[lbo-talk] Moyers: Surprisingly Interesting impeachment discussion

Robert Wrubel bobwrubel at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 16 18:00:05 PDT 2007


CG: I like the tone of your remarks here, particularly in the last paragraphs, and I'm not opposed to impeachment (it's great theater, and can be educational), but "everything works backwards in a liberal empire", and while the Democrats may be temporary heroes, the Repugs are adept at winning in the long run. It might be better for the Dems to work on annulling the Patriot Act and re-instating the laws of the land, than punishing the Prez for breaking them.

BobW

--- cgrimes at rawbw.com wrote:


>
> Chavez has complied completely with "bourgeois
> legality" -- a data
> point supporting Andie's argument on liberalism and
> socialism... '
>
> Gar Lipow
>
> -----------
>
> Thanks for posting this. What it means is there is
> no practical
> incompatibility between impeaching Bush on his
> presumption of
> extra-legal powers and any future ideal where a
> related expansion of
> executive power might be needed to over haul the
> capitalist and
> neoliberal political economy. (AD's point)
>
> In other words the US left is not foreclosing its
> own future project,
> by pushing for impeachment on the grounds of illegal
> or
> unconstitutional expansion of executive branch
> powers by the current
> administration.
>
> ...well because Chavez did it legally. And
> conversely, Bush has tried
> to carry out the Right's project by illegally
> expanding his
> powers. And the stupidity of the Right is that it
> didn't need to
> destroy the whole political fabric of government to
> do what it wanted.
>
> The Patriot Act, Homeland Security and all the rest
> of this
> crap was completely un-necessary.
>
> Carrol writes:
>
> ``So the whole topic is simply silly..''
>
> It might sound silly at the moment. But I don't
> think you see the
> issue involved. It has to do with constructing a
> socialist economy
> within the framework of the existing institutions
> and through well
> established politcal means compatible with US
> history and
> traditions.
>
> In other words, no revolution is necessary. Pursuing
> social justice
> doesn't require the hypocrisy of shooting a lot of
> people
> to get there (much as I might like too, just to shut
> them up).
>
> And whether or not such a turn ever arrives in the
> US is also off the
> point. The point is I have to imagine the world,
> before I can see the
> best way to change it---using (I) here as if were a
> (we).
>
> And then a last point, I have to write things out
> and then look at
> them. That's the way I think. So yes, there is a
> sandbox, or soapbox,
> and I use lbo as a sandbox-soapbox. I think lbo is
> good place to do
> that---sort of what it's for, no? Mutual
> masterbation of course, but
> why not? And the best thing about this sandbox as
> compared to blogs is
> I am not sure---but something to do with a more
> democratic and
> collective forum or something..
>
> CG
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list