>It's the left's job to create the consciousness and energy it would take to
>fight imperialism. Without a stronger left, it won't happen. Hence, that's
>why Churchill is a traitor. He just reduced the chances people will listen
>to us, and made it necessary for real opponents of U.S. foreign policy to go
>out of their way to explain that they aren't insane assholes.
>
>
Yah, cause prior to the Churchill affair level headed, well footnoted,
left understatement had produced a real domestic block to US imperialism
and a real stage presence for the left. Has not Chomsky been doing that
for the last thirty years?
No comrade, since when was the American political scene dominated by level headed, serious debate? News flash, prior to the Churchill affair nobody was listening to the left...except of course the left. Are you arguing that fewer lefties will now be listening? Or that fewer on the right are now listening--were they ever listening? Or is it the beloved middle of the roaders that you seek. Is there any evidence subtle, sober intervention works on them? Do you cling to the Millsian fantasy of the market place of ideas ?
And as for having to go out of your way to explain that "you are not an insane asshole," all I can say is the best defense is a good offense. Why in the hell would you apologize for the existence of your position at the out-set. What do they teach you in debating classes down south?
When you talk to your less liberal left friends try the statement "Churchill was over the top in many respects but he made one point which is worth thinking about..." Thats how the right uses their militants. Just try it for thirty days as a rhetorical strategy, and if you don't like it you are under no obligation to continue on with the strategy.
Travis