I don't think so, though they think they do, for sure, which ticks me off.
> about
> everything, all at once, in a giant list. Often with little sense of
> how it all fits together, not to mention organization or strategy.
True enough. They have no theory, nor facts, nor ambition either. Minus theory, what you get is only a laundry list of grievances -- no sense of priority.
> > The main problem is not so much those facts themselves as American
> > liberals' and leftists' refusal to admit to them, the refusal that
> > results in their pronouncements about "what to do about Iraq" being
> > completely divorced from reality, even more divorced from it than
> > Republican and Democratic politicians'. When Republican and
> > Democratic politicians say something delusional about Iraq, at least
> > they have the power to act on their respective delusions (and make
> > others suffer from them). Not so with us.
>
> So we're powerless on Iraq, but you think you can turn it around with
> Iran and Palestine?
Not bloody likely, but Iran is more significant than Iraq -- it is in a momentous transition at home and it has the potential to impact regional politics -- and Palestine has been the crux of the Middle East both in US foreign policy and sentiments of the Arab streets, the fact that American liberals and leftists deny. Iraq ought to be kept in mind only as a secondary issue that has implications for these two.
> Why not emphasize
> something with some actual promise, like living wage legislation or
> national health insurance?
I said clearly that we ought to focus on Iran and Palestine, Latin America, and Russia and China (in that order) in _foreign policy_ (cf. <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20060515/038266.html>).
In domestic policy, focus on universal health care. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>