Notes on the US Left

Julio Huato, October 14, 2002

Introduction

On 10/6/02 I went to the Not-In-Our-Name rally in NYC Central Park's East
Meadow. According to some, there was a crowd of about 25 thousand demanding
to stop the war on Iraq and the violations of individual liberties at home.
Not bad, if viewed in context. A step in the right direction. It has great
potential, but I'd like to focus here on the challenges as future
demonstrations are being planned.

[1] A Critical Assessment of the Peace Rally

The last two paragraphs in the New York Times' note about the rally are very
telling:

First, the fatalistic quote attributed to a New York University professor:
She
referred, apparently, to the war on Iraq.

Then, the words by the Bard College student: concentrated teen angst," she said of the rally. "The rhetoric is too
heavy-handed. That's the problem with American activists. They need to
simplify." Someone on stage railed against police brutality and she rolled
her eyes.>

Actually, these two things go together: (1) our ability to actually change
US policy in a reasonable period of time and (2) the composition and tone of
the movement.

In my opinion, besides the lack of focus exhibited at the rally, the tone
was set to a large extent by the apparently radical youth. In the second
part of the rally, most speeches I heard were of this type. Of course, the
participation of young people is necessary -- it must be welcomed and
encouraged. But if we expect working-class and middle-class Americans to
shift on to the left and approach the views of dyed-haired,
pierced-and-tatooed college students about this matter of grave concern
then, indeed, the war will start and go on (and may even finish) before that
happens.

In fact, the only way I can imagine for that to happen is if the war goes
on for a long while and begins to turn in a steady stream of US casualties.
That's a big if. And who desires such a thing? Not me.

Iraq is not Vietnam. In my view, the argument against the war on Iraq is
not that it will prove costly or impossible for the US to pull off. I think
the US alone can win the war and overthrow Saddam at a relatively low cost.
The issue is not that the US cannot. The issue is that the US should not!
But even if Iraq were like Vietnam (Kristoff in the New York Times warns
that people in Iraq will fight back). Still, if we wait for "average"
Americans to radicalize, by then a lot of the damage would have been done
already.

No. The movement has to be much broader to succeed. In fact, only until
the parents of those college kids that were cursing yesterday from the stage
(i.e., people who work, are taxed, vote regularly, and fund political
campaigns) take action massively, a change in policy will be effected.
Otherwise it won't or it'll take much longer. The argument, tone, and style
of the movement have to adjust to appeal to these people. The sooner we
realize that, the better.

Working-class and middle-class Americans will actively oppose the current
policies, foreign and domestic, if they perceive their interests to be
threatened by such policies. And, in my opinion, it is very clear that
their interests, both in the short and long run, are jeopardized by the Bush
doctrine abroad and the Ashcroft doctrine at home. In spite of the
relatively low turnout at the rally, I believe a great deal of Americans are
ready to embrace this. I believe, they just need a more cogent rationale.

The case can be made that waging a war on Iraq will not help things in the
short run and will prove disastrous in the long run. Maybe the case has to
be made in layers, on different levels, adjusted to different audiences.
There are issues that cannot be ignored. For example, the rationale has to
state how specifically the US should deal with Saddam's threat (which does
exist, particularly to people in the Middle East).

To give an outrageous example of what I have in mind, consider
BusinessWeek. In its last issue, the magazine ran an editorial criticizing
the US unilateralism. It was not a very shy critique considering its
source. This week's issue will feature an excerpt from a book by Jeffrey
Garten, The Politics of Fortune. This book is a critique of the Bush
unilateralist doctrine in foreign policy from the perspective of American
capitalists. Garten is no lefty. In fact, he is an academic at Yale and
worked for Kissinger and Cyrus Vance in the past. (Upon request I'll send
the BusinessWeek's piece titled "A Foreign Policy Harmful to Business.")

We all know what an average reader of BusinessWeek magazine looks like.
That's why, in my opinion, in the political debate, arguments like Garten's
pull a lot of weight. These opinions are seriously pondered by the average
BusinessWeek reader. Again, radical college students and the old Left
should not be dismissed. For now, they are a catalytic force. Let's hope
they don't drag the movement backwards in the coming months. The immediate
goal is to switch the country's policy tracks. In order to do that, the
Left cannot afford to reject allies like Garten, that is, if it wants to
win.

But why should we try to attract people with liberal inclinations instead
of appealing to people with radical inclinations? Shifting the tone towards
liberalism will put off the latter and it may not attract the former. Well,
the left has to take the chances if it wants to get anything done.