[.....] The situation would seem ripe for independent political action. The major parties are asleep at the wheel. Before 9/11 we had a splendid anti-globalization movement in progress, featuring huge demonstrations and mass civil disobedience. An important question is whether the campaign constituencies of Nader, Dean, and Kucinich develop beyond individual-admiration societies into political movements.
Let me be perhaps the first to say that 9/11 changed very little, except the way we think. That's the essence of terrorism -- a small effort reaps a huge response. People in all sorts of small towns think they are in danger. They're not. The Islamic extremists like big targets -- not the post office in Podunk. Flyover America is safe as can be.
I think we can say now with some confidence that the terrorist threat against the U.S. has been hugely exaggerated. How many opportunities have there been since 2001? Fourth of Julys, New Year's Eves, the Olympics, the '02 election, this election season, the list goes on and on. How many times did we tense up as some big event approached, spending huge public dollars for security? How many orange alerts have gone by?
It would of course be wrong to say the threat is trivial. There is a determined network of terrorists, but I have to think its size and resources are less than it has been cracked up to be. There have been hardly any arrests based on evidence of pending attacks. The two big attacks on the WTC -- in 1993 and 2001 -- were nearly a decade apart.
I know this assessment does not sit well with many. Maybe the real polarization in the U.S. is not Red v. Blue, but scared v. concerned about other things. As noted above, everybody should be worried on some level, but making it the fulcrum of your politics is another matter.
At the risk of alienating those overly preoccupied with terrorism, the left ought to organize those who can be organized. If that is done, the concerns about terrorism can be dealt with from a position of political strength.
To get its legs back, the anti-globalization movement has to do a few big things:
1. Change its name. The 'globalization' in question is really the sway of corporations in world politics, which thwarts progressive internationalism. I think Doug Henwood's treatment of this in After the New Economy is the right tack.
2. Ditch the antediluvian sectarians, meaning ANSWER. You can't prevent assorted goofballs from showing up at demonstrations, but you don't have to co-sponsor events with them.
3. Synthesize. Work out the coherence of concerns about the environment, the global sway of corporations, outsourcing, and labor standards. Instead of Teamsters and turtles, we need Teamster-like turtles and turtle-like Teamsters.
4. Organize. A huge left mobilization is going to show its face tomorrow. It may have to persist for some days if the outcome is in doubt. After a decent rest, however, the goal should be to find ways to channel this into sustained independent political activity.
My sense is that a huge swath of the public is hugely riled up. Their anger tends to reduce to the foibles of G.W. Bush, but they are ready to think differently.
Deregulating capitalism is not making our lives better. What sort of political system and culture establishes someone so manifestly unqualified in the highest office in the land (if you leave out the boss of the Federal Reserve and the Supreme Court)? Why are we provisioning scores of military bases throughout the Middle East and Central Asia? Why do we sit idle in the face of successive holocausts in Africa?
Politics begins on Wednesday.