I have to report that you were the cause of great dissension last night, Bush, at a dinner party among friends. It started just as we were about to leave when The Other Peter in attendance (TOP) asked This Peter (TP), pointedly, what he would hope might be the outcome of your adventure in Iraq. The subect had come up less heatedly earlier in the evening, and TOP had expressed the earnest hope that the Iraqis would now, finally, have the good fortune and good sense to establish a sound constitution and viable government, and look forward to a preaceful and prosperous future. (I must admit I paraphrase a bit here, Bush, but I'm doing my best to represent him accurately).
To which, thus put on the spot, TP expressed his complete agreement, adding--I think it was at this point in the conversation--that the global community needed to learn to collaborate, forcefully if necessary, to confront such monsters as Saddam, who slaughter hundreds of thousands of their own citizens and threaten their neighbors'. Which caused unanimous outrage amongst the women at the table, all of whom were enraged, in retrospect, by your invasion of Iraq and your virtual destruction of that country. TOP and TP struggled manfully to deny disagreement with this angry rejection of your tactics, Bush, but we had then been tarred, by association, with the brush of murderous aggression, and the conversation ended up in a near-brawl. Well, all in good spirits, of course, Bush. And all, eventually, I think, agreeing to agree on the one point of your having disastrously misled the American public in your "preemptive"--and needlessly precipitous--action.
Two thoughts remain from last night's donnybrook. One, for me at least, is the vital importance of developing some common, global accord on how to deal with the oncoming signs of genocide and mass-murder in our midst. Ths history is pitiful, fraught with irrational selectivity and unforgivable neglect. The UN has proven powerless. And yet… And yet… Do we then sit back, throw up our hands, and say, Well, that's humankind for you? That kind of thing is inevitable. What business is it of ours? Why, Bush, are we all (not just the U.S., of course) sitting back right now and watching that dreadful history repeat itself in Darfur?
Second thought--and I think this is related: in this country, we liberal-minded people need to quit brawling with each other and find common ground where we can redefine liberalism for the 21st century, to account for the indisputable and irreversible fact of globalization and the ascendency of corporate power. We can no longer, if we're to be successful, simply oppose. We must propose. What, TOP was asking last night, do we desire from the morass you, Bush, and your people have created in Iraq? We can't just go on repeating how dreadful and misguided your action was in the first place. We're no longer there, and it's unproductive and, worse, disempowering to keep revisiting the past.
I was referred yesterday by a friend to an article in last Sunday's New York Times about the union leader Andy Stern, who has some interesting and useful thoughts on this subject. The Democratic Party, as he suggests, still seems focused on rehashing the injustices of the past (however recent). (Are we struggling to save Social Security, for example, as it was back then, when it was designed? Or looking for the best way to preserve its liberal goals in a new set of social, financial, and cultural realities?) We need to refocus our attention on what, if anything, it means to be a liberal in the 21st century, the age of the Internet and, yes, globalization. Much as we might wish to do so, there's no way we can rewrite written history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The proposing is going to have to come from the top, although we opposers can start the perkle up process that will culminate in a progressive leader who can articulate the anti-Bush in pro-x terms.
But it begins, as all the great movements in American history, as an anti something. The anti-Bush is just a beginning, as was the anti-slavery, the anti-segregation, the anti-Vietnam war. It turned into positives after being a negative first. Maybe it's a fundamentally human thing to begin to define yourself as what you are not.
On the bottom of my Bush quotes page, I have four points that are the hallmark of progressive liberalism for me: Good Jobs, Clean Environment, Universal Health Care, Civil Rights. Actually, I would consider health care a civil right, but we're not into thinking that way yet as a nation, unfortunately. Any progressive leader is going to have to talk about those things in a unifying way.
But that's going to be tough when the right attacks, misdefines, lies, and slanders us every chance they get. Bill Clinton likes to tell the story of a Republican Senator saying to him during the impeachment, that he hated what the rabid right was doing to him. So, Bill asked him "Why are you doing it?" The Senator, who Bill won't reveal, said, "Because if we had to argue the issues with you we'd lose everytime."
We need to keep this in mind. There is no way we'll ever be able to have an argument with the other side, because they know they will lose, so they avoid it. It's high time we took it to them. We need to go on the offensive. We need to creatively attack their every move. We need to make Tom DeLay's ethics an issue every day. We need to oppose and propose simultaineously.
Over at my environmentalist blog, I attack. I'm into the opposition. And I'm nasty. Hey, being nasty, having Rush and Bill and Sean on their side has put them in control of the whole government. Why are liberals afraid to play their game? Are we such wusses that we can't mix it up with these idiots?
After all, we have the facts on our side. A majority of Americans want more environmental protection. A majority of Americans think rich people should pay more taxes. A majority of Americans think we should have sensible gun control. Why should we be afraid to mix it up with these people?
Let's take it to them. Let's keep criticizing the past. We can insert little hints about the future in our criticisms. We can define ourselves by saying what we are for, and what we are agains. But we definately need to jump in their faces when they go on the attack. It's time we played some offense.
Scott Supak
supak.com
Scott, Many thanks for your comment. I've checked out your sites and I think you're doing a great job. I agree, there IS a place for the negative (take a look at my XXXIX entry in The Bush Diaries today). But not every voice has to be harsh. I'm pretty clear about my own voice, and am happy to let others do a different kind of lifting. It all helps. Cheers, PeterAtLarge
Post a Comment