> I have a feeling that the radical left could play a spoiler
> role over the next two years, or at least give the Democrats a severe
> case of political indigestion.
>
>
> [WS:] That is what they will try to do in their wet dreams. Like every
> self-respecting brat, the tiny and insignificant radical left will cut its
> nose off to spite its face. However, you grossly overestimate its capacity
> to have any effect at all. The DP will simply brush them off like a fly and
> move on. As they say in the old country: dogs are barking, but the caravan
> moves on.
I think Woj is underestimating the power of the radical left, which -- unfortunately -- can cut both ways.
The reason is that, today, the impetus of the radical left (troops out of Iraq) are pretty consonant with what people, regular people, very large crowds, in broad areas of this country really want. Those regular people, diverse constituencies, made that clear in the midterm elections. The turnout was unusual for midterm elections and, considering the power of an incumbency as ruthless as the Republican, it was a landslide.
Again, the radical left can use what it has to sabotage itself. It's done it, not once but many times over. It has a way of painting itself in the farthest corner of the room. But when a political force -- even if small, marginal, and politically clumsy -- somehow articulates the wants of large crowds, things can happen. And that's the case now.
Furthermore, logistically, the radical left -- their sectarian inclinations notwithstanding -- has shown capable of organizing large demonstrations. UFPJ and International Answer are calling for demonstrations in Washington, DC on different days. That shows some division between the small political grouplets that lead these coalitions, but their constituencies overlap a lot. And by "constituencies" I don't mean militants of the political grouplets, but those (like me) who don't give a damn about the political imperfections of the organizers of a demonstration, as long as demonstrating is felt to be necessary.
In and by themselves, large demonstrations may not seem to make a difference. But with the current mass mood in the country, large demonstrations mean something completely different than when the very large crowds were passive or even hostile to protesters. Maybe I read too much into what I observe, but it seems to me that we're approaching a political crisis of (potentially) large consequences.
This has all the ingredients of a grand historical drama. Clearly, with all its might (wealth, productive and destructive force), even with ten times the "surge" proposed by Bush, the U.S. would not be able to keep together a puppet government in Iraq. Not for long. This is because people are not just background noise. If there's a draft, you risk overt youth rebellion, or you inject right into the armed forces (as if the current, unprecedented discord in the armed forces weren't enough). If you increase the public debt, something gives: inflation, taxes, economic slowdown, currency wars, etc.
That on the one hand. On the other hand, the ruling class *cannot* withdraw without *that* being a globally-public defeat. And it'd not be only the defeat of a group of Republic zealots and profiteers led by a man of dubious merits (to put it mildly). It is the very public, humilliating defeat of U.S. imperialism, the greatest power in human history, in the eyes of a human race increasingly aware and demanding.
Bush would love to get out of the blind alley pushing his way through it with a big bulldozer -- i.e. invading Iran. And I'm sure some powerful (but not that clever) people see that as an option out of the hole. I may be proven wrong, but I don't think he's in a position to do that. He can bomb Iran a few times from the outer layers of the atmosphere, but that won't suffice to *control* the region. And the interests of his patrons will pay a dearer price. The FT is right. Upping the ante leads to increasing the loss.
More importantly, for Bush to invade Iran, the antiwar sentiment in the U.S. would have to vanish suddenly or reverse all of a sudden into a new wave of jingoism. But the ideo-psychological manipulation may be hitting its limits. I know there's a broad consensus in the mass media and the political heights against Iran. So, a big shift in the popular mood would not be impossible, but -- under current circumstances -- it's improbable.
I think that if Bush invaded Iraq (again, under current circumstances), he'd be required to overtly subvert the constitutional system that has served the ruling class so well until now. Assuming that he could, *that* would end up being an even bigger historical disaster for the ruling class.
Julio