> I'm all for devout anti-imperialists spreading the gospel.
Amen
> The inescapable fact, however, is that this line will not win the debate.
> No way, no how. Winning means getting the lesser left and the
> center and neo-isolationists on the Right to buy an argument that is
> premised on why THIS war is a bad idea.
There are 2 debates. For most of the world the question is whether it's a good idea for the elite that rules the US to rule the world. Within the elite that rules the US the question is how best to do it. THIS war is a bad idea both because it is not the best way for that elite to rule the world, and because the elite that rules the US should NOT rule the rest of the world.
> I would think that actually having an impact is what matters most. I
> read that public opinion is against invasion. I see the anti- side
> gaining on the pro- side (i.e., the Lugar/Hagel thang today). So
> there is some grounds for optimism.
The best way to persuade the elite that THIS war is not a good way to rule the world would be to expose the war as an example of why the US elite should not be permitted by the rest of the world, and even by its subjects in the US, to rule the world. An example of an undisguisable instance of stupid brutal arrogant murder for imperial control of oil will tend to illuminate all the disguisable instances. When the elite understands this danger perhaps they will stop this warmongering. We should be doing the illuminating.
> Where I depart from the soft left line here -- not necessarily Nathan's
> -- is that there is some purpose in indulging one's obsessions
> with Chomsky et al.
There are several versions of the soft left line here. One is from the faction of the elite that is currently out (Brad, for instance). Another is from that section of the left that sees that out faction as the best pragmatic hope for reforms (Nathan, for instance). Both must police out of the debate the position (Chomsky's) that the elite that rules the US should be prevented from ruling the world. In the first case because it is taken for granted that the US elite should rule. In the second case because a precondition for being taken seriously by the out-elite is to police out of the debate the Chomsky position.
For us less soft US leftists our historical experience with the Wilsonian imperialists (the current outs - the ones who in some cases sincerely - Brad or Cord Meyer types - believe that their rule of the world will bring democracy and free market prosperity and all good things to everyone) has been awful. Palmer raids and cold war loyalty oaths; Debs in jail, Emma Goldman deported, Ethel Rosenberg murdered (all legally of course). They say they'll help protect us when the secret police (ooops, i forget, sorry, the FBI) come for us, but the record says not.
john mage