Neither of us are US citizens so the purpose of these exchanges for me at any rate is about the *approach* to bourgeois politics. I got incensed, like others who have joined in this debate about the attack on the Khartoum pharmaceutical factory, and I supported the Arab League on that.
Isolated predatory sexual activities with young women attracted to Clinton seems to me to be in a less substantial class category than the Arab League (sic). I cannot see the class struggle issue here in isolated cases. Anyway I suspect they are as much about rituals of power as about lust.
These decisions should be made not with abstract moral passion. Hitchens is perhaps not an ultra-leftist but he is a left moralist. I got his Meet the Press interview direct of his web-site the same day. He clearly enjoys name dropping. I think neither this nor lesser evil arguments should determine what limited stance should be taken to the bourgeois two party struggle.
There needs to be a deeper analysis of the balance of class forces behind these political dramas. Clinton represents more the major monopoly capitalists who are by no means averse to a bit of social foresight, and he can get the votes from a wide range of American opinion including a significant chunk of the "middle class" and in interestingly overwhelming majority of the black vote.
It is more progressive that the class forces represented by this coalition are hegemonic than the Christian coalition small pest-control-entrepreneur Republicans.
Not much effort should go into directly affecting the result of elections but into a swathe of single issue campaigns including political reform. A lot of this corruption is about having to raise tens of millions of dollars for election campaigns. Part of the circus is to present the candidates as symbols of vigour and attractiveness, so attractive women are not exactly banned.
Considering how the overwhelming majority of the US population is tolerating Clinton's sexual liberalism, it is moralism to go against this and denounce it as worse than that of other prominent politicians. It has nothing to do with a marxist analysis of the overall situation. IMHO.
If Hitchens had said he had done it as part of a campaign to punish Clinton for his imperialism and chauvinism, that would have been meaningful but it would tactically have been the wrong hook to hang it on.
>We're on a Yanqui list, Chris - we gotta talk Yanqui.
Well I agree that Americans can be pretty insular, but we can change that, and we have to assume they would like to change that, even at the risk they can flatten us quickly by saying we do not know what we are talking about with Willey, Hitchens etc. I note your list and Mark's coming out of Utah are more international, the Panix lists more US.
Has Hitchens got an English accent? I have a strong impression he sounds horrible.
He seems keen to advertise the existence of a loyal wife. I wonder why. Perhaps he should be asked if he has had any extra-marital affairs. Preferably on oath. Preferably videotaped. Has he been in the US long enough to have psychoanalysis? Perhaps then his analyst could be obliged to testify. Or better still his wife's analyst.
(But these subjectivist prejudices are irrelevant, and should be suppressed. What matters is the balance of forces, and how to tip if further in a radical direction.)
Chris Burford
London