Nader-Camejo: Why Now? Why Not?

(first of a series)

As promised, the beginnings of a conversation for those who believe: (A) that it is not a matter of controversy whether Bush needs to vacate the White House by January 2005, and (B) that John Kerry is a piss-poor alternative, the alternative of a settled, slowly decaying distopia at best and, at worst, Bush with a northeastern drawl. What should we do? Should we vote for one of the smattering of smart, committed activists running on various third party tickets--Walt Brown of the Socialist Party? The Socialist Equality Party (keepers of the great WSWS.org site)'s Bill Van Auken? Martin Koppel, a competent editor and writer for the Militant and a cordial, disciplined activist, is at the head of the Socialist Workers Party ticket. I would and will happily consider arguments for voting for any of these comrades.

Four years ago, I proudly voted for Ralph Nader and Wynona LaDuke, and although I did so in a solidly Republican state, I encouraged votes for him everywhere. I did so knowing that, if a gun were held to my head, I'd have chosen Gore over Bush. I even did so knowing that Bush probably lacked what little egalitarian conscience slept unstirred in Gore's rigid brain. I did so because the Green platform, and Nader's, differed radically from the Democratic party platform, and as a matter of principle, I felt one should vote for what one could predominantly agree with, even if, as I believed, that vote was more for the purpose of protest and coalition building than for a realistic choice of president.

At the time I rejected arguments from those left of Nader who correctly pointed out that Ralph was no socialist. I rejected those to the right of Nader (whether they knew they were or not) who correctly warned of the consequences of another Bush in the White House. I was all Eugene Debs: "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want and get it." I reject the notion that Nader cost Gore the White House; the primary blame should go to the crooks who, by deploying false felon records, cost Gore thousands of votes in Florida. But more importantly, a society which holds my political conscience hostage to the ruling class is a society that deserves bad presidents. And so I could proudly say, for the last four years, Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Nader.

Things are considerably more uncertain for me this time around. As a matter of policy choices, those of George W. Bush will be qualitatively worse than those of John Kerry, on the whole, and the undesirable impacts of those policies will cross many class lines (although the poor and working class will suffer disproportionately, as we do under any administration). Bush is a particularly brazen, stupid, uninspired little man. Worse, he willfully surrounds himself with empire builders and criminals of the highest caliber. This administration has behaved like a one-term administration, aware that they can only go so far, determined to push the country as far to the right as possible, pulling out all the stops to reshape the world in their image. Their purposes may be sincere (although that doesn't explain all the lies; even Marx and Engels insisted that the communists not hide their aims), but regardless of their intent, the end result has been a less democratic nation and a substantially uglier and more unscrupulous world.

Four years ago, progressives were asked to jettison all other considerations to "prevent" the first four years of the above scenario. We were asked to hold our noses and vote for the archetypically cynical Democrat, a candidate with substantial financial holdings in both big oil and big tobacco, who supported the death penalty, who wanted to lock up pot smokers even though he himself had spent a couple of years doing bong hits in his living room, who, as we all predicted, went rhetorically leftward when he thought it mattered, and remained, by all significant measures, a bourgeois right-centrist. (The Al Gore of today? A different picture entirely. One is at least tempted to like him for his fiery, antiestablishment rhetoric. Still, one can't be too careful.)

One cannot discount the significance of Nader's choice of a veep. He may have accepted the Reform Party's endorsement in order to court disaffected conservatives, but Nader has chosen Peter Camejo, a former presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers' Party, and (despite the sectarian, ultraleft rantings about him) a committed leftist whose "socially responsible investing" makes him no worse than the advertising department of The Nation. Camejo is the real deal, quite possibly the most leftward public figure at this level of national political exposure. His Marxist-honed intelligence and analytic discipline, combined with a natural rhetorical flair forged in decades of grass roots activism, is more Debs than Nader. He outshone his opponents in the California Gubernatorial debates almost effortlessly.

This Saturday, the Greens will choose their Presidential nominee, and there is still a real possibility that the honor will go to David Cobb, a truly great activist and longtime builder of the Green Party, who has promised to nominate a female as his running mate. Delegates like Ted Glick believe this would be a much better choice than Nader, even with Camejo on that ticket:

A Cobb nomination will give us a Presidential candidate who is 100% committed to using his campaign to build upon what we have already accomplished this year and carry it forward not just until election day but post-November 2nd and into the coming years. No one except perhaps Ralph Nader knows what will come out of his Independent campaign. [recent LBO-talk post]

Although these reasons don't seem extremely well-developed, and seem to ignore the presence of Camejo on the ticket (as well as the extensive, well-articulated and thoroughly leftward catalog of Nader's positions on the issues at votenader.org), all progressives should wait and see what happens in Milwaukee this weekend. Speaking for myself, if Nader does not receive the Greens' endorsement, this will be cause for a reevaluation of where I ought to orient myself politically in this very important election cycle.

I say this acutely aware of the limits of electoral politics. I know that real change comes from mass movements as well as the endless interpersonal conversations that occur in workplaces, classrooms, churches and bars. I realize that Corporate America will pick a winner, and that this is unlikely to change in response to mere electoral agitation. But I also know that the electoral stage is a political space and that, in fulfilling the first half of Debs' dictum, "voting for what you want and not getting it" can be a powerful educator and motivator for more effective politics down the road. What I will not do, regardless of my eventual endorsement decision, is make a virtue out of necessity by falling into the tempting trap of seeing John Kerry as a savior, a hero, or a friend to people like me. Too many of my comrades gave Clinton a free pass; if you love everything George W. Bush stands for, thank Clinton, and the soft left, for smoothing the road for him.

(to be continued)

Right Hand Man
(on behalf of all the right hand men of dictators throughout history, because nobody can do it all by themselves)

share with me your perfect vision
I will be your right hand man
I will give life to your language
I will start the process rolling
funny how you visionaries
don't always have the stomach for a fight
I will be your right hand man

share with me your perfect vision
people need your clarity
people want to do the right thing
people want some discipline
sometimes need to be reminded
sometimes need a little kick

Others want the glory celebration
I just want to enact your vision
others want to run the show
I just want to help you make it go
others need material compensation
I'll make a vow of poverty
And I have the courage to do
all those things you could not do
Share with me your perfect vision
Let me help you make it real
You have ideas I have steel

Yoshie Furuhashi's Critical Montages is my favorite web journal these days. I have read Yoshie's posts for years on LBO-Talk, because they are always well-written, calm, and correct, as well as a fountain of information and connection.

Yoshie's report on Bill O'Reilly's shift on Iraq (and some interesting commentary on Nader and other candidates) fits well with a montage of my own. For the last several weeks I have written posts attempting to describe, in a self-consciously fragmented way, the fragmentation of bourgeois politics; the ruthlessness of their bulldogs, the transitive nature of their arguments.

But Yoshie's article identifies another area of focus at least as important as watching the ruling class bumble around.

the very fact that O'Reilly arrived at the conclusion that "[t]he faster we get out of there, the better" based on his own conservative premise and reasoning -- America went to war with "very good intentions," and "[w]e gave them a chance like we gave the South Vietnamese people a chance," but "[t]he majority of the Iraqi people do not appreciate what we've done for them" -- is quite significant. It's an index of how unpopular the occupation of Iraq has become.
The John Kerry camp should take heart from the conclusion of the O'Reilly speech at the Economic Club -- O'Reilly all but endorsed Kerry

And we should learn from why it's possible that O'Reilly would endorse Kerry. It's time to ask some questions about what we're voting for, why we're voting, what we hope to get out of it; and, given whatever imperfect answers to those questions, we need a conversation about Kerry, Nader, and anti-imperialist struggle.

Does Kerry get a free pass like so many Nader-Haters were eager to give Gore in 2000?

Does Nader get a free pass on immigration, as Yoshie implies? Do we forgive his conservatizing, nationalist rhetoric? What about Nader and sexual orientation issues?

I think Nader has been unwarrantedly maligned. I fundamentally deny that he cost Gore the election, and I am not sure what Gore would have gotten us beyond better-engineered and more well-hidden warfare. But I also agree with Yoshie, who writes:

Now that the tide of public opinion has turned against the occupation of Iraq, as O'Reilly's remarks demonstrate, leftists should turn up the heat on Nader as well, not just on Bush and Kerry, holding the only anti-occupation candidate in the race to a higher moral and political standard.

So in the weeks to come I'll be seeking input, and writing my thoughts on Eugene Debs's immortal wager: "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want and get it."

Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.
Paulo Freire

Fencebutt

you'll blame the kid who stole your bike
you'll blame the cops out on their beat
you'll blame somebody's repressed libido
or the people sleeping at your feet
but you won't blame the system
no, you won't blame the system
the system pays your rent
and that must mean it's heaven-sent
and it's not broken, only bent
and besides, no one can make a dent

you'll blame one rich man or two
you'll blame a few laws here or there
you'll write a letter to your congressman
you wish it all could be more fair
but you won't blame the system
no, you won't blame the system
the system works in theory
when it comes to change, you're leery
fighting is just too darn scary
maybe you're just too battle-weary

(1994)

Help Splinter Group Lampoon Bush

My dear, dear friend Kellie Clancy sent me this appeal on behalf of a fantastic, progressive theater group doing some great political satire in New York--their play "King MacBush II: A Shakespearean Tragedy of War, Greed and Strategerie" opens on the eve of the Republican National Convention. No editorializing necessary here; the words and ideas below, and the urgency of their financial need, speak for themselves. They need our money. I am sending them twenty bucks--now how about you?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, everyone -

Many of you have heard stories about my oldest friends who live in New York and work in theater. Sara is currently working for a production company that is putting together a show that satirizes the Bush administration through the immortal words of Shakespeare. I spent some time volunteering for them when I was in New York last week, and it was a great experience. The email below describes the production in more detail. I'm forwarding this to ask for your help. They are currently soliciting donations to help get the show on its feet. I know that we're all pretty broke, but even $5 helps. Additionally, they are collecting the names of any left wing organizations that might be interested in helping with publicity or marketing for the show. They've talked to moveon.org, Win Without War, and similar organizations, but they need the names of as many as possible. If you know of any, or have links to websites, please forward them to me.

Finally, please pass this on to as many people as possible. Most of us don't live in swing states, but we can help those who do create a public dialogue about the RNC and the upcoming election.

Thank you for your time, and please visit the website -- let me know if you have any questions or want more information.

Thanks,

Kellie

Dear Friends:

Your help is urgently needed. I’m not normally one to solicit donations, but I really feel like this is important.

I’m working on a play right now, and we need your help to raise money. We’re not talking huge amounts of money, any amount helps -- $5 here, $10 there really adds up. That’s not to say that you shouldn’t give much much more if you can, especially since whatever money you give will be completely
tax-deductible.

The play is set to open the week before the Republican National Convention here in New York, and run through Election Night. It’s a satire using some of Shakespeare’s plays as a backbone to examine today’s political situation.
It should be a lot of fun, and more importantly, we want to use the arts to create a dialogue about the convention, this year’s election, and ultimately the Bush Administration. One of the motivations for doing this play came from the lack of public response, specifically within the arts, to everything that’s going on. As this is such a significant year, it seemed like a great opportunity to put something like this up.

Here is a brief description of what the show is about, to arouse your interests (hopefully!): "King MacBush II: A Shakespearean Tragedy of War, Greed and Strategerie" is
a raucous political satire which adapts and twists the classic tales of several of Shakespeare's kings to skewer today's political leaders. Boldly theatrical and wickedly funny, "King MacBush II" encapsulates the horror and
the damage caused by our country's ruling political dynasty. The play attempts to engender a stronger public dialogue about the events leading up to, and including, this year's presidential election. The show will be presented at the American Theatre of Actors, 314 West 54th Street, beginning August 25th.

The show website is under way; until it’s up and running, you can make a donation by going to this link: https://www.fracturedatlas.org/site/contribute/donate/278

The show’s website is: http://kingmacbush.com/
You can check there for updates and such.

Please, help us reach our goal of $10,000 IN TEN DAYS!! Also, please forward this to anyone you think might want to help!

Thank you, in advance.

Best,
Sara

Splinter Group Productions, LLC
1501 Broadway, Ste. #2102
New York, NY 10036
917-568-1002

Reagan Still Dead, Film at 11

For those of us with strong ethical objections to Reagan's policies, all we can do is wait out the insanity and try our best to fend off charges of being insulting and unpatriotic. After all, it's only acceptable to question Clinton's ethics...

The most heinous political crime I could commit right now is to somehow make light of Reagan's death, particularly by focusing on those parts of his legacy that may have been, from the point of view of poor, working people, less than completely rosy. Disease and death among elites gives them a free historical pass, for a while, until some other ruling group takes over and decides to re-cast the icons and conclusions. What all the elites get to do, however, is spend their political careers causing disease and death among the lower classes, so that they can enjoy tears and fanfare when they succumb--surrounded by loved ones and the best care money can buy--to their own eventual disease and death.

With a National Day of Mourning tomorrow (even Wyoming's Democratic Governor, Dave Freudenthal, has ordered all state functions cease), with (so far) a week's worth of uninterrupted news coverage, complete with talking heads and Vice President Cheney "speculating" on the undeniable links between the greatness of Reagan and that of Bush the Younger, and with thoughts of an upcoming Republican convention during which every effort will be made to pass an imaginary baton from the ghost of Reagan to the ghoul of Bush, I am suffering intense Reagan-fatigue.

It's not even about the man--a complex combination of working class origins, middle class resentment and ruling class warmaking--so much as it is about the naked, undeniable effort to utilize his death and legacy as a vindication of Bushite neoconservatism, and to silence any kind of meaningful historical analysis and accompanying political dissent. This has not been a week of mourning so much as a week of revisionist cheerleading, and even though I shouldn't be surprised at it, I am still irritated by it.

As a thought experiment, just indulge me this vision: If this were William Jefferson Clinton's week of mourning--if Clinton had died and the powers-that-be declared a series of official funerals, holidays, casket displays and routes--if news channels and radio talk shows broadcast tributes to Clinton 24-7--if politicians vowed on every stump to carry on Clinton's legacy--well, a certain section of the American public and politicians would be furious. They would point out the numerous sins and high crimes of the Clinton administration. They would strongly opine that Clinton was a poor political role model. And from their perspective, they would be right. I certainly think they would be right.

So Reagan gets a free pass for Iran-Contra, the rich/poor gap, deregulation of savings and loans, cavorting with right wing dictators, etc. Clinton will die and conservatives will dance on his grave, if they don't piss on it first, and they'll forget their calls for civility when the Gipper took the dirt nap.

Funny thing about that: Dick Morris's column today, "Clinton was Reagan's Ratifier," upholds an argument suggested by many others, that Clinton implemented much of the Reagan agenda, including welfare reform, balanced budgets (which Reagan could never achieve despite his rhetoric of government frugality), and in general, much of what the Gingerich Republicans and centrist Democrats wanted. Morris, an extraordinary cad and political pimp, lucidly questions the dichotomy most of the other cads and pimps take for granted: that there is a huge value gap between Clinton and Reagan.

My point here, however, is merely that Reagan generated a great deal of divisiveness and hatred--just like Clinton did--but the rules are simply different. The fact is that a currently dominant section of the ruling class believes it is vital to place Reagan in the same category as Lincoln and FDR, so that certain fashionable political philosophies in the current administration can appear timeless and sage, rather than what they really are: transitive and cynical.

My secondary point, I suppose, is: Given that Clinton was an impressively better Republican president than either Reagan or Bush the Younger (I think Bush the Elder was a Whig, wasn't he?) and that Clinton also provided the Right with an enemy who energized and reinvigorated the most extreme elements in the Republican party, then judging by the criteria by which Reagan has been revered this week, Clinton's eventual passing ought to generate even greater fanfare...if the ruling class were honest, really...

Music News and Reviews

Joe Carver Radio Show

In another life I could have been a music reviewer (along with producer and even songwriter). I love good music reviews. I also feel passionate about my own favorite pieces of music or acts.

The biggest news is my friend Joe Carver's new radio show, which is available on the internet. It is called Hard Feelings, and will air Mondays 11 AM - 1 PM pacific standard time. The focus in on Roots, Americana, and Alternative Country. The website is here.

Joe promises to play The Jayhawks, Slobberbone, Todd Snider, Will Kimbrough, Son Volt, Wilco, Centromatic, Pedro the Lion, Whiskeytown, Uncle Tupelo, Two Cow Garage, Marah, Bill Monroe, Alyson Krauss, Allison Moore, Jay Farrar and much more. Give it a listen and tell us what you think.

New CDs I Like: Rock Against Bush and Dixie Chicks Live

We went to Utah for a vacation last weekend and before we left Ann and I both lamented that we had run out of "new" music to listen to. So we bought two relatively new CDs for the trip:

The Rock Against Bush CD and DVD were only 9 bucks, which is just a ridiculous steal. The CD, produced by Fat Mike of NOFX, not only contains some of the better punk and punk-derivations I've heard for some time, and a whole lot of it: 26 tracks, including gems by Anti-Flag, the Descendents, RX Bandits, Pennywise, Social Distortion (!!!), and Less than Jake, who are joined by Billy Bragg (one of my all-time heroes) for a delightful little ditty called "The Brightest Bulb has Burned Out." To me, this largely acoustic number offers encouragement to emotionally exhausted activist-types like me...

[...]
You said the hole in your head
Has gotten bigger than the hole in your chest
And you’re stuck between the past and present tense
You said you’ve been waging a war against so many years of lies
With stronger drinks and longer lines
It’s not that big a surprise
That you’re feeling more dead than alive
You’re feeling more dead than alive
So I’ll let you know
If you need, somewhere to go
I’ll be listening when you call
And I’ll be there if you fall off
If you need someone to believe in you,
I’ll let you know I will

The DVD includes a David Cross monologue, some good documentary commentary about the war, and some great videos. This is a steal and it's for a good cause (beating Bush), although I doubt all these artists agree on who they'd like to replace Bush with.

A year ago, the Casper Star Tribune published my long op ed on the public criticism of the Dixie Chicks. "In the spirit of political pluralism and good country music", I said

If the current crucifixion of the Dixie Chicks doesn't offend your political sensibilities, it surely must offend the musical sensibilities of any thoughtful listener, anyone for whom music is something more than simply background noise. Regardless of your opinion on the Iraq war, President Bush, or the peacetime commercial viability of Lee Greenwood, you should stand up for the Dixie Chicks because their music is just better than the vast majority of crap on the radio. And if, in the meantime, you're also standing up for the freedom to criticize elected officials and oppose wars, then all the better, plus a bonus if you supported the war and still stand up for free speech and good music. I’ll buy you a drink, my friend.

I wasn't the only progressive so upset at this corporate slamming of the Chicks, the best mainstream or "pop" country act playing today, and one of the better bluegrass bands to boot. Kate Randal and others at the World Socialist Web Site were equally outraged, and as usual, far more eloquent than me.

So I didn't have any problem picking up the Chicks' Live "Top of the World" tour CDs, and it made for some great driving music, as well as nice vindication music. Recorded after the debacle, the Chicks thank their fans, "the best in the world," for coming..."They said you wouldn't come," Natalie says. "But we knew you would." Each track on the 2-CD set is a great version of an already great song, from "Goodbye Earl" to "Sin Wagon." Along the way, a heartrending and critical version of "Travelin' Soldier" (it ends with military drums) and a self-conscious "Truth #2"--where Natalie promises both true freedom of expression and true love, as if to say they belong together:

I might get to the end of my line
Find out everyone was lying
I don't think that I'm afraid anymore
Say that I would rather die trying
Swing me way down south
Sing me something brave from your mouth
And I'll bring you
Pearls of water on my hips
And the love in my lips
All the love from my lips

This is too poetic, too image-laden, for the country music establishment. The Dixie Chicks didn't just speak out politically in 2003...from the beginning they have broken nearly every rule and pushed the boundaries of Nashville and New York in the direction of both social commentary (they have been unambiguously anti-war and pro-gender equity since day one) and youthful sexuality (no more drunken trysts with 40-year old divorced women...instead, these girls wanna do some highly energetic "mattress dancing"). They can play their own instruments...guitars, fiddles, banjos, mandolins, better than most of their male peers. They are just a good, tight, unapologetically outspoken act, and their live shows are to die for. This set captures all of the above, including a solid cover of Bob Dylan's 1995 "Mississippi."

Sometimes I wish the Chicks would just embrace the underground, or take the kind of risks with their music that kd lang did, with such astounding results. But I am also glad their fan base didn't desert them just because Natalie Maines was rightly ashamed to live in the same state as GW Bush. I am ashamed to live on the same planet with him. It's nice to hear so much good music, both punk and country, that makes me feel good politically too.

Not Spitting on Reagan's Grave (or "we’re all sitting at the fountain, at the five and dime")

No insults, tasteless or pointless celebration. Just some random thoughts about Ronnie and me.

I was barely 13 years old when he became president. I knew very little about politics, apart from the fact that most of the senior citizens I knew hated Ronald Reagan and favored Jimmy Carter. I thought that was ironic; since Reagan was old himself, I naturally figured the oldsters would line up with their own kind. I knew nothing of social programs or the differences between Republicans and Democrats. When people branded Carter a "liberal," I believed them, and it would be years before I realized how far to the right Carter really was. And, of course, there was the occasional Bircher who branded Reagan a "communist symp." I grew to understand politics during the eight years of the Reagan presidency, but never hated him the way I would come to despise both Bush the Elder and Bush the younger...and along with them, Clinton, another murderer who got a free pass because he was a charismatic Democrat.

My friend Justin had this to say:

I think his legacy is really as the paradigm of the 'compassionate' conservative, or as the kind of person the right loves because he can make their fascism seem so palatable to average Americans on the basis of his personality.

No, there won't be any mindless insults here, no glorification of someone's tragic illness and death. Sure, it's more honor than he gave most people, but Ronald Wilson Reagan was one of a kind. He forced the left, and rhetorical theorists, to re-write their theories and reconsider their political strategies. He succeeded in mobilizing people backwards, from a cynical 1970s into a time that strongly resembled the memories (not the realities) of the 1950s.

At age 16, I had barely discovered punk rock, and with it, punk politics. But then my life changed drastically when I attended "Rock Against Reagan" in Salt Lake City. I can't remember the bands who were present, but we all rallied and sang and shouted in downtown SLC, right under Reagan's hotel room. I met a girl who wore plaid, slamdanced with me, and hated Reagan. I saw socialist literature...probably for the first time. And I started to form a picture, which would suffice until I learned the difference between anarchism and socialism. No Reagan=no Rock Against Reagan=no eventual political consciousness for Matt.

Camper Van Beethoven's last album, "Key Lime Pie," featured an immortal song, "Sweethearts," complete with happy-go-lucky melody, faithful harmony, and a cheerful fiddle. It was an ode to Reagan during the final, awkward days of his presidency:

’cause he’s always living back in dixon
Circa 1949
And we’re all sitting at the fountain, at the five and dime
’cause he’s living in some b-movie
The lines they are so clearly drawn
In black and white life is so easy
And we’re all coming along on this one
’cause he’s on a secret mission
Headquarters just radioed in
He left his baby at the dancehall
While the band plays on some sweet song
And on a mission over china
The lady opens up her arms
The flowers bloom where you haved placed them
And the lady smiles, just like mom
Angels wings are icing over
Mcdonnell-douglas olive drab
They bear the names of our sweethearts
And the captain smiles, as we crash
’cause in the mind of ronald reagan
Wheels they turn and gears they grind
Buildings collapse in slow motion
And trains collide, everything is fine
Everything is fine
Everything is fine

Russell Arben Fox had this to say, which is basically true from the point of view of both politics and political communication, even though I think it underplays the hatred Reagan did generate among the true left:

I've had my brushes with profound anti-Reagan loathing, but--while obviously comparisons are difficult to make, given the radically different contexts--it seems to me that the hatred of Reagan, compared with the present-day hatred of Bush, was often a bitter, forced and warped thing, whereas I can genuinely see grounds for detesting the current president. I guess with Bush II it is not implausible to claim that he deserves contempt, but could anyone really make that claim about Reagan? Probably, but somehow it just doesn't seem as reasonable to me. We were listening the Garrison Keillor's "Prairie Home Companion" last Saturday--how I love that program--and we'd only heard the news about Reagan's death about twenty minutes before it started. Keillor, who is about as solid a Minnesota liberal as you can find, opened the program commenting that "one of the great public figures of our time" had died. There were many gasps when he said the name, plus a few rude jerks who clapped, and one who let out a whoop. Keillor, gracious to the end, send a few nice things about the man, summing up by saying that Reagan left liberals like himself "profoundly befuddled," primarily through his "deep sincerity and endless charm." I think that just about nails why Reagan-hatred never really took off.

Although I must disagree with Russell's observation that Reagan-hatred wasn't as pronounced as Bush-hatred (try telling that to anyone from Central America or any U.S. activists in solidarity with Central American activists...or unions, especially Air Traffic Controllers...) I do agree profoundly with his citation of Keillor. It was not only leftists who were befuddled. Reagan forced rhetorical theorists to re-think and re-write their theories. He probably inspired a hundred groundbreaking scholarly articles in my discipline. He was simply the most charismatic president I have seen in my lifetime, and it was precisely because that charisma was tied to ideas that seemed regressive to so many of us that he was so, well, befuddling. I think his success taught those of us who call ourselves progressives some revolutionary lessons that many of us still haven't fully absorbed.

I don't know what political purpose is served in throwing a party or laughing at his suffering. The true politics of compassion, something Reagan's ilk will never really understand or embrace, are incompatable with revelling in anyone's death. Sober assessment of a destructive and regressive political career, sure, that's important--even essential. But "good riddance?" Nah, maybe just a sardonic "May God keep him...and not send him back."

Or, maybe just an R.E.M. song from 1987...when the old man was getting the rug pulled out from under him:

You're beautiful more beautiful than me
You're honorable more honorable than me
Loyal to the Bank of America
It's a sign of the times
It's a sign of the times
You're sharpening stones, walking on coals
To improve your business acumen.
Sharpening stones, walking on coals,
To improve your business acumen.
Vested interest united ties, landed gentry rationalize
Look who bought the myth, by jingo, buy America
It's a sign of the times
it's a sign of the times
You're sharpening stones, walking on coals
To improve your business acumen.
Sharpening stones, walking on coals,
To improve your business acumen.
Enemy sighted, enemy met, I'm addressing the realpolitik
Look who bought the myth, by jingo, buy America
"Let us not assassinate this man further Senator,
you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir?
At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
We're sharpening stones, walking on coals
To improve your business acumen.
Sharpening stones, walking on coals,
To improve your business acumen.
Enemy sighted, enemy met, I'm addressing the realpolitik
You've seen start and you've seen quit
(I'm addressing the table of content)
I always thought of you as quick
Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)
Exhuming McCarthy
(Meet me at the book burning)

Correction (and war profiteering)

"Scott," an apparently faithful UNDERVIEW reader, pointed out my misreading of the Cheney-Halliburton story. Actually, Halliburton contacted Cheney to make sure everything was above board and there would be no appearance of impropriety concerning Halliburton's war contracts. I have deleted that post and I apologize if it created any confusion. At this point in time, I have no hard proof of Cheney's involvement in current Halliburton war deals.

While on the subject of profiteering:

Marketplace Radio's informative four-part series on war profiteering is one of the best stories out there.

Here's what the Capital Times (reprinted at Common Dreams) had to say about Cheney and Halliburton:

As it turns out, in 2001 Cheney pocketed $205,298 in deferred salary that was paid by Halliburton. In 2002, he collected $162,392. And he is scheduled to collect similar amounts in 2003, 2004 and 2005. And Cheney has retained unexercised options for 433,000 Halliburton stock shares. It sure doesn't sound like the vice president has "severed all ties" to his former firm.

The obviously radical-commie US News and World Reporthas an article on post-9/11 war profiteering.

Jeremy Schulman of the Institute for Policy Studies has a fact sheet on war profiteering and tax avoidance with the usual list of suspects, including Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Boeing (whose lobbyists include Sen. Tom Daschle's wife Linda), Raytheon, General Electric, Litton Industries, GTE, Humana, Exxon, and AlliedSignal...

Norman Livergood's somewhat hyperbolic, but nevertheless informative site includes information on Bush war profiteering.

Readers with other facts about current war profiteering, or further information on Cheney and Halliburton, are urged to use the comment link below to send URLs and other sources of information. From now on, I will check my stories and facts more carefully. I would hate to feed false information to the public. Nobody in any position of responsibility (our political leaders, for instance) should ever mislead the public or fail to check their facts. I am sure Scott and others agree.

When the Idiots Turn against Each Other

Richard Perle, neoconservative icon who resigned last year from his position as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, has turned against the administration that once was believed to be an indispensable home to all his ilk. According to today's Toronto Star, Perle

described U.S. policy in post-war Iraq as a failure. "I would be the first to acknowledge we allowed the liberation (of Iraq) to subside into an occupation. And I think that was a grave error, and in some ways a continuing error," [...]Perle said the biggest mistake in post-war policy "was the failure to turn Iraq back to the Iraqis more or less immediately. "We didn't have to find ourselves in the role of occupier. We could have made the transition that is going to be made at the end of June more or less immediately," he told BBC radio, referring to the U.S. and British plan to transfer political authority in Iraq to an interim government on June 30. This public criticism of U.S. policy from one of the leading advocates of the war - and a firm political ally of U.S. President George W. Bush - indicates just how much Bush's political fortunes are being damaged by post-war chaos.

The same article mentions that Tony Blair and Colin Powell are at odds over what the U.S.-led occupation's exit strategy really is. Blair insists that the new government of Iraq will have the power to order foreign troops to leave the country, while Powell says troops will still be under U.S. command and will do whatever they need to protect themselves. The position that Iraq can order troops out of the country is not, however, mentioned in the new UN Resolution, although China, Russia, France and Germany have proposed changes to the resolution that will allow Iraq to do just that.

The normally complacent and cheerleading mainstream media has also turned against Bush's seeming assumption that anything the administration, or major agencies say about terrorism must be automatically assumed to be true. For months, I have been asking the question: Why is it that whenever this administration is in political trouble, the terror alert level increases, or some videotape is conveniently found, or, in general, the terror-talk rhetoric goes up? Well, this time, Reuters ain't buying it. According to Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent:

A vague new U.S. warning that al Qaeda may be planning a massive attack smacks of political back-covering and campaigning, not just a call for heightened vigilance, analysts and former government officials say. [...]One former national security official in the Bush administration told
Reuters: "This is more butt-covering than anything else."
Critics say the new threat warnings may also just be a ploy to shore up the president's job approval ratings or divert attention from the increasingly unpopular Iraq campaign.
[...] But beyond urging citizens to be on their guard, officials failed to suggest what Americans should do to help mitigate the threat. They said the government had no plans to raise the terror threat level or announce new precautions, and gave no details on when, where or how it might occur.
[...]Some critical voices say the government may also be hoping the warnings could score political points on national security that could boost President Bush's flagging popularity ahead of the November elections.[...]One prominent terrorism expert, who would only speak on condition of
anonymity, said Bush may also be trying to staunch increasing criticism of the Iraq campaign by underlining the link in the public's mind between Iraq and security at home. "The president is running as a war president, so the timing is
interesting," he said, pointing to a speech by Bush on Monday that made frequent references to terrorist threats. "I wonder if there's not a connection to the president's speech when he
mentioned terrorism 18 times in the context of Iraq. Isn't this a very convenient way of linking back to the United States that Iraq is part of the broader war on terrorism?" he said.

Of course, we can delightedly add to this the Chalabi fiasco, wherein Ahmad Chalabi, the gangster-embezzler who, along with his faux Iraqi National Congress, had been championed by American neoconservatives, who goaded the U.S. into funding Chalabi and the I.N.C. in return for lies about Iraqi WMD and exaggerated speculations about a successful invasion of Iraq. Chalabi has now hopped on the anti-U.S. bandwagon, apparently incensed that he's lost his sugar daddy.

Is the house of cards falling down? Well, let me make two caveats here:

1. Islamo-fascism is certainly alive and well, and U.S. capitalism is its sworn enemy (ironic that Islamo-fascism is funded by Islamo-capitalists). Its preferred method is terrorism, a morally and politically bankrupt strategy that utilizes innocent life as a weapon in a much more brazen way than capitalism does. Terrorism is absurdly wrong on more levels than I could possibly cover here. It strengthens U.S. imperialism by turning public opinion against genuinely oppressed peoples (unlike millionaires like Bin Laden), and justifying repressive police-state measures. Each instance of terrorism, or even the ongoing threat of terrorism, undermines the creativity and revolutionary vision needed to transcend the dichotomy between corporate brutality and Islamo-fascism.

2. Some progressives are taking delight in Bush's plummeting approval ratings, as well as some surveys that show John Kerry leading Bush in the race for the U.S. presidency. But Kerry does not, in any meaningful sense, offer an alternative to Bush that would be optimal for the kind of world progressives want. He is not the "peace" candidate McGovern supposedly was. He would make U.S. intervention cleaner and less controversial by using the United Nations as a stalking horse for that wonderfully innocuous term, "U.S. interests." As one group puts it, better than I could:

The UN and its Security Council is only a space of bargaining between rival imperialisms using the smaller states as proxies and weapon to legitimate the aggression against an oppressed country. [...] The line proposed by pacifist organizers and sections of the Left [...] produces deadly illusions and adaptation to European, particularly French and German, imperialisms and to the "kitchen of the thieves", the UN, guilty already for a series of disasters from Korea, Cyprus and Congo to the Balkan wars in the 90s and Iraq itself.

So yeah, Kerry might be a little better on the environment, workers' rights, and a few other things (and I don't mean to trivialize those things), but fighting against war itself is going to require an independent course, one that rejects all extremism and manipulation by the powerful, all deployment of human beings for purposes in which they have no control. The fact that neither side makes it particularly easy to chart an independent course is no reason to reject the indisputable fact that such a course is necessary.

So where does this all cohere with Perle (and other former Bushies) attacking Bush, or Reuters calling B.S. on the administration's brilliantly-timed terror threats? Those battles, those revealed inconsistencies, can, with some germination and propagation, slowly whittle away confidence in ruling ideologies. We should celebrate news that Powell can't get along with the neocons, or that folks like Perle, and Richard Clarke, and others, leave the administration and then backbite. They aren't heroes (there are few heroes at that level of material power), but they are barometers. And there are more barometers every day.

Is cheering for Bush's misfortunes equivalent to cheering for the death of U.S. soldiers, or the triumph of backwards, medieval-minded terrorists? Of course not. That assumes the very dichotomy both sides insist we buy into. It means that Bush, who is quite possibly the worst of the worst among U.S. presidents, can hold us hostage, hold our common sense and critical thinking hostage, to a world that his cronies have been busy creating for the past thirty years. "You have to take sides sometimes," cry the shallow pragmatists. I do take a side. The side I take is the side of U.S. soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and the men, women and children who are losing their lives because we live in a mean world, an uncreative world, a world where a few rich people make all the decisions, and where those decisions are increasingly brutal, violent, and short-sighted. There has got to be another way, and that way can only be found among those who yearn for empowerment and enlightenment. In the meantime, enjoy how the fearless leaders stumble and fall.

We "do not flee from being deceived as much as from being damaged by deception..."

[The Nietzsche quotes in this column come from "Truth and Lies in the Moral Sense," available at this link.]

Check out John Tierney, "The Hawks Loudly Express Their Second Thoughts," New York Times, May 16, 2004. I'm not going to do the NYT any favors by linking to their subscription-only site (you can get a free subscription, yada yada), but yeah, the pro-war crowd is pretty contrite these days.

Lots of illusions have come crashing down in the last several weeks.

David Sirota, Christy Harvey and (former Claremont debater) Judd Legum chronicle the sudden fall of Ahmad Chalabi, former right wing hero of the Iraqi National Congress who is now being raided by U.S. troops and vilified by coalition spokespersons and conservatives at home.

What will be lost on pro-war and pro-Bush folks is that progressives actually called this one years ago. We said Chalabi was a shady gangster, a consumate liar, possibly even worse. Sirota, Harvey and Legum (it's great to see Judd doing such good work) chronicle this history of lies and deceptions better than I could, so hit the link and read the article.

Barbara Ehrenreich shows contriteness of a different kind in her article "What Abu Ghraib Taught Me."

For Ehrenreich, pictures of Megan Ambuhl, Lynndie England Sabrina Harman engaged in brutal acts against Iraqi prisoners reminded her that women should not automatically be held up as kinder, more progressive, or more humane than men. Now, as a socialist concerned about feminist issues, Ehrenreich has never been publicly guilty of radical feminist essentialism. She's no Mary Daly, and that's good. But I love her honesty, because she admits that, like many of us, her private thoughts did sometimes assign to women an expectation of progressiveness, humane-ness, a kind of hope for a humanity with women at the helm. She writes:

Secretly, I hoped that the presence of women would over time change the military, making it more respectful of other people and cultures, more capable of genuine peacekeeping. That's what I thought, but I don't think that anymore. A certain kind of feminism, or perhaps I should say a certain kind of feminist naiveté, died in Abu Ghraib. [...]
The struggles for peace and social justice and against imperialist and racist arrogance, cannot, I am truly sorry to say, be folded into the struggle for gender equality.

This reminds me of a question I threw out to the edebate community a few weeks ago--a question that remains largely unanswered by those obsessed with identity politics:

What would happen if Condoleeza Rice were elected president, and Colin Powell elected Vice President? Would this make America less racist? Would it change the way America treats the rest of the world? Should I trust Condoleeza Rice more than I trust George Bush? Why or why not?

To me, the answers to those questions are obvious. But they also underscore my problem with any progressive critique that ignores class and materiality.

The crashing of illusions is important, but there's always the skeptic in me, the Nietzschean who wonders whether (especially in the political realm) illusions are stripped away only to reveal more illusions.

We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all.

But we should have outgrown Nietzsche by now. Understanding Marx's project should have taught us that there are material referents, external environments, of which we are part, and we don't merely create them with our discourse and our thoughts. In fact, thinking that ideas matter more than materiality is a kind of ideological suicide; not merely because it buys into a bourgeois postmodernism that encourages fragmentation and opium trips in the face of genuine physical oppression, but also because it encourages a self-centeredness whose culminatory ethic is not just an ignorance of materiality, but an ignorance of other people, and their legitimate needs--needs that are often very much like our own.

A class/materialist perspective can also reveal something else about the political reaction to this recent unfolding of facts. Many self-proclaimed "leftists" take visible delight at the failure of the administration to successfully prosecute the Iraq war. Well, clearly the war was a horrible policy, and clearly it was driven by the worst, and most predictable, of motives. But the delight revealed by these "leftists" is targeted at the administration and its lies, while ignoring the fact that every one of these "failures" involves a massive loss of life--the lives of workers--our fellow workers--who happen to be wearing uniforms. And the lives of ordinary Iraqi working people as well. At least two or three times a week I read a post on the LBO-talk listserve expressing giddy delight at the death of U.S. troops, an explosion somewhere, a failed battle, whatever. I think this kind of attitude is a pretty obvious instance of bourgeois (non)radicalism. It's a manifestation of the fundamental alienation of a self-proclaimed enlightened "left" intelligensia from the everyday struggles and concerns of working people. I'd like to see those bloated false radicals laugh like that in the presence of parents, spouses, and family members of dead U.S. soldiers--however politically misinformed those loved ones might be. That kind of anti-cheerleading doesn't just play into the hands of pro-war demogogues who routinely vilify the left. It's also just flat-out elitist, bourgeois, and aloof from the everyday perspective of the poor and working people--the chief victims of Bush's reign of terror.

One of the most eloquent expositions of what I am trying to say is David North and David Walsh's now classic essay "Anti-Americanism: The Anti-Imperialism of Fools."

Analyzing the rhetoric of those who took delight in the September 11th attacks, and saw in those attacks some kind of progressive strike against imperialism, North and Walsh say:

The socialist future of mankind [sic] depends upon the awakening of the most humane and generous instincts of the working people of the world. What happened on September 11—the awful deaths of thousands of innocent people, among them office workers, firemen, janitors, and business people—profoundly offends those instincts. [...]
What does it mean to “dislike the US”? What sort of social element speaks like this? The United States is a complex entity, with a complex history, elements of which are distinctly ignoble, elements of which are deeply noble. [...]
All this of course is a closed book to the smug middle class philistine and snob, satisfied to make use of words and phrases that come most easily to hand...It is available cheaply and in large quantities in middle class circles in Britain, France, Germany and, for that matter, in the United States. It is available, so to speak, “on tap.” Such an outlook has the virtue of appearing oppositional, while not committing its adherent to any course of political action that might cause inconvenience. It is a form of pseudo-socialism, the phony “anti-imperialism” of cynics and fools.

Thinking of the Bush administration (and bourgeois politics in general), but also thinking of our sometimes hostile reaction to the gradual unfolding of the facts in the past several weeks, there is one quote by Nietzsche that does seem all too appropriate:

The liar uses the valid designations, the words, to make the unreal appear as real; he says, for example, 'I am rich,' when the word 'poor' would be the correct designation of his situation. He abuses the fixed conventions by arbitrary changes or even by reversals of the names. When he does this in a self-serving way damaging to others, then society will no longer trust him but exclude him. Thereby men do not flee from being deceived as much as from being damaged by deception: what they hate at this stage is basically not the deception but the bad, hostile consequences of certain kinds of deceptions. In a similarly limited way man wants the truth: he desires the agreeable life-preserving consequences of truth, but he is indifferent to pure knowledge, which has no consequences; he is even hostile to possibly damaging and destructive truths. And, moreover, what about these conventions of language? Are they really the products of knowledge, of the sense of truth? Do the designations and the things coincide? Is language the adequate expression of all realities?

May the illusions continue to fall, and rather than replacing them with more bourgeois illusions, may we replace them with the shared vision of genuine human solidarity. We may still wrestle with conflicting appearances; we may not reach some "transcendent" anti-imperialist truth, but whatever we find or lose, we'll do so together.

IT IS A TALE TOLD BY AN IDIOT

The Media Research Center, an organization dedicated to "documenting, exposing, and neutralizing liberal media bias," released a report May 12 lamenting that the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib have received more network news coverage than the mass graves full of Saddam Hussein's victims, unearthed in 2003 and 2004. There were vastly more news stories on the prisoner abuses than the unearthing of mass graves; this stands, with little further commentary, as obvious proof of bias:

To illustrate a fraction of the bias problem, we counted the number of prisoner-abuse stories on NBC’s evening and morning news programs (NBC Nightly News and Today) from April 29, when the story emerged, through May 11. There were 58 morning and evening stories. Using the Nexis news-data retrieval system, we counted the number of stories on mass graves found in Iraq from the reign of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and 2004. The number of evening and morning news stories on those grim discoveries? Five.

The MRC's lucid conclusion?

There is a vast difference between sexual humiliation and brutal murder. But to the national media, there is also much greater outrage for U.S. prisoner abuse than there is for the enemy’s murders. Viewers received a false picture of moral equivalence, with only American offenses amplified.

I came upon this data through some well-meaning debate folks over at Net Benefits (check out the "mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners" thread if you're interested). However, the mark of good debaters and good debate coaches (and more importantly, the mark of good political analysts) is the ability not merely to throw pieces of evidence at an audience, but to analyze that evidence, even above and beyond the often shallow self-analysis submitted by the source of the evidence in the first place.

In this case, unfortunately, that analysis was lacking. Let me offer some of my own:

1. With few exceptions, the entire world already knew Saddam Hussein was a murderous dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The "outrage" these well-meaning proponents of "balanced news" insist upon had already manifest itself for several years. There was nothing new about the news that mass graves had been unearthed; this news was merely the verification of something we knew all along.

2. The political implications within the United States, of revelations of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib far outweighs the domestic (U.S.) political implications of Saddam's murderous past. No U.S. political or military leaders stood to lose their jobs based the (admittedly horrific, but, again, well-established) news that Saddam was an evil, murderous dictator. No U.S. soldiers will go on trial over the latter revelation. No U.S. leaders' credibility was on the line.

3. Those who did try to exploit the revelation of Saddam's mass graves to the end of somehow establishing legitimacy for the U.S. invasion of Iraq were, let's be frank, changing the initial justification for going to war against Iraq. The "outrage" they were seeking (an outrage easily found in the hearts of anyone who despises murderous dictators) was a very unique, functional outrage in their minds: They hoped such outrage would eclipse the questions about inconsistencies in U.S. intelligence reports, distorted and exploited by a war-hungry administration for the purpose of gaining public support for a dubious case for war.

4. In one case (the Abu Ghraib revelations), news reports revealed a scandalous inconsistency between the way U.S. troops have been represented by the Bush administration, and the reality that at least some military personnel have been behaving. In the other case (Saddam's mass graves), no inconsistencies were revealed. Again, we have known for years that Saddam was murdering a lot of people. No misrepresentations have occurred; only nutcases would have denied Saddam's evil ways.

In short, seeing fewer news stories about mass graves than about prisoner abuses can only lead to the MRC's conclusions if one looks at that quantitative comparison from the most shallow lens possible--one that asks us to believe that someone, somewhere, is making the argument that prisoner abuse is worse than mass murder. What an incredible insult to our intelligence. What an inexcusable implication about our moral vision.

The same goes for the rather reactionary argument that the prisoner abuse story has received more coverage than the tragic murder of Nicolas Berg. Both stories have been in rotation for several days now, and any attempt to establish one as more "covered" than the other is little more than a tasteless exercise in quantitative reductionism. The bigger story, of course, is which interests are trying to deploy which story (or stories), and to what ends.

In fact, those with genuinely critical and comprehensive moral vision would be asking even bigger questions, using this nonsensical MRC argument as a springboard to ask the most obvious one:

How much news coverage do murderous dictators elicit when those dictators have been historically supported by the United States government--dictators such as: P.W. Botha of South Africa...Fulgencio Batista of Cuba...Sani Abacha of Nigeria...the Duvaliers of Haiti...all the kings of Saudi Arabia...Spain's Franco...Turgut Ozal of Turkey...the Shah of Iran...General Pinochet of Chile...??? The list goes on...and that list includes Saddam Hussein prior to 1990. Saddam committed some of his most atrocious crimes in the 1980s with the full knowledge of U.S. officials (including Rumsfeld and Cheney), and you can bet your Aunt Fanny there was neither extensive U.S. media coverage, nor moral disgust on the part of any right wing media watchdog groups for said lack of coverage.

So my concluding question is: If groups like the MRC, and well-meaning self-styled "moderates" at Net Benefits, are so angry at the current manifestation of "selective outrage," why does their own outrage seem so incredibly selective? And why does it come at the expense of any attempt to examine the differences between those contingencies that feed media coverage of any given set of atrocities? For an answer, those folks may want to examine their own agendas before claiming to know the agendas of others.

CELEBRATING BEAUTIFUL LYRICS

Following Emily's example over at her "fiercely feminist" blog, I present below one of the most beautiful songs ever written. Ironically, the lyrics to "Stockton Gala Days" are overtly feminist, while Emily's choice (the very fine "Wish You Were Here" by Pink Floyd) is not. Next thing you know, Emily will be writing about socioeconomic and class issues (wishful thinking, perhaps...). I read these lyrics and literally feel tears welling up in my eyelids...and when I hear the song (studio version on "Our Time In Eden," live version on "MTV Unplugged"), forget about any semblence of dignity...I dance AND cry at the same time. Ann watches, amused, bemused...

STOCKTON GALA DAYS--by Natalie Merchant and 10,000 Maniacs

That summer fields grew high with foxglove stalks and ivy. Wild apple blossoms everywhere.
Emerald green like none I have seen apart from
dreams that escape me.
There was no girl as warm as you.
How I've learned to please, to doubt myself in need, you'll never, you'll never know.

That summer fields grow high. We made garland crowns in hiding,
pulled stems of flowers from my hair.
Blue in the stream like none I have seen apart from dreams that escape me.
There was no girl as bold as you.
How I've learned to please, to doubt myself in need,
you'll never, you'll never know.
You'll never know.

Violet serene like none I have seen apart from dreams that escape me.
There was no girl as warm as you.
How I've learned to please, to doubt
myself in need.
You'll never, you'll never know. You'll never know.

That summer fields grow high.
We had wildflower fever.
We had to lay down where they grow.
How I've learned to hide, how I've locked inside,
you'd be surprised if shown.
But you'll never, you'll never know.

ON THE LATEST NEWS OF A BEHEADED AMERICAN SOLDIER

I am not a poet...the thoughts below that manifested themselves in verse came out in verse, but I wanted to say something about the horrible video released from Iraq today, and the attempt of conservative pundits in America to extract from this tragedy some kind of moral lesson about the ongoing investigation of American atrocities against Iraqi detainees.

Violence is violence. Violence on this scale is a symptom of two things: (1) a profound lack of creativity and original thinking on the part of all sides, leaders, commentators, and participants in this war and every war; and (2) a world where the rich and powerful deploy non-rich, non-powerful human beings to fight their material and ideological battles. So long as those two conditions exist, there will be more torture, more beheadings, and worse. It just won't ever stop, no matter how many times "our troops" are deployed to stop "their violence," no matter how many needles we stick in murderers' arms, no matter how many bombs we drop, prisons we build, smart bombs we make smarter...

My heart aches, my anger rises, my mouth numbs in misery--
but not because of the side you are on...
but because you are human--
because you are young--
because you were full of life--
because you have a family who loves you--
who will die a hundred times for your one death--
not because you are American...
but because you are human.

To the pundits, the bloodthirsty cheerleaders, the sowers of hateful rhetoric:
No matter how hard you try--those of you on either side--
to convince us that there is an "us" and "them"--
an "ours" and theirs"--
framed in the context of religion, race, or chosen tactics--
I will stand against you.
I will speak against you.
I will invoke history against you.
I will not take sides in a war between hegemonic imperialism,
and Islamo-Fascism.
I will not take sides between the uncreative ruling class that invades,
and the reactionary hyperreligious, cynical class that pretends to offer genuine resistance.
I will not sanction the uncreative, old world solutions of war,
simply because you offer them as the only alternatives
to the uncreative, brutal tribalism and terrorism of Islamo-Fascism.
There is an Us and Them, but not in the way you think--
or rather--
not in the way you want us to think.

As Arrested Development sang,
"Because I exist, I resist."
There has got to be another way.
That way is found, now, perhaps,
only in speculation and song--
in protest and intimate discussions--
in imperfect blueprints and real, dirty struggles--
That way is found in the Iraqi unionists and communist workers,
who have already made overtures and built bridges with unionists and communists in Iran--
who were the first to speak out against the attempt to impose Sharia law in Iraq--
who were the only voice rejecting terrorism in Iraq and across the world,
while simultaneously rejecting US invasion, occupation, and war.

Hamid Taghvaie writes:

"The question of power can only be resolved by expelling the US forces from Iraq in the interests of the people and this is only possible by the power of the people in defence of civilisation, life and a humane society. In contrast, the nationalists and Islamists' confrontation with the USA drives society deeper into barbarity and darkness. From our point of view, the people's and the communists' fight against the USA on the one hand and political Islam and Arab nationalism on the other, is not a fight on two fronts; it is rather one unified fight in opposition to the dark scenario and in defence of civilisation and humanity. "

HEY ANDREW SULLIVAN: WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK?

My reactions to some passages from Andrew Sullivan's condescending "I'm really close to saying the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a mistake" column. As if we ought to stand or fall on Andrew Sullivan's bourgeois convictions...those bourgeois convictions are in italics below.

it has destroyed this narrative. It has turned the image of this war into the war that the America-hating left always said it was: a brutal, imperialist, racist occupation, designed to humiliate another culture.

I don't really care what the "America-hating left" allegedly said. I'm on the America-loving left, deeply unsatisfied with the way both major parties have misrepresented and misappropriated what I love about America, and the Iraq fiasco is simply one manifestation of said misappropriation. The ingenuity of this great nation could have been deployed to find far more creative, ethical, and effective solutions to conflicts and tyrants, but the blind-spots created by vast inequalities and wealth and power preclude that ingenuity. We should not be surprised at the micro-instantiations of macro-level uncreative brutality.

Shock has now led - and should lead - to anger. And those of us who support the war should, in many ways, be angrier than those who opposed it...

An interesting, subtle slight against the moral sincerity of those who opposed the war. Essentially, he is saying that war opponents ought to be pleased that these things are happening. Speaking for myself, I deplore the fact that mistreatment occurred, but celebrate the fact that it was revealed to the outside world. And of course Sullivan and other liberal supporters of the war ought to be angry, but that anger is constructive only if it functions in the same way as our anger when we were seven or eight years old and realized our parents had been lying to us about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

To my mind, these awful recent revelations - and they may get far worse - make it even more essential that we bring democratic government to Iraq, and don't cut and run. Noam Chomsky is wrong. Abu Ghraib is not the real meaning of America.

First of all, what a terribly predictable and uncreative conclusion--but at the same time, what a brilliant "heads I win, tails you lose" rhetorical strategy.

I am not sure if by "the real meaning of America" the author means the ideal meaning of America, but the following data at least shows that the violation of that "real meaning" is deeply embedded in the American corrections system:

"Physical and sexual abuse of prisoners, similar to what has been uncovered in Iraq, takes place in American prisons with little public knowledge or concern, according to corrections officials, inmates and human rights advocates.

"In Pennsylvania and some other states, inmates are routinely stripped in front of other inmates before being moved to a new prison or a new unit within their prison. In Arizona, male inmates at the Maricopa County jail in Phoenix are made to wear women's pink underwear as a form of humiliation."

...

"The corrections experts say that some of the worst abuses have occurred in Texas, whose prisons were under a federal consent decree during much of the time President Bush was governor because of crowding and violence by guards against inmates. Judge William Wayne Justice of Federal District Court imposed the decree after finding that guards were
allowing inmate gang leaders to buy and sell other inmates as slaves for sex."

[full: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/08/national/08PRIS.html?hp]

Okay, these anecdotes aren't "America" in some idealistic sense either, but many Americans don't care that these things happen, just as many of those who've posted on various message boards say that the offenders in Abu Ghraib deserve medals, since the Iraqis aren't human anyway.

I'll say something else: America has multiple, often contradictory meanings. I am uncomfortable giving Chomsky, Parenti and others unfettered license to assign America a unitary meaning in exploitation and colonialism, but Sullivan and other liberals (including my friend Russell Arben Fox) often write with the unspoken assumption that America was not also a process of colonialism, that we did not displace its previous residents using tactics that the Nazis later emulated, ignoring the argument eloquently made by M. Annette James that, in a sense, the foundational stone (I would amend only to say ONE foundational stone) upon which American arrogance rests is, in fact, genocide against indigenous people; or the argument less eloquently (but more forcefully) made by Ward Churchill that, even among "progressives" and do-gooders, there is a universal tendency to ignore the historical fact that the resources with which we promote our visions of the good are resources we stole from other people.

Rush Limbaugh quoted some mid-level American bureaucrat in Iraq, who had in turn quoted a mid-level Iraqi bureaucrat, who allegedly said "educated" Iraqis didn't care what happened at Abu Gharaib, that they were "non-plussed" about the whole thing. Riiiiiight. Here's what Riverbend has to say about it:

People are seething with anger- the pictures of Abu Ghraib and the Brits in Basrah are everywhere. Every newspaper you pick up in Baghdad has pictures of some American or British atrocity or another. It's like a nightmare that has come to life.

Everyone knew this was happening in Abu Ghraib and other places… seeing the pictures simply made it all more real and tangible somehow. American and British politicians have the audacity to come on television with words like, "True the people in Abu Ghraib are criminals, but…" Everyone here in Iraq knows that there are thousands of innocent people detained. Some were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, while others were detained 'under suspicion'. In the New Iraq, it's "guilty until proven innocent by some miracle of God".

People are so angry. There’s no way to explain the reactions- even pro-occupation Iraqis find themselves silenced by this latest horror. I can’t explain how people feel- or even how I personally feel. Somehow, pictures of dead Iraqis are easier to bear than this grotesque show of American military technique. People would rather be dead than sexually abused and degraded by the animals running Abu Ghraib prison.

Last thought: What happened at Abu Gharaib is obscene, but bourgeois liberals who can handle the macro-violence of war but not the micro-violence of prison brutality are just plain disgusting. They make me want to cry into my soft little hanky. They make me want to vomit up my martinis.