Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> >
> > Well that's why there won't be impeachment hearings. No doubt the
> > Dems would like some of these magical powers too, when they once
> > again occupy the White House.
>
> I think you're right on the second count, which only makes the issue more
> pressing. As far the first is concerned, one might have said the same
> about the war in Iraq a few years ago. The fact that the vast majority of
> Democrats were for the war after it started didn't make being against it a
> bad cause to embrace.
I simply can't comprehend the last sentence. "Being against the war" was not simply a cause for leftists to embrace, being left and being against the war (regardless of poll numbers or whatever) were simply different words for the same thing. Those leftists who temporarily argued that the u.s. had to clean up its mess before it evacuated simply had temporarily resigned from the left. One could be ABB and still be left, though I think the position was erroneous; but those who argued for anysort of compromise on "Out Now" were not making an error, they were being anti-left. Fortunately, most of those departures were only temporary, and most are back with us. But let us not deceive ourselves. Any temporizing with u.s. imperialism (like those who supported the invasion of Afghanistan on "feminist" principles) is not an error, it is simply anti-left.
On the contrary, the fact that half the population
> was with us and against the Dems is exactly what made it a good issue
It was a good issue on which to bring more people into political activity, but for reasons that had nothing to do with the Dems. I couldn't argue with friends that thought the anti-war movement was probably a dead end, and it may turn out that way yet. Perhaps we should all be focused on the immigrant-rights movement.
> for
> trying to push and terrify that ungainly beast of a party another beetle
> leg closer to the left.
Sad. This is like opposing the Death Penalty by suggesting that executions be more drawn out.
> And of rousing a larger majority in the
> population to embrace some of our principles.
What principles? Opposition to the war is merely a starting point, not particularly important in and of itself. And if you mean by "embrace our principles" to change their answers on polls, that too is simply sad.
>
> FWIW, at the moment the polling numbers on impeachment are now
> (suprisingly to me) around the same as they were on the war in 2004 -- and
> this with virtually no publicity given to the issue at all.
None of this has translated into political activity yet. My own prediction would be the opposite of yours. If the DP n the House started impeachment proceedings, it would be the end of the anti-war movement for a year or two and it would entrench the DP in a rightist position. Bush has become an embarassment to the ruling class, and to continue a vigorous policy of retaining a military force in the mideast they need to shed that embarassment.
Watergate was one of the nails in the casket of the '60s left. Everything was now o.k. and we didn't need to go out and demonstrate. An impeachment trial now would probably destroy what few and piddling gains we have made in the last 6 years.
Carrol