>Cointelpro is a myth, apparently. The FBI never burgled CISPES' offices or
>tapped their phones in the 1980s. There was no McCArthyism, after all, the
>CPUSA was a joke and neverthreated the establishment.
Autre temps, autre moeurs. These were the times when the left had some meaningful support in the mainstream politics, a lot of New Dealers were sympathetic to it, then Civil Rights, ant-war movement, and yes, USSR was a credible threat to the US establishment. So the ruling class had a reason to be afraid and act accordingly.
But today? The left is a purring kitten, not a lion it used to be. The worst it can do is to act as a "spoiler vote" to back stab some moderately liberal politico like Wellstone who actually has some power to do something beyond scoring rhetorical points. Why should the establishment be afraid of them?
Today's true radicals are the bomb throwing, plane hijacking variety - the McVeighs, the Attas, the suicide bombers. However, having to choose between them and GOP's "law and order" I opt for the latter - at least they are publicly accountable.
>Ever read Bertram Gross' (a Guild lawyer) excellent Friendly Fascism?
>Heexpalined taht the American sort would not come with jackboots and
>overthrow of constitutional forms, but in the name of those forms.
I agree. But this is true of any large scale organization, government or business. Dissenters who challenge those on the top of these organizations will always be labeled public enemies and sidelined in the name of higher good (rule of law, public good, this or that cause). Communist parties and lefty groups are quite good at that game.
The point I was making. however, is that there are limits to that exclusion. You may want to suppress dissent, but you cannot run an organization with an iron-fist military style dictatorship. Most of today's jobs require a high level of self-direction and independence in decision making. You cannot risk a "bathroom Bolshevik" designing your banking software or developing sophisticated business plans. You need dedicated functionaries and these are difficult to find in iron-fist dictatorships. This is what I meant by high transaction costs imposed by police states. Those costs are borne by the economy - not by the police apparatus - and the encomy will eventually scream.
>W, you are a bundle of contradictions. You don't believe the courts can
>protect us from repression because it's part of the G. You think the G
>wants to protect us from terror, and would never repress dissent because
>it's too expensive to do so, and besides the left is too pathetic to
>bother. These two sets of views are incompatible.
I think of myself as a pragmatist. I do not belive that rules, statues, declarations etc. and agencies that interpret them can protect anyone from anything in their own right. People have as many rights and freedoms as the society in which they live is willing to give them, and that in turn depends on power bargaining. Constitutions and laws merely capture and summarize the real power balance in society. They are adhered to inasmuch as the social actors are willing to honor them. For example, the US Constitution alone did nothing to stop slavery or Jim Crow - it was the withdrawal of consensus followed by dispatching federal troops that did.
The same applies to the "war of terror." People feel generally threatened and they are willing to sus[end some of the liberties that they would be willing to extend under different circumstances. There is nothing wrong with it, civil libertarian fundamentalism notwithstanding. When the house is on fire, civil liberties become the proverbial roses. In this situation dogmatic support of some lowlife's civil terrorism is counterproductive - it erodes our credibility and ads to the other side, which already portrays ACLU and Co. as a bunch of crackpots. A better approach is to start discussion a new balance between civil liberties and counter-terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11, instead of letting Ashcroft and Co. to be seen as the only credible voice on that issue.
>You think you are on the left, but there is no hope of changing US policy,
>ever, it is literally a pipe dream.
No. But the change must be realistic.
wojtek