jeff
Blankfort & Bill Mandel re. war crimes, including the discussion of the
Enola Gay. It seems that Jeff draws the line re. war crimes at the
wrong place: i.e., whether or not the actor in question "knows" exactly
what he is doing. E.g.:
<Remember, the question here is not whether the bombing of Hiroshima was
right or <wrong, we probably agree on that, but whether the pilot was
wrong and a war criminal <if he truly believed that he was saving lives
by doing so.
I don't think that "truly believing one is saving lives" in carrying out
an act that is a crime against humanity makes the act less than a crime
against humanity. We may view the actor with much greater understanding
and compassion, but the actor has done a horrible wrong. Would we
excuse Nazis who believed the propaganda about being threatened by
Jews? Or even by neighboring Czechoslovakia? Do we excuse the guy who
broke into a family's home in Seattle some years back (featured in Sam
Keen's excellent film "Faces of the Enemy") and slaughtered the family
because he was brainwashed that they were communists seeking to take
over the world (and responsible for him losing his job!). No, of course
we don't. In terms of punishment, the action is what is crucial.
[Often the actor's guilt, grounded in some subconscious recognition of
doing wrong, is further evidence of the 'wrong-ness.' This sometimes
gets taken into account with respect to severity of punishment, but it
doesn't mean the actor is not guilty of doing something criminal.]
Now I'm not at all sure I'd go where Jeff Blankfort seems to go with
respect to punishment re. various actors in Vietnam. But I guess I come
down something like this. For actions that violated "military morality"
as constrained by the Geneva protocol for "crimes against humanity" and
"war crimes," (e.g., My Lai), some form of criminal punishment is called
for --right up the line. But for carrying out "essential military
actions" that do not violate the Geneva protocol, I have a different
kind of response. I view the soldiers as non-criminals, forgivable if
you will for their actions that caused the deaths of adversaries, though
in effect complicit in a larger state action (the war against Vietnam)
that violates morality (and not even pacifist morality). The war was an
act of state aggression and state terrorism --not unlike, though far
more extensive & damaging, many other such acts by the United States.
Quite clearly, political leaders deserve "punishment" for their role in
creating this war of aggression --criminal punishment for war crimes
they are linked to; political punishment for the war, period. When it
comes to this, I agree with Joe that we're all at least somewhat
complicit, and we have to look within to see if we did all we could have
to bring an end to the war (I suspect no one did, really; I know Noam
Chomsky has said he clearly didn't). At this level, we're talking about
politics and political action and its link to our values, our
morality.... Which, in a way, brings me back full circle.
Cheers,
Ted
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 22 2000 - 20:48:19 CUT