For the record Paul thought of himself at the time as a "sentimental" anarchist, and he still may think of himself in this way.
His position was that the fight between the Contras and the Sandinistas was a "family affair". Nicaragua is a small country and the elite was composed of a few families. Thus members of the same family could be found supporting the Sandinistas and supporting the Contras. This fact was used by Paul to develop a view of the Sandinista/Contra conflict that left U.S. imperialism out of the mix. The Sandinista's were Stalinists and a faction of the Contras were "liberal" democrats and between the two of them he supported the liberal democrats. Absent from his thought was anything that was happening on the ground or in Washington or the fact that without U.S. support the contras would have folded pretty quickly, withoug recruits and the leadership running to Miami with what ever they could take with them. Paul's position was that U.S. imperialism only confused matters and that the left who supported the Sandinistas and opposed the Contras were crypto-Stalinists or Third Wolrdist lovers of romantic violence.
> Yeah, total weasel. Did you see him debate Chomsky on Israel at a
> Socialist Scholars Conference in the 80s?
>
> Doug
Yes, was it 1986? I actually think that that little incident marked as much of a turning point for him as the "Mother Jones" incident. He was booed if I remember and he never recovered composure among the New York Left. All I remember from him is expressions of contempt for the New York left in general. I remember a friend calling him at the time the Elliot Abrams of the Socialist Scholars Conference. But I still think he is an interesting character.
Gossip, gossip, gossip.
Jerry
> _______
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20060914/fb5a7945/attachment.htm>