Labor Party Re: Bush Threatens Veto of Defense Bill

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>At 12:37 PM -0400 10/9/02, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>Had the Labor Party acted more quickly and aggressively while the 
>>US economy was still in the middle of the boom, we might be facing 
>>a different political landscape today, but it's too late to mourn 
>>the missed opportunity.  Whether we like it or not, we are in for 
>>hard times, perhaps even a hard landing.  It's time for the Labor 
>>Party to reassess its strategy, confronting the reality of the 
>>empire, or else it will not have any political future.
>
>The problem with this is that a party based on unions is a 
>membership organization.

Unions (UE, California Federation of Teachers, etc. -- see 
<http://www.owcinfo.org/campaign/No%20War/Index%20No%20War.htm>), 
churches (the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, 
the National Baptist Convention, etc.), professional organizations, 
etc. that have passed resolutions and/or issued public statements 
against the coming war on Iraq recently (and other imperial 
adventures in the past) are also membership organizations, but that 
didn't stop them from doing what they did.

At 12:37 PM -0400 10/9/02, Doug Henwood wrote:
>A lot of rank and file unionists supported the war in Afghanistan. 
>If you want to be democratic in your organization you have to 
>reflect that.

Most likely, but what about Iraq?  Left-wing unionists of the LP 
should have more reasons to oppose the war on Iraq than Americans in 
general, among whom support for the war is weak.  Can't the faction 
opposed to the war on Iraq become hegemonic in the LP?  Why not?

At 12:37 PM -0400 10/9/02, Doug Henwood wrote:
>As Tony Mazzocchi used to point out, a lot of oil workers' contracts 
>include the first day of hunting season as a holiday - so the LP was 
>in no position to support gun control, as left-wing intellectuals 
>and activists would tell them they should. So there are constraints 
>on any reassessment of strategy or confrontation with the reality of 
>empire.

Gun control is a trivial issue, over which it is correct that the LP 
has remained agnostic.  The war on Iraq and other imperial ventures 
aren't trivial; large-scale wars (on Iraq and beyond) are also likely 
to have significant economic impacts on LP members' and potential 
constituencies' lives and political fortunes as well.  The LP ought 
to have its own political program _including international policy_ 
independent of the Dems and the Repubs.  Otherwise, what's the point 
of third-party efforts?
-- 
Yoshie

* Calendar of Events in Columbus: 
<http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>
* Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html>
* Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>