Fw: David Corn: troubling origins of the anti-war movement

[Todd Archer]

Nathan said:

>Actually I was pushing on the easy libertarian "anti-government" >consensus 
>that sees military action as horrible, but far more deaths >due to the 
>operation of the infrastructure of capitalism as "non->intentional."

Ok, that's not a bad critique of the Right anti-war side, but for this one 
issue, Iraq, what's to be gained by pushing that button now?  It's not as if 
they would agree to go along with you on an anti-capitalist critique after 
Iraq.  Right at this singular point, why antagonize?

>And my problem with the antiwar left like the WWP is that they spend >all
>their time demonizing government action, thereby feeding the idea that >the 
>best we can hope for is getting the government "out of >everywhere." Very 
>libertarian sentiment. Let's have a night guardman >state and let's let the 
>market have contracts and free exchange decide >who lives and dies.

I've thought much about this "meeting of minds" from both sides of the 
political spectrum wrt being "anti-government", and I recognize the 
contradiction.  But I think the bases of these very similar ideas are far 
enough apart that, for the most part, on this one issue it's not a bad 
thing.  People who find themselves on the left side of the spectrum for the 
first time, who find themselves energized enough by such events as this 
Washington protest, could then go on to examine in more detail the 
"anti-government" message and refine it to something like: anti-THIS 
government (for now).  A budding Lefty would soon get the idea that a fair 
amount of "The Left" is quite pro-government to certain degrees and with 
certain refinements and caveats.

>Let me be straight-- I don't think the Iraq war or even US military >wars 
>in general are even close to the most important issue in the >orld.

Well, we agree!  How about that!  :{)>   But, I think we still have to pay 
attention to "what's in fashion", especially when it's still fairly 
important.

>Those military actions could well have important effects on the issues 
> >that are important-- the structure of global capitalism, the Holocaust 
> >of AIDS deaths we are facing, the degredation of workers rights, etc. 
>->-but so will many other non-military actions by the US government.

Yes, but unfortunately we live in the info-tainment universe.  TV is the big 
megaphone, so why not do some good where you can with what you can, eh?

>But the deaths from war, just as the danger from terrorism, are far
>overrated and actually hysterical.  Global attention focused on >Indonesia 
>because of 150 deaths from terrorism. But each year, 336,000 >children 
>under 5 die, 60% due to malnutrition, in Indonesia.  Even >fears of nuclear 
>terrorism pale in comparison to the nuclear bombs of >death by starvation 
>and disease that level the poor of developing >countries each year.

Well, like Dennis said: it's not sexy.  That's probably the most succinct 
reason the media as a whole doesn't go for it with the same abandon as Iraq. 
  And people've become somewhat desensitized to it, I think, what with those 
dark staring eyes beamed right into you from TV Land.

Todd






_________________________________________________________________
Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp