Foreign Affairs
The United States is creating real problems all over the world, thanks to
George W Bush and his neo-conservative policy advisors (the neo-cons). The
main goal of the opposition is to contain American aggression. Keep in
mind, most of the world's (hundreds of millions) people want Bush
contained even if several million jingoists in the "Red States" feel
otherwise.
The neo-cons are itching to invade Syria and Iran. Should the U.S. succeed
in quelling the Iraqi rebellion, I do not doubt those neighbors of Iraq
will be next on Bush's list. This needs to be opposed for reasons of
self-interest: a further extension of American power into the Middle East
will destabilize the area for many decades. This will bring about a long
terrorist war against the United States, in the same manner terrorists
have afflicted Israel.
If Bush is unchecked, eventually there will be nuclear war - probably an
attack against the U.S. by a nuclear-armed suicide bomber. All the
anti-missile systems and other craziness that passes for "defense" won't
stop this sort of attack. The Bushies are spending billions on useless
defenses because it is their buddies who are raking in the dough. Those
government officials will get a piece of the action, too, when they go
through that ever-revolving door to private industry. You bet they live in
their survivalist compounds, where they don't expect to be nuked. Didn't
you know, L&F readers, that you are expendable? (Fact: it is a common
belief among neo-cons that nuclear war is "survivable".) Horribly, this is
all a rerun of Dr. Strangelove.
Those who believe the United States should assume its rightful position as
one nation among many need to continue supporting the United Nations. We
cannot afford to be silent about our goals. We need to make as much noise
as possible about Bush's policies, if only to show the rest of the world
that not everyone in America tacitly approves Imperialism.
I think stout resistance to Bush's policies is required as a matter of
conscience; i.e., Bush's Imperialism is immoral and probably illegal, too.
(In that, I agree with Kofi Annan.) People of conscience should recognize
that so-called liberals (many Democrats) who support Bush's war are
collaborating with the enemy, or maybe they are our enemy. This is a time
for resistance, not saving oneself.
Economy
The cost of a prolonged war will drain the Treasury. Americans may believe
themselves capable of anything, Masters of the Universe, but it just isn't
so. America has limits, as have all things human. The beginning of the
United States' downfall is already seen in the huge, persistent Federal
deficits. While, so far, our friends - capitalists in other countries -
have sustained the debt, that posture is not likely to be maintained
forever. The fact is, the trade deficit and the Federal deficit combine to
put the American economy into the hands of others.
The conservatives are most likely to cut entitlement and other "social"
programs to pay for their continued military adventures. After all,
according to the conservative political philosophy, one of the primary
purposes of the State is defense against foreigners and policing of
civilians. In their narrow view of the State, social programs have no
legitimacy. "Social programs" not only include Social Security and
Medicare, but also Affirmative Action, Voting Rights and Women's Rights.
Conservatives believe that "social arrangements" should be beyond the
purview of the State, an argument which was once used to justify doing
nothing about slavery.
Therefore, defense of social programs in the current situation is a direct
blow against the Imperialist policies of the Bush Administration, as well
as its conservative philosophy. If the government is forced to pay the
costs of social programs, this will undermine the military. 'Guns or
butter' will come to apply more and more as the years go on.
If spending on the Imperium is not reduced, and social program spending
continues as predicted, the United States is likely to be reduced to a
pauper country in 10-20 years or less. In this case, Boomer retirements
will probably bring on a major, permanent recession - another Great
Depression.
Considering that the military now get more then $400 billion, plus another
$70-100 billion for the Iraq War, whereas they were getting around $200
billion, I think we could shoot for reducing the military back to ca $250
billion. Right away, that yields a deficit reduction of at least $200
billion, bringing the deficit back into a range feasible of control.
The Left should consider that employment can be increased by investing in
fuels other than oil. Of course, this is not a new claim, but it is true.
While many on the Left are opposed to the development of nuclear power,
this is an area which they should support. I have made the argument for
that position many times before, in these pages and elsewhere. What is
new, I think, is that, finally, the choice is forced by our circumstances.
The alternative is retreat to a pre-20th century,
non-industrial society, which entails massive dislocations and deaths.
I note that redirecting military technical efforts to nuclear and
alternative power industries should relieve a lot of pressure to continue
military funding. We have ignored Eisenhower's 1960 warning about the
miltary-industrial complex, which has now grown so huge as to be out of
control. In Russia, we have thousands of displaced scientists for sale,
because no solution for displacing the military was effected. We need to
avoid a similar problem in the United States. Unfortunately, it is not so
easy to get off a Tiger as it was to ride it.
Liberal
Society
This is the most important thing the Left needs to defend. This is the
idea that each person has rights - entitlements - and that the government
is the preferred agency of creating social goods. This sort of society is
based on, as John Rawls put it, "Justice as Fairness."
A liberal society tends toward equalitarianism. It does not countenance
the creation of Estates and Aristocracy, or rule by oligarchs. A
fundamental principle of liberalism is not only the equality of each
person before the law, but the essential equality of individuals. Liberals
deny the proposition, "I am better than you," which is required to justify
any and every system of social caste and class. "Better" in that judgement
appeals to some moral or ethical content, which gives some men pride and
others shame. Thus, the old English upper-class view that the nobility
consisted of the people's "betters." Or, the old upper-class custom of
seeking an income, rather than a job; working like other people was
"beneath" them, but being supported by others was their due.
It has also been long established that State has to keep its hands off the
Press and stay away from religion. In a liberal society, we require the
free expression of ideas and beliefs, even those of conservatives. What we
don't want is censorship and State religion.
One of the most overt and active areas of anti-liberalism in the Bush
Administration are the attempts to muzzle the press and install the
Evangelical Christian religion. Since November 2, 2004, conservative and
Southern Democrats are pounding the tables, demanding the Democratic party
give in to the religionists. They want to go along with Bush. If that
happens, it would be a disaster for all Americans. It would also be proof
that the Democratic party has resigned from the Left altogether, and no
longer believes in any kind of liberal society.
Today (11/14/2004), on NBC's "Meet
the Press," James Carville, well-known Democratic strategist and
Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) member, in response to a question
about the Religious Right, declared that parties are about electing
candidates. Mr Carville acknowledged the Democratic party doesn't have a
"narrative" - meaning a set of policies or principles it represents. Those
are ominous statements coming from a Democratic party leader and
consultant, because it indicates a disposition to cave-in on fundamental
rights, on the Constitution, just to get elected.
Building an
Opposition
The most important thing those opposed to Bush, and the growth of Fascism
in America, can do is build an opposition. This opposition must be
principled, and resist the sort of sell-out implicit in Carville's or Al
Fromm's views. (Al Fromm is head of the DLC.)
This opposition must be a separate, independent movement. I hope you will
join me in this effort.
15:11:26 - Sunday, 11/14/2004