>This march did not have nearly as much of a leftist political nature as
>many of the 1960's marches, but this brings to mind a complex set of
>issues. One could say that it would have been even better if it were
>200,000 committed leftists with an understanding of imperialism -- that
>would probaby mean that there are many hundreds of thousands of more
>moderate opponents, meaning an even larger anti-war movement.
>
>But on the other hand, this crowd was truly rooted in the mainstream of
>U.S. society.
Much of which is, though it certainly wouldn't use the word, anti-imperialist. Popular support for foreign adventures has always been small, with the exception of the Cold War, when fear of communism was able to reverse this deep proclivity temporarily. But now that that's gone, we're back to the baseline. And though it can be provincial, even xenophobic, American isolationism is a lot better than American imperialism.
>The media is doing its usual "edu-tainment"--with the Chicago Tribune
>showing a photo of a man in a tight bathing suit who had people "sign"
>his body, and with Reuters using a headline:
This is carping. Press coverage of the demo was surprisingly favorable and prominent. It could have been lots worse.
Doug