Terrorism and Globalization

[Chuck Grimes]

``The U.S. working class is solidly behind Bush's war. If you're a
Marxist, and I assume you still are, what do you do about that?'' Doug

CB: ``Wasn't the working class solidly behind the Viet Nam war at
first ? Korean war ?  Aren't Marxist supposed to give a lead to the
working class, rather than tail it , raise consciousness ? Communists
are to be concerned for the interests of the class as a class and a
whole.''

-------------

This actually came up today at work. One my work buddies (Joe McI) was
working on a persuasion speech for his rhetoric class (at a local city
college). He showed me the outline, titled `Do Terrorists deserve
Protection?' I went through the outline and couldn't tell what side of
this question he was trying to support. So we went over it, and I
explained that he had to define terrorism and protection in stark and
clear terms, that were preloaded to fall in the direction of his
argument. But I couldn't get him to say exactly were he stood on this
question. I changed tracks and made him define who a terrorist was,
and what they do. Then I had him explain exactly what he meant by
protection. You mean a fair trial?, a hearing in front of judge, you
mean if convicted, they get executed. Slowly he began to come out with
his real feelings which were in complete support for summary executions.

I ignored my own thoughts on this and didn't argue with him, because
the purpose of our discussion was to get him to make a good
speech. But once he explained exactly what he meant (which was very
clouded in the outline), then he became embarrassed---partly because
he knows how I feel about all this. I told him, never mind that for the
moment. Let's get on with making the case. First you set up a logical
argument and work that out. Terrorists are insane mass murders and
insane mass murders, have to be executed, first because of their
deeds, second because they will not stop, and third to make other
think twice, before following their example. So that's the basic
logic. Now you have to work up the emotions and drama to re-enforce
the logic, drive it home, make it heartfelt. Use personal what
ifs---what if your daughter, mother, son, friend, etc to amp up the
sense of personal identification with the argument.

While we were going over this, one of the other employees came out to
the shop for a smoke, over heard some of this, and started arguing
with Joe over summary executions. So, I said, okay, Joe, make the
argument, this is a chance to work it out. Debbie looked at me
weird---she didn't realize she had walked into a home work
assignment. As Joe and Debbie got into it, Joe was losing. So I tried
to shore him up a little---make it personal. What if you're family was
wiped out? 

Then something odd happened. As Joe was struggling along, he was
changing his mind. Hauling people into back rooms and putting a bullet
in their head didn't seem like such a great idea, after Debbie
reminded him, what if it's the wrong guy? Then what? He tried to
stumble out of it, by saying, hey we know who they are, and they're
guilty. But Debbie insisted. How do you know? The only way to know is
a trial with evidence.

So Joe was arguing his way out of his own previous position. I am sure
he still thinks it's okay, but I am also pretty sure he is chewing on
it tonight.

These kinds of arguments make a tremendous impact on people as they
discover their feelings for justice may not match up to what they are
willing to argue and support out in the open in front of a live and
sceptical audience. This is an all together different experience than
just watching arguments on tv, or on e-lists. It was live, moment to
moment where wits and a certain reserve count. Joe had to put the
argument into his own words and try to make it compelling---and he
couldn't. Not because he was bad at it, but because, until right then
and there, he hadn't worked out the consequences of his own thinking
and feelings. Once he started in, he managed to trip himself up
because his thoughts and feelings were un-resolved, un-examined,
un-rehearsed.

So, the point is that the working class may support the war on an
anonymous questionnaire, but that support is as thin and as unexamined
as Joe's. Since it didn't take too much to erode it down to
unanswerable questions, I would say that support depends very heavily
on a continuous stream of mass media support and its supplements to
manufacture and maintain the appearance of universal consent. Real,
live, examined and contented support might be a whole different
animal.

Chuck Grimes