The anti-imperialists among us should ally with the Old Right

[DerekG]

For several years now, I have yearned for the adoption of democratic socialism, and perceived the Right--in its totality--to be the barrier for the fulfillment of said dream.

But a funny thing happened over the past year--I found that I had more in common with the Old Right and libertarians on sites such as antiwar.com than I did with many liberals, and the issue was over militarism. Although my highest accolades are reserved for Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal and Howard Zinn, I found that some of these rightist authors, in their diatribes against the bloated military machine, were unlikely brothers-in-arms. After reading these tracts, and bearing witness to the pictures of dead and mangled Iraqi children, war became my great demon. Perhaps my aversion peaked with a reading of William Blum's "Killing Hope"--which documented our murderous foreign policy since the genesis of the Cold War. There was an elephant in the room that no president, save Kennedy, was willing to address--the so-called "defense" budget.

And thus changed my Left=Good/Right=Bad dichotomy: I realized conservatism had many facets (some laudable), while liberalism does, in fact, have a dark history of silencing critics of foreign aggression with benevolent domestic visions (most of us recognize the blatantly animalistic T. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan for the destroyers they were, but how many of us levy such hatred on progressives like Wilson, who sent a generation of boys to their deaths at the behest of financiers and bankers, or Harry Truman, who, with his vizier Acheson, destroyed our Republic with the National Security Act and plunged us into the destructive Cold War, or LBJ, who presided over the rape of a peasant country?).

Naturally, I supported the most eloquent anti-war candidate, Dennis Kucinich (whom I pray has a future as the leader of the progressive movement). After his defeat, I decided to vote for Kerry, but could not bring myself to campaign for him, no matter how much I loathed Bush. Maybe it was Kerry's declaration at the Grand Canyon, where he expressed no remorse for giving a blank check to our Nero; there was the Boston convention, where Kerry employed the rhetoric of militarism while anti-war protestors languished in cages outside. Even during the debate, his criticism of Bush concerned the war's mismanagement, and not the immorality of the war itself. Unlike many, I had little hope that Kerry would withdraw our troops--he was owned by the corporatist DLC. And it was because of this (among other things) that I refused to sling mud at Ralph Nader, whom I fancy a prophetic shit-stormer, in the same vein as Eugene Debs (who was unfortunately right about Wilson) and Henry A. Wallace (who was tragically correct about Truman). That Nader got his hands dirty in GOP money didn't bother me (Huey Long dabbled in corruption as well--and used his power to nudge FDR to the left). And in lieu of Kerry's cowardly concession, asking for "unity" in the face of encroaching fascism, I admire Nader all the more.

It will be quite the fight to oppose this imperial power we call home, but I would unite with any conservative to ensure that such a struggle occurs. We'll quarrel about other things later.

Does anyone else share my willingness for a conception of unity much different than Kerry's?

[hedda_foil]

1. I've been thinking along the same lines.

The truth is that we may need a new party for a new alliance of true Americans ... moderates, left and right alike. The Democratic Party is moribund and determined to self-imolate on the twin altars of conciliation and triangulation. The Republican Party has been hijacked by fascist theocrats who want to dismantle the government, sell it off to the lowest bidder, and replace the Consitution with the worst of the Old Testament. Other than having a strong feeling that Howard Dean and Democracy for America will be key to putting this winning coalition together either inside or outside the Democratic Party, I have no idea HOW this will take place.

[mikehiggins]

2. Yes, of course

I would like to see a new national alignment working in public for fiscal responsibility, environmental sanity and common-sense protectionism, three general platforms that many on the sane-right and the reasonable-left could agree upon without too much trouble.

Everyone is equally in danger from what is taking place in Washington and forming alliances (though not with the most odious factions on either side) to combat it has to be the most responsible way to approach the problem.

A new party because the conservatives are not going to fold themselves into the Democratic ranks, and the left is not going to hop into bed with the GOP anytime this millenium. A new start, a new party, a new way of dealing with problems that affect us all.

[69KV]

3. But are they willing to unite with us?

I think that is the bigger question.

Justin Raimondo on antiwar.com is great when he is railing against the neocons and the Bush war machine.

But then he turns around at unpredictbale moments and starts railing against liberals with the usual libertarian line, we're "socialists" and all the rest.

Ron Paul is the same way.

Pat Buchanan goes back and forth with his sympathies so much. He's anti-Bush but he wound up endorsing him. Go figure.

Bob Smith on the other hand endorsed Kerry. So did the editor of American Conservative magazine.

I think we should hold out the welcome mat to them. -But- it is up to them to walk across the mat. Maybe encourage them to join us and form an antiwar/paleolibertarian caucus within the Democratic Party.

The real issue is whether or not they are willing to join the Democratic Party. Those who do, I'll gladly work with them and even vote for them. Those who don't, can forget it.

I feel the same way about working with Greens, Naderites, Reform Partyites, the Jesse Ventura types, moderate Republicans like Chafee and Specter, and Socialists by the way. There is only one viable political party where all these voices can get their issues on the table and work within the system, and that party is the Democrats. Those who want to waste time with fringe third party efforts are doomed to remain on the fringe, and those who think the Republicans are still a worthy party have been asleep the past 20 years. So let them join the Democrats. Those who are willing to work with us, we are willing to work with them. Those who aren't...well, it's their loss, not ours.

I guess that makes me a "yellow dog Democrat". I'll vote for socialists, I'll vote for libertarians, I'll vote for Naderites, I'll vote for principled conservatives - but only if they run on the Democratic Party ticket, work with us as a broad, "big tent" coalition against the neocons, and endorse the rest of our ticket.

[BOOGEX]

4. I had a similiar experience

I too found myself agreeing with some of the things that classical conservatives have said on the issue of militarism. I come from a very conservative background. I have conservative Republican parents, spent 12 years in private, conservative schools, and have read many conservative journals and papers. When I turned voting age, I voted Republican. As I got older though, and learned more about myself, I realized that the conservative Republicans did not represent me, so I came to identify with liberalism and the Democratic party. In time, I was repulsed by conservativism.

When Bush was elected in 2000, conservative Republicans seemed to change over night. Or am I just imagining things? Suddenly, they seemed to have abandoned many of the ideals they once held as central to their ideology, such as limited government, less spending, and limited involvement in foreign wars. Suddenly, it was OK with Republicans that Bush was spending like there's no tomorrow, and expanded government more than any president before him, and was launching pre-emptive wars against soverign nations.

As a liberal Democrat, I found myself criticizing Bush on many of the same grounds that I would have been criticizing him had I still been a classical conservative. In fact, my parents and members of the conservative organizations that they are affiliated with are also criticizing him on those same grounds, yet, amazingly, they still voted for the guy on Nov. 2nd. And that is where I began to doubt whether classical conservatives and classical liberals could ever really come together and join forces. Every conservative Republican that I've met loathes the Democrats. No matter how bad their candidate is, they will vote for him simply because they will never vote for a Democrat.

Republicans have a lot of misconceptions about Democrats. They hate Democrats on those misconceptions. They're prejudiced against Democrats, and many don't even know why. It's just part of the dogma that they're indoctrinated with.

I do think that classical conservatives and classical liberals have some things in common. Both classical conservatives and classical liberals are not represented by Bush to varying degrees. I do think it would be great if classical conservatives and classical liberals could put aside their differences and work together, but it would take a massive effort to deconstruct the misconceptions that conservatives have of liberals. Additionally, there are significant differences between classical conservatives and liberals. Most notably, I think social issues would stand in the way. Issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and affirmative action, just to name a few, would be difficult to find common ground on.

I think that it would be benefical if classical conservatives and liberals could at least acknowledge some of their similarities. It could help to break down some of the severe polarity this country is experiencing. I think that the polarity is one of our country's biggest problems right now, because people vote for their party's candidate without objectively analysing whether or not that candidate truly represents them.