Nathan, you are losing all perspective here. You are a sociologist. You should gbe aware of the very extensive polisci literature on the determinants of foreign policy. It's basically the mainstream, consensus, nonradical, conservative-liberal view, shared incidentally by most radical scholars, that foreign policy is the area where the public has the least influence in a democracy.
The dominant neorealist view is that states are states and pursue their perceived interests in the international system regardless of theor political form. I think that accounts for a great deal of the variance. The other views that give attention to internal structure don't give a lot of weight to the political form of the country, although there is the intriguing and oft-remarked on fact that liberal democracies don't go to war with each other.
The reserach on particular cases just doesn't support the idae that even the public in general, much less the working class, has had much appreciable effect on foreignpolicy outside of even extraordinary mobilizations, and even then it is debatable how much effect. e.g., the Movement had on the war in Vietnam or the Nuclear Freeze, etc. on the end of the Cold War.
Apart from all that, your arguments are getting wilder and wilder. Tos show that people who seek to explain in part the events of 9/11 by reference to bad us foregn policy are really blaming the working class, you have to attribute them increasing heaps of suppositions that we who offer these explanations expressly reject, that causation is justification, that the working class has a lot of influence in foreign policy, etc. MAybe your idea is that the public acceots thsi set of connections so taht it would be inopportune to say what we think just now, and that proposition could be debated, but you yourself affirmatively adopt them. It's nit like you. Time to step back from the bar, counsel; recognize when to cut your losses.
jks
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
> >I am generally not responsible for injuries caused by
> >intervening criminal acts...There isn't enough
> >causation in voting for a candidate, even if you intend the candidate to
>do
> >certain things we'd consider bad, to get the causation past the first
>step.
>
>Wait a second...anyone is responsible for the actions of an agent for acts
>for which they were authorized. An elected offical who runs on a platform
>and is elected to perform those duties is as much an agent of the
>electorate
>as the president of a company is the agent of the board of directors or of
>the shareholders - who may be held liable for that agents' actions.
>
>People are held liable for agent actions with far more contingent
>authorization than election platforms.
>
>On points from the other post:
>
> >So your view, Nathan, is that only rational acts are foreseeable?
> >If you limit your goals to preventing only
> >foreseeable in the sense of rational responses, your goals are too
>limited.
>
>One is responsible for some acts that are not even foreseable, because the
>connection to one's own acts is so direct. If I punch someone in a way
>that
>would normally do little damage, but they have a disease that makes bruises
>fatal, I can be held liable for murder - even though that result from my
>punch was not foreseeable.
>
>On the other hand, irrational acts are always a foreseeable consequence of
>any action. Mere foreseeability is not enough to constitute causation in
>anything other than a "but for" string of related events sense. If I
>laugh,
>someone may decide irrationally that my laughter is at them and they'll
>will
>kill me. In no sense did I "cause" that person to kill me, other than in
>the remotest sense of the word.
>
>Yes, some irrational acts can be expected. We actually relieve people of
>some of their responsibility when they act under emotional distress - death
>of a loved one, etc. - although we rarely attribute direct causality to the
>person who might have created the irrational condition.
>
>There are degrees of irrationality. When a person responds to a direct
>provocation in a violent manner, we sometimes treat that response as caused
>by the original provocation and therefore create no liability. Certain
>self-defense responses, even if mistaken and a little irrational, may come
>under this category. But when a response is completely disproportionate to
>the provocation, is aimed at people other than those giving the direct
>provocation, or otherwise deemed to be outside the reasonable range of
>human
>response (rational and irrational), then "causality" somewhat drops out of
>the discussion.
>
> >I find the middle paragraph below morally horrific [killing off foreign
>policy tools after
> > we are done with them], not only in its causual
> >acceptance of killing without any semblance of due process, but in the
>easy
> >identification of you-and me--with the policies that make bin Laden "our"
> >tools to be used and, apparently, murdered afterwards. Is that how you
>see
>us?
>
>Is it the policy I'd like? No. Although given our track record with a
>range
>of folks, from Noriega to Hussein, trying to kill off former tools when
>they
>became troublesome is hardly foreign to US policy.
>
>My point was that merely pointing out that Bin Laden was previously
>supported by the US does not automatically imply the policy prescription of
>not doing something similar in the future. The hawks essentially give the
>answer above, dressed in nicer langugage, but the basic idea.
>
>My point is that the Left needs a positive foreign policy alternative. Not
>that it doesnt exist, but it doesn't seem to make it into our antiwar rally
>principles. "NO X" is pretty much the standard slogan. For the September
>29th rally, the word "justice" does not appear anywhere in the rally call;
>it's a completely negative critique of US policy with no alternative
>demanded that would address the fears of attack and insecurity people feel.
>
>As I've said, just because I think causality is a poor way to approach
>these
> issues, there is plenty that we can do to decrease the likelihood of
>similar attacks in the future- address global poverty, settle outstanding
>national grievances (read Palestine), and create more collective security.
>
>But merely critiquing past policy is insufficient. For every critique,
>there are often multiple alternative solutions - and not only the Left
>choice. That was my point.
>
>Nathan Newman
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp