DH: You thought it was important to defeat George Bush in November. That didn't happen, so what do you think of the second Bush administration and the political prospects surrounding it?
TA: You remember I pointed out - against all those who said that a victory for Bush would help the antiwar movement, and people would concentrate their minds on building up movements - I pointed out there would be demoralization in the ranks if Bush was re-elected because it would be a sign that the American public was going for him. The fact that he had 2 million more votes than Kerry or something like that is an indication that the anti-Bush forces had failed to win the masses, to use an old-fashioned phrase. I'm not that interested in the electoral vote; the popular vote is actually very interesting. It was a big victory for Bush, and people should take stock of that. It reflects something in American society which they were not thinking about. Which is why people like me felt instinctively that a defeat for Bush would be seen globally and in the United States as a tiny step forward regardless of Kerry's politics. The fact that [at] the inauguration of Bush the turnout of the opposition, dissenting voices was so pathetic is an indication of how demoralized people are, which I must say, vindicates the position some of us took at the time.
DH: It's hard to imagine what message the demonstrators would carry: "The people have spoken, and we disagree"?
TA: Yeah, exactly. Basically, if there had been a massive antiwar upsurge after Bush's election victory it could have been reflected in "Bring the Troops Home Now, End the Occupation" but that's not how things worked, alas.