[lbo-talk] Re: Sexuality Under Seige, or What Else is New?

[Jon Johanning]

On Aug 1, 2004, at 11:07 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:

> Of course, in reality the Dems have never been a peace party - as Bob 
> Dole put it, exaggerating only slightly, all the wars of the 20th 
> century were Democrat wars - but perception was that it was wussy and 
> weak, i.e., feminine. Now it's clear - no girlie-men allowed.

Forty years ago, when I started working in the peace movement, the U.S. 
was addicted to violence at home and abroad, Americans hadn't even an 
elementary understanding of the rest of the world, they demanded a 
large, strong military to make them feel safe from this 
to-them-unknown, frightening world,  and both Republican and Democratic 
administrations were happy to give them what they wanted, since it also 
made military contractor mega-corporations very happy, and they 
expressed this felicitude by generous campaign contributions.

Forty years layer, the situation is exactly the same. There hasn't been 
a centimeter of progress on the peace front. Every argument we could 
possibly come up with has been presented to the public over and over, 
and rejected just as many times. Kelley's post from CNN about fear and 
political attitudes was right on the money.

I doubt that this situation will ever change in my lifetime, or in the 
next few generations after that, at least. People love military 
strength, and don't mind the resulting wars very much, it seems -- not 
enough to get serious about stopping and preventing them, anyway. It's 
not just Americans -- the whole human race is militaristic. Let's face 
that fact squarely.

Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org
__________________________________
Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful 
hints for the better ordering of the universe. -- Attr. to Alfonso the 
Wise, King of Castile