Phil Weiss: Let me to the marriage of realists and leftists admit one impediment

[laststeamtrain]

Let me to the marriage of realists and leftists admit one impediment
Philip Weiss

In case you haven't noticed, one of my political projects here is to push the shiddach, which is Yiddish for an arranged marriage, of American realists and leftists over Palestine because it's so potentially transformative. I began this process personally three years ago when I embraced Walt and Mearsheimer. At the time their editor at the London Review of Books, Mary-Kay Wilmers, told me that the American left also is claimed by the Israel lobby, and truer words were never spoken. A lot of Jewish lefties can't warm up to the realists. This is the purport of the event at the 92d Street Y the other night, at which good liberal Jews went out of their way to insult Walt and Mearsheimer, thereby signalling to the Jewish audience that they are on Israel's side against the realist goyim.

The shiddach is happening nonetheless. It happens when Glenn Greenwald and Dan Levy and Avi Shlaim publish on Gaza in the American Conservative, a magazine started by Pat Buchanan. It happens when a whole mob of lefty Jewish bloggers supports Chas Freeman in the face of the neocons. We understand that divided we're hapless, but together we're a powerful coalition that may be able to give Obama footing to put pressure on thuggish Israel.

That said, there are real intellectual differences between realists and leftwingers that will have to be ironed out. One is, human rights. When the neoconservatives were destroying Chas Freeman, they battened on to an email he'd written about the Chinese prerogative to crush the dissidents in Tiananmen Square in '89. They said he had kissed up to the Chinese government and rationalized atrocities. My side said that they were taking the email out of context and offered a lot of squirrely explanation.

On this issue the neocons were right. They didn't have the goods (the email wasn't dispositive) and it doesn't really matter anyway (No one's perfect; Freeman is a fine public servant and a brilliant guy), but Freeman is wrong about Chinese human rights. The dumb neocons never found this; but below you will see a partial transcript of an oral history Freeman did in 1995 for the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training in which he laid out his China Tiananmen views--and also his Tibet views--in true Kissingerian form.

I bring this up not to dampen the Freeman moment. It's on us, America. But to say, the realists differ from the lefties on human rights and national interest issues. John Mearsheimer, for instance, supported the Gulf War--long before his noble opposition to the Iraq War. I was against the Gulf War. No blood for oil. I wouldn't have wanted to fight it. As a lefty I'm happy to make some compromises to work with the realists. And I think they're happy to make some too. Still, I need to signal, I don't wish the Chinese government had moved more quickly on Tiananmen, and I support self-determination for the Tibetans, as for the Palestinians.

<more>

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/from-the-association-for-diplomatic-studies-and-training-oral-historythere-is-still-after-the-past-150-years-of-tortured-ch.html
*

Strange ad hoc alliances are afoot.

It's not mainstream pols that need to reach out. They're too close anyway.

Interesting times.

[11cents]

1. Philip Weiss, a leftist? Uh huh.

He's the kind of leftist who made common cause with the militia-supporting and white supremacist far right for years while pushing the "Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons" story. He's a one-time wannabe journalist who couldn't measure up to the high standards set by others in his Ivy League J-school graduating class (Nicholas Lemann, etc.), so he gave up journalism (hard work) in favor of attention-getting stunts.

A person of demonstrated poor character, IMHO. If you're looking for commentary from someone hostile to Israel, you can do better.

[oberliner]

2. Any leftist who seeks an alliance with Pat Buchanan is no leftist at all

Anyone who is willing to make common cause with such a character (and others like him) ought to do some serious self-examination.

[shira]

3. is anyone truly surprised?

It's the new left, same as the old right. This is what prompted me to ask in the Chas Freeman thread whether the hard, anti-Israel leftists here would have LOUDLY voiced their displeasure had Buchanon been appointed to a respectable and influential position within the Obama administration. Needless to say, no one really responded to that one and thought the comparison between Freeman and Buchanon was lame.

Phil Weiss just made the point. however, WRT to the strange bedfellow alliance of the old hateful right and the new hard left.

And let's face it, there's not that much difference between Pat Buchanon and David Duke. Both are against neo-cons, against the Iraq war, against Jews Israel, and against Bush II. This leads one to believe that the only qualification needed these days in foreign affairs is a deep hostility towards Israel. Nothing else matters. Nice progressive view, huh?

Not just strange times, indeed, but scary times.

[oberliner]

6. At least there is some awareness of the potential discomfort in such an alliance

It's good that this blogger is at least giving some consideration to the potential unpleasant side effects of such an alliance (or marriage).

[laststeamtrain]

4. Goodness, there's a lot of --OUGHT TO-- people at DU.

I have no idea how or why anyone takes them seriously. So obviously rigid authoritarians. They're always right...about everything. They know it for sure.

I have a soft spot for the anti-imperialist paleocons. I don't feel bad about that

It's fairly easy to find points of agreement with them on certain issues.

I don't care what you think I 'ought' to do. I don't think anyone should care. But I'm sure you'll keep telling us. Thank goodness we don't have to listen.

[oberliner]

5. Just my humble opinion

Making no claim to be always right about everything and certainly do not know anything for sure.

It just seems to me that someone as odious as Buchanan would raise some red flags and that someone who cares about human rights would not want to join common cause with his ilk.

You certainly don't have to take any heed of my perspective or listen to my suggestion, though I would be happy to debate or discuss this or any other issue further with anyone who is interested.

This is just a discussion board and I'm just sharing my opinion. I thought that was the idea.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Everybody here has views on what people 'ought to do' politically

That's why we're here.

You don't have to listen, but we have a right to our views.

And my views are that all right-wingers* are a danger to society, civilized life, the poor, minority groups, and the world; and the paleocons are no better than the neocons. They differ only in detail.

Would you 'have a soft spot' for the British National Party? For LePen? They are basically paleocons - perhaps slightly less economically right-wing than the average American paleocon!

Avigdor Lieberman is basically their Israeli equivalent.


*I do not define right-wingers in terms of party affiliation. A right-winger, as far as I am concerned, means someone who values strength (physical, economic, or in terms of being part of a majority group) over humanitarianism, and believes that the strong should have the right to crush the weak. This is the fundamental definition of the right; all else is detail. On the whole, paleoconservatives emphasize xenophobia over imperialism; neoconservatives emphasize imperialism over xenophobia. Both groups are extremely dangerous.

[azurnoir]

20. Having an article published in a magazine is

"seeking an alliance?" hmmmmm interesting on how quickly that point was so wholeheartedly embraced by some here I guess now Glen Greenwald is in bed with Pat Buchanan or that is the idea however it should be noted that one of TAC founders also supported John Kerry sd I would guess he too is in bed with Buchanan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Conservative

[oberliner]

24. The article is about the OP's desire for a "marriage" between leftists and realists

Pat Buchanan is identified as being one such realist.

A "marriage" sounds like and "alliance" to me.

In fact, the poster of the OP commented that "strange ad hoc alliances are afoot".

[azurnoir]

25. This is wanting an alliance with Buchanan?

from the OP

The shiddach is happening nonetheless. It happens when Glenn Greenwald and Dan Levy and Avi Shlaim publish on Gaza in the American Conservative, a magazine started by Pat Buchanan.

IMO Weiss is over reaching just a bit here

I somehow doubt Greenwald wants an alliance with Buchanan

Their all the same as Pat Buchanan seems to be a favorite meme with some Pro Israeli's here I guess it replaces to a degree the rather worn out anti Sematism or the now obsolete they just hate Israel because Bush supports it

[oberliner]

26. Maybe Greenwald doesn't want it - but the author of the OP does

That is what the entire article is about.

Please note that the OP itself brings up Pat Buchanan as an example so I'm not sure how you can claim that it is a pro-Israel meme of some kind since it originates from the blogger.

I would also note that the blogger in question has blogged favorably about Pat Buchanan before and has himself written for American Conservative.

[azurnoir]

30. To clarify

my quote as to Pat Buchanan being equated to ProPalestinian "leftists" was

"Their all the same as Pat Buchanan seems to be a favorite meme with some Pro Israeli's here I guess it replaces to a degree the rather worn out anti Sematism or the now obsolete they just hate Israel because Bush supports it"

here on DU and I have been equated with Pat Buchanan quite recently as have others on this board, perhaps you have not seen those threads

As to the OP I also said that IMO the OP was over reaching or perhaps sensationalizing in this instance

[oberliner]

33. I honestly do not understand what you are saying

It was the OP who brought up Buchanan which is why I made reference to him in my post.

[azurnoir]

34. Well then I guess we need more clarification

the point was that the comparison or claimed alliance between those that oppose Israels occupation, Pro Palestinian, Leftists or Israel Haters take your choice I have seen these terms used to describe the same group and Pat Buchanan is hardly new or even original to Weiss its not the first time I have seen it and I am sure not the last

[oberliner]

35. Ok

Pat Buchanan is a pretty prominent commentator/pundit/whatever and he does seem to have pretty much the same perspective on the I/P conflict that the blogger in question does.

The blogger states that he is attempting to encourage a "marriage" between those on the left and those not on the left (like Buchanan) who, nonetheless, have similar views on the conflict (perhaps for different reasons).

I find this idea odious myself. How do you feel about it?

[LeftishBrit]

27. I was myself annoyed by the implication that Dan Levy in particular is linked to Buchanan...

however, the link was implied, not by a pro-Israel poster on DU, but by the quoted blogger.

I agree with you tthat it's stupid to assume an alliance just because someone's article once appeared in a magazine edited by a RW-er; but the assumption is Weiss'.

And let's be frank: there *have* at times been posters on DU (not usually the I/P forum) explicitly implying that Buchanan should not be rejected out of hand; that his anti-imperialism and objection to the neocons should allow him a hearing; and that the left/right distinction is irrelevant or only a formality. I've been told BOTH by defenders of Buchanan AND by defenders of Pipes that sometimes a right-wing agenda is valid; that the left and liberals have 'no monopoly on the truth' or on 'love of liberty'; and that it is illiberal or wrong-headed to reject an idea just because it comes from a known right-winger. (Note once again: 'right-winger' to me does not mean simply 'member of right-of-centre party' but 'consistent supporter of harsh or hawkish attitudes to others'.) It is this attitude that I reject. I think that left-right alliances bring only danger.

[LeftishBrit]

7. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas

My comment above is not about Chas Freeman. I know little about Chas Freeman, and while his views on China in particular are worrying, I do not see that the details of someone's political views should be that important to an intelligence post, as opposed to a policy post. (If they are in an individual case, then the person is probably by definition not suited to a job in intelligence, where objective information-gathering is important.)

My comment is about leftists forming 'shiddachs' with right-wingers. Until it came up recently, I had come across the concept of 'political realism' almost exclusively in the context of the policies of Henry Kissinger(!) There can be no marriage between even moderate leftism and even attenuated versions of Kissinger-ism. Nor can a leftist compromise with Pat Buchanan. Liberals and leftists whose support for Israel tempts them to set aside their progressive principles to make common ground with the likes of Dan Pipes and the neocons are rightly criticized. Liberals and leftists whose support for Palestine tempts them to set aside their progressive principles to make common ground with the likes of Pat Buchanan and the 'realists' deserve criticism on precisely the same grounds.

'Strange ad hoc alliances are afoot.

It's not mainstream pols that need to reach out. They're too close anyway.

Interesting times.'

Too interesting times! There are anti-establishment right-wing movements, as well as anti-establishment left-wing movements; and hard economic times always provide fertile soil for them. It is very important that the left do *not* give right-wing movements any encouragement, even if they appear anti-establishment. That way lies the danger of new forms of fascism - and even perhaps revival of the old sort. If any 'shiddachs' have already taken place between left and right, it's time for some quickie divorces!

[shaayecanaan]

9. a fairly vulgar view of realism...

I am a realist, admittedly of the Kenneth Waltz-type neo-realism rather than the very atavistic realism of Morgenthau or Henry Kissinger, I suppose.

It is important that realism in political science is more about describing international relations than advocating them. Thucydides' golden rule (the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must) is like the law of gravity. The realists say that it simply is, not necessarily that it ought to be.

The more modern school of realism takes a more sophisticated view of power (including cultural "soft power") as well as the impediments presented by domestic politics within each state. In the Vietnam war, the US clearly was stronger than North Vietnam - why then, was the Vietnam war such a disaster for the US? The answer lies partly in the damage the Vietnam war did to the reputation of the US as a country without the imperialistic hubris of the European nations.

I consider myself a left-leaning realist. I am also increasingly intolerant of the left's self-indulgent attitude towards immigration. On the one hand, the left opposes globalisation, yet on the other, it appears to favour an open migration policy that would in effect create a global labour market, and more or less destroy the working conditions of the proletariat in the Western nations.

I particularly dislike the condescending attitudes of middle-class leftists in the US and Britain who pooh-pooh the opposition of non-union working poor towards increased migration, and simply dismiss their concerns as racism. The fact is that it is non-union, poor whites and blacks in the US who have had to compete with migrant labour for jobs and resources. If it was as easy for a Mexican dentist to cross the border and start filling teeth as it was for a Mexican unskilled labourer to mow American lawns, there might be some genuine debate on the issue.

I am annoyed also at the assertion that migrant labour performs jobs that naturalised Americans are unwilling to undertake. Unskilled Americans are perfectly willing to mow lawns, just not for the 20 cents an hour that rich Americans would pay to illegal labour to get the job done.

What the left seemingly doesnt realise is the suicidal tendencies of its own objectives. Once the unitary aspects of culture, religion, history and language are removed, the prospects of any meaningful social democracy are destroyed. The more homogenous a state, the better its prospects are for achieving public healthcare, education and welfare.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. "The more homogenous a state, the better its prospects are for achieving public healthcare,

education and welfare."

A assume you are unaware of what history has shown about what kind of a future a nation which accepts that kind of belief system will create for itself.

[shaayecanaan]

12. Sheer brilliance

A gratuitous Nazi analogy. Bespoke, I have never seen this on the internet before.

[ConsAreLiars]

14. Advocating racial and religious purification is actually not uncommon on the internet

and in reality-world. And among theocrats and crazy right-wingers and hatemongers in many places who justify their "cleansing" with many ideologies. The Nazis were just one of many.

[Shaktimaan]

15. are you just trolling? Or did you really misunderstand that post so badly?

No one here advocated "racial and religious purification." There is a world of difference between that and merely recognizing the natural process of ethnic/cultural/etc nationalization as a valid and often beneficial reality. Ignoring the fact that people form nations based on certain similarities is not winning out over racism but merely willfully ignoring reality while even being somewhat culturally elitist. Most of the world has long recognized that it is not racist to base a nationality or a state on cultural and historical similarities.

[cali]

17. but it's a strikingly non-homogenous state.

so that kind of throws your supposition out the window. 20% of Israel's citizens are not Jews. And there's quite a bit of diversity among the Jewish population.

[LeftishBrit]

18. I don't think this was about Israel..

I interpreted it as a partial defence, or at least explanation, of those who wish to make alliances with the likes of Pat Buchanan in America and their equivalents in Europe.

Israeli 'Pat Buchanans/ LePens' differ from their Europaean and American counterparts in that they are usually not anti-immigrant (Lieberman is himself an immigrant); but instead are fiercely anti-Arab.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. It is possible for one to have a mixture of reasons why one supports certain polices

I certainly was raised with a democratic-socialist orientation which I still have to a large degree. But, for one domestic example, I supported then Senator and candidate Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership in backing a modified version of the Bush Administrations financial bailout. This certainly ran counter to my somewhat leftist orientation. But I am close to a number of people working in the world of international finance. Thus is was crystal clear to me that immediate action had to be taken following the collapse of Leamon Brothers and the impending collapse of a number of other major banks and financial houses that would have certainly, without immediate intervention led to a near total global financial meltdown. The point being, although a bailout ran counter to my socialist principles, I was and am convinced to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no time to fight for a more progressive version of a bailout. The consequences of significant delay would have almost certainly plunged the world into economic Armageddon that would have wrecked the lives of hundreds of millions of ordinary people all over the world.

As far as a realist versus leftist approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict is concerned, I view it as a good thing that not only is justice for the Palestinians and a change in America policy the morally right thing to do; it is in America's national interest. What on earth is wrong with that?

As someone who has spent half his life working for joint American-Arab and British-Arab ventures -I know for an absolutely certainly and beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that a total changes in policy is not only in American and dare I say British national interest - anything less than a dramatic change toward a more balanced policy is nothing less than stark raving insane with dire consequences for a great deal of the world and ultimately would be an act of participating in the assisted suicide of Israel as a viable entity.

[shaayecanaan]

13. I have no objections to a bailout...

Nor do I consider it counter to principles of democratic socialism. If anything, it would have been lassez-faire to let the whole thing crash and burn. The Swedes are credited with having performed the textbook banking bailout in the 1990s, and they are good social democrats. Of course, they would have been better social democrats had they not deregulated their banks in the first place. The same goes for Iceland.

My suspicion is that the deep-seated antipathy of the US against anything that smacked of nationalisation meant that they didnt do a very good job of it. They performed a pseudo-bailout of Bear Sterns, let Lehman Brothers crash and burn (even though it was bigger than Bear) and then finally called a spade a spade and nationalised AiG.

It would have been far better to simply nationalise all three, and take over 100% of the common stock.

I find it difficult to believe that the Federal Reserve could not have negotiated a package that involved the immediate cessation of bonuses. They were going to go broke and lose their jobs, what kind of bargaining position is that?

[LeftishBrit]

16. You won't be surprised that I strongly disagree with especially your last paragraph

There are genuine economic reasons for restricting unlimited immigration - and in practice no country does allow unlimited immigration. (Israel, with its 'Right of Return' for all with some Jewish origin from throughout the world, is in fact one of the closest to doing so.)

However, I intensely disagree with active attempts to preserve 'unitary' aspects of culture and religion - and am extremely surprised that you would support them, especially given their current strong association with Islamophobia. For one thing, once 'unitary culture' becomes an aim in itself, restriction of immigration will never on its own be sufficient for its proponents. They will seek to restrict diversity in existing society. First, they will try to repatriate existing immigrants - and their descendants. Then, or perhaps earlier, they will seek to restrict religious freedom and freedom of political and social opinions among their native citizens. It happens. It's common throughout the world. And is not particularly associated with left-wing social welfare policies. The Right-Libertarians tend to argue that economic safety-nets and progressive taxation will lead to totalitarianism and intolerance of social diversity - but there is no evidence for any such relationship.

I accept 'realism' in the sense that one has to start from an acceptance of what the world currently is, rather than trying to impose the impossible (that's for example why I don't support the 'one-state solution' at present). However, what Weiss is referring to is a far more 'law of the jungle' approach, where national self-interest and 'realpolitik' are *all* that should be considered.

[bemildred]

19. Rapid change is disruptive.

Stability or slow change is, well, stable. And if you want peace and tranquility then you need food, shelter, clothing, a very modest degree of social justice, and stability. When you have large populations moving back and forth, or lacking in any of the necessities of life, it causes strife of one sort or another. Polyglot nations do just fine as long as they don't change too fast. Rapid modernization, for example, seems to frequently cause revolutions and lots of dead people.

I will not draw here the obvious inference about the subject of this forum.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. but realism and paleo-conservatism are two different things

Pat Buchanan for example is a paleo-conservative. As I understand paleo-conservatism - it is a somewhat extreme forum of nationalism, strongly supportive of economic protectionism and from my point of view - somewhat xenophobic. The patriotic principle of "putting country first" is simply taken way to far.

Needless to say paleo-conservative opposition to foreign intervention, including American support for Israel is rooted primarily in nationalist isolationism.

Realism in the context of foreign policy is a belief that a state's foreign policy should simply be guided by a hardknosed view that national interest is the guiding principle. Many foreign policy realist would simply view it as in America's national interest to forge a closer relationship with the Arab and Muslim and against American national interest to antagonize the Arab and Islamic world. Frankly, I think that is obvious. I also think that failing to forge closer relationships and to continue on a path of antagonism is dangerous to the point of insanity.I

[bemildred]

22. What is now called paleo-con is a very old thread in US politics.

And it is a completely different thing from the realists, who coincide with the imperial project here, and maybe could be said to originate in the manifest destiny crowd or the Mexican-American War. Gary Wills' "A Necessary Evil" gives a fairly nuanced discussion of the history from one point of view (IMHO).

[LeftishBrit]

28. You and Douglas make a fair point that realism and paleoconservativism aren't the same thing

I was conflating them, because they were mentioned together in the OP.

One important difference is that realism can be described as a matter of degree, while paleoconservativism is a definite viewpoint. One can be 'a little bit of a realist' while one cannot be 'a little bit paleoconservative'. I am sure that there are one or two posters on this forum who would regard my own views as a little too 'realist'!

Moreover, as you imply, paleoconservatives tend to reject all international alliances, while realists support those that they see as specifically useful to their own country or group.

Virtually all political leaders are 'realist' to a degree, and I only find it objectionable if it reaches a point of disregarding humanitarian and ethical concerns.

In your other post, you stated that over-rapid change can be dangerous. This is indeed the aspect of conservativism which I find most reasonable: the suspicion of rapid or excessive change; the preference for a wait-and-see approach rather than seeking to change everything RIGHT FUCKING NOW. I don't fully share or endorse even this aspect of conservativism, but I think it is useful for left-wingers to have to deal with its existence in their opponents: in other words, to have to think about and justify the changes that one wants, rather than just rush unthinkingly into them.

However, 'marriages' between the left and the real right can lead to the opposite of my last sentence: to a seeking for radical change for its own sake; a desire to destroy the status quo without caring too much what replaces it; an assumption that minority rights, civil liberties or economic protection may be an acceptable sacrifice in the cause of getting rid of the neocons. Such anti-establishment 'left-right' marriages 70-odd years ago helped to contribute to the rise of fascism - and this is one reason why Phil Weiss' argument worries me. Being anti-establishment is frequently a good thing, but not if it ends in creating a new establishment more right-wing than its predecessor.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. the left in America is simply too small and too splintered to accomplish ANYTHING on its own

To add to all of that most of the American left avoids the Israel/Palestine issue because of its potential divisiveness. Of those who are engaged - there is - as you know an enormous divide.

I have no desire to hold hands with the likes of a bigot like Pat Buchanan even if purely by accident he will on a very limited number of issues hold views on which I might share some real agreement. Mr. Buchanan's view of America and his chauvinistic brand of domestic nationalism sends a cold chill up and down my spine.

But the realist cover a wide range of people with a wide range of views. And most importantly, realist do have a REAL seat at the real tables of real power - something which the American left simply lacks. I would dare make an educated guess that most of the intelligence establishment and a great deal of the the State Department establishment and fair amount of the world of international business are essentially foreign policy realist. They may not share my anti-imperial views, but I am reasonably certain that most foreign policy realist share the belief that the United States can and must immediately change in both tone and substance its way of dealing with the Middle East. The leading reason why the United States has not bombed or allowed Israel to bomb Iran is, I am quite certain due to the influence of the realist - far more so than either the left or the paleo-conservatives. I would dare say that the leading reason why America has not gotten more deeply entangled in an insane and potentially globally catastrophic conflict with Russia over the Georgian breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is because of the foreign policy realist.

In short, it would be only a slight exaggeration to say that the realist are the only political force with the influence to block the neoconservatives and their allies from leading us all down the road to Armageddon. The American left or the paleo-conservatives or a coalition of the two - simply does not have that kind of pull or influence on its own.

[shaayecanaan]

29. That is because...

you are exactly the kind of painfully politically correct middle-class person that the left has been captured by in the English speaking world.

There are genuine economic reasons for restricting unlimited immigration - and in practice no country does allow unlimited immigration. (Israel, with its 'Right of Return' for all with some Jewish origin from throughout the world, is in fact one of the closest to doing so.)

Hardly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

I sometimes stop by the poverty board on DU and read a couple of posts there. By and large its filled with people wondering when the Left is going to stop it orgiastic masturbation about politically topical issues (euthanasia, abortion, gay rights, gender issues, identity politics, whatever) and actually get back to worrying about improving people's living standards again.

I can't say its going to happen anytime soon. And until that time the Left can stay in the political wilderness where it belongs.

The Left is today regarded as being weak, vacillating, and unpatriotic. It has responded to its problems by being even more conciliatory and vacillating. It concentrates on the carrot and has forgotten the stick. Today it is hard to believe there was a time when the Democratic party was regarded as the true American party, and the Republican party was regarded as a bunch of tea-drinking faux-British nancy boys.

[LeftishBrit]

32. You seem to regard social and economic leftism as almost incompatible

It's my view that attempting to divide them has increased the factionalism in the left/liberal movement, and drastically impeded the achievement of real left-wing goals.

I disagree with all those who describe themselves as 'socially liberal and economically conservative'. Those who accept poverty are thus really only 'socially liberal' for those who can afford it. Coercion by poverty is as murderous and oppressive as coercion by a police state. I also think that most people in that group don't - yet- realize how disastrous the crushing of the union movement has been, to the poor and ultimately to all, as it has led to the destruction of industry and rise of 'big money' as the major force in many of our countries.

However, economic liberalism without social liberalism will lead to neo-fascism, neo-Stalinism, or a RW 'populism for the favoured groups' that crushes minorities. Gay rights are not just 'politically topical' if you're gay and threatened with violence; women's issues and abortion rights are not just 'politically topical' if you're trying to look after your 5 children under 7 while you're pregnant with your sixth, and not seeing nearly as much of those 'improved living standards' as your husband is, and he sees no reason to help you with all those kids.

For the rest, if wanting a society that values carrots over sticks, human rights over a show of toughness, and considers it worse to be authoritarian than to be vacillating, makes me 'painfully politically correct', then I am proud to be so. And I don't agree that 'the left are in the wilderness' - at least less so than they used to be. In many places they are coming back; and Obama is at any rate far more left-wing than what came before.

[miricle]

23. Philip Weiss interview on the Chas Freeman withdrawal

Phil was a guest on Antiwar.com Radio yesterday:
antiwar.com/radio/2009/03/18/philip-weiss-2/

Here's his first interview from last July:
antiwar.com/radio/2008/07/12/philip-weiss/

Phil mentions Jim Lobe a few times, you can see Jim by searching for "the war party" on Youtube

Archive of Jim's Antiwar radio interviews
www.scotthortonshow.com/?s=jim+lobe&option=com_search