KJ wrote:
>
>
> There are events over which "you" or "we" can have little influence
> other than to be bystanders, unless "you" or "we" can stomach
> sticking with the powers-that-be. In instances where other, more
> palatable voices and, more importantly, social forces are available,
> then perhaps "you" or "we" can support them and work with them. But
> in instances where, because of the powers of the oppression, all
> other voices are stilled or assimilated to that which we all love to
> hate, then sanity suggests that "we" might just sit it out. The
> alternative is to do a Norman Geras or a Christopher Hitchens!
The heart of what might be called Phil-Ochs liberalism* is the refusal to acknowledge KJ's argument here. To "take sides" where one "can have little influence other than to be bystanders" is to demean politics to the level of a sports contest, and political discussion to the mere hooting of fans at an arena.
Carrol
*"Love me, I'm a liberal." "Love me, I cheer for the right team in X-land."