[Marxism] "The Militant" becomes more open about Bush-as-lesser-evil line

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think this article basically speaks for itself, but I nonetheless want
to make a couple comments.

One of the claims is that Kerry is guilty of a "factional" attack on
Bush by pushing "Homeland Security."  Apparently they are denouncing him
for playing a divisive role on this issue rather than homogenizing with
the Bush administration, as the Militant thinks should be the duty of an
imperialist politician.  The Militant has repeatedly denounced liberals
and Democrats for DISAGREEING with Bush and Rumsfeld. The "liberal
media" are denounced for making it look like the war in Iraq has not
been a pushover and world-shaking victory for Washington as Bush (and,
even more importantly for the fate of humanity, SWP  National Secretary
Jack Barnes has been insisting.  They denounced  liberals for "bleating"
about a "quagmire" when they should by rights be singing the praises of
the architects of the war.   And  most recently, they denounced critics
of Rumsfeld's plans for the military as a bunch of selfish bums just
trying to protect their cushy jobs and Jew-haters to boot.

You see, "factionalism" is a grave accusation in the Socialist Workers
Party.  Although it is supposedly a right of party members, which they
can exercise when the party leadership thinks this would be useful and
under the complete direction of the party leadership, party members have
acted for decades now on the assumption that this mode of proceeding
would assure the end of their membership, a correct judgement.  Those
who want to continue in the party's trade union work understand the
necessity of being "team players" and "going along with the program" as
far as overall party policy is concerned.  Apparently the Militant
editors are upset that the Democrats and liberals within the Bipartisan
War Policy are setting a poor example for others as far as political
homogeneity is concerned, even though in this case it is political
homogeneity against the working people of the world.

Kerry is, of course, presenting himself -- above all, to the ruling
class, not primarily to the voters, because in the end the ruling class
will have more to do with deciding the election than the voters will, as
in 2000. Despite the insistence of the faction- and tendency-phobic
leadership of the SWP, Kerry is not being blindly factional against Bush
in pushing for stronger police measures and the creation of a somewhat
more unified, centralized MI6-KGB-Gestapo type national/international
police machinery.  He is presenting himself as more truly "presidential"
to the ruling class.

The SWP has become insistent that Kerry's campaign is sagging if not
absolutely collapsing. They present his stand on Homeland Security as a
desperate factional attempt to head off inevitable collapse.   And they
chortle that Bush is on the way to victory.  They seem to endorse a
trade union bureaucrat's argument that a Kerry victory will be worse for
workers than one for Bush.  Of course, when they address the ruling
class, both candidates try to convince them that the exact opposite is
true.  But the Militant, which used to try to help workers EXPLOIT
differences in the ruling class rather than TAKE SIDES IN THEM as it has
been doing for the last year,  has become an active participant in
debates among the rulers, almost always insisting on the correctness
from the imperialist standpoint of  the Republican, Bush-Rumsfeld side.

I don't know that Kerry's campaign is failing.  He has deliberately, and
quite nonfactionally in my opinion, sought to prevent the further
disintegration of the Bush government and to stabilize the situation in
Iraq and push the antiwar movement off the streets.  His campaign has
been that  of a good imperialist citizen, contrary to what the Militant
presents -- a "factional" campaign by the "get Bush at any cost to US
imperialism" people. Disloyal people. Gripers. Bleaters.  The Militant
clearly thinks that the ruling class should quit kvetching and get
behind Bush-Rumsfeld.  But will they? I'm not so sure. Barnes cuts a
much better figure as a prophet than I do. But personally, I think that
Kerry's campaign to sell himself to the ruling class may be making quiet
headway.

Perhaps Bush will win out in the end. In that case, National Secretary
Barnes and National Committee member Steve Clark will be able to
collaborate on another celebratory article, like the one they wrote when
Schwarzenegger won the Californial recall gubernatorial vote. I am sure
they will defend Bush then as spiritedly as they  defended 
Schwarzenegger, even apologizing for his sexist abuse of women as
"light-hearted movie set hanky-panky." 

The election clearly promises to be close. If there is fraud, as there
clearly was last time (the Militant now believes this is a paranoid
"conspiracy theory" indicating the near-universal liberal-led march to
fascism), I suspect a repeat performance of the Florida operation would
get a different Supreme Court decision this time.  A couple of justices
have moved closer to the LIBERAL MAIN ENEMY. 

The Militant sometimes gives the impression that while the Republicans
are bourgeois and all, the Bipartisan war party is not the Republicans
and Democrats but the Democrats plus Nader plus the middle-class
radicals.  The Republicans, despite their bourgeois character, are
really oppressed and persecuted by the Real Ruling Class Party described
above.

An odd note in the article is the description of Kerry as "the emperor
who has no clothes."  The US is an empire, the last full-fledged one on
earth. (Perhaps the Militant will now regard this statement as a
concession to MAIN ENEMY French imperialism.) But the head of the
executive committee in this empire right now is not John Kerry, who
aspires to the post, but Emperor George W. Bush who has been stripped
naked for many by the lies he has had to tell and the actions that he
has had to take in the past three-plus years.  Why is the Militant so
much in denial about Bush's role. Why are they so deeply hostile to the
antagonism he has inspired, including among working people? Why are they
so convinced that the popular impulse to reject the current government
is a reactionary movement?  Why do they keep trying to sell the idea
that the re-election of George W. Bush will be a gain (at least
relatively to the election of Kerry) for the working class?

Well, I guess I could attempt to prophesy as I am sometimes prone to do,
but I have to yield to my betters in this field. So all I can say is
that time will tell.
Fred Feldman



Democrats lead drive for
increased police spying 
Push ?homeland security? in factional move to win elections
lead article
 
  
AP/Laura Rauch 
 
Boston cop searches passenger?s bag on city subway July 26 during
Democratic National Convention. Democrats are using ?homeland defense?
as a factional football in the election campaign. 
 

BY MARTÍN KOPPEL
AND MICHAEL ITALIE  
At their national convention in Boston, Democratic Party politicians
made ?homeland security? the central theme in nominating John Kerry as
their presidential candidate. From Sen. Hillary Clinton to Kerry
himself, they criticized the Bush administration for not doing enough to
bolster the ability of the FBI and CIA to carry out domestic spying and
to expand the use of the military inside the United States in the name
of ?fighting terrorism.? 
The Democrats have pushed the ?national security? theme the hardest, in
an increasingly factional attempt to inject some enthusiasm into their
sagging campaign and gain an edge over the Republicans in the 2004
elections. 

?I will and I can fight a more effective war on terror than President
Bush is,? Kerry told a crowd in Philadelphia on July 27. 

Kerry called for extending the commission investigating the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. He demanded that
?we act now, not talk,? to implement its proposals for expanded domestic
spying operations, released in a July 22 report. 

The Democratic contender, who often waves a copy of the 9/11
commission?s report during campaign speeches or interviews, criticized
Bush for not immediately implementing its recommendations. He said the
commission?s work should continue another 18 months to monitor whether
?we are doing enough, fast enough, to strengthen our homeland security.?


Kerry made a campaign appearance earlier that day at the U.S. naval base
in Norfolk, Virginia, timed to coincide with the recent return of three
aircraft carriers and 13,000 sailors from the Navy?s ?Summer Pulse?
global military exercises. 

Before a flag-waving Navy crowd and with the USS Wisconsin as a
backdrop, Kerry proposed doubling the number of U.S. Special Forces.
Accusing the Bush administration of having left U.S. forces
overstretched in Iraq and around the world, he said that as president he
would expand active-duty troops by 40,000 and add more psychological
operations agents to the army. He would also double the number of
clandestine CIA agents abroad and establish a cabinet-level director of
national intelligence to make U.S. spy operations more effective. 

In choreographed appearances leading up to his arrival at the convention
in Boston, Kerry was introduced by former military officers as a tested
military man who had fought in Vietnam and was ready to become ?our next
commander-in-chief.? His campaign announced that 12 retired generals and
admirals were endorsing his campaign, including Gen. John Shalikashvili,
former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who addressed the
convention. 

At the convention, a string of Democratic Party figures?from former
presidents James Carter and William Clinton to ex-Vermont governor
Howard Dean?highlighted Kerry?s credentials as someone who will ?fight
terrorism? and ?make America stronger at home and respected once more in
the world,? as Sen. Edward Kennedy put it in hailing him as a ?war
hero.? 

?We need to secure our borders, our rail lines, and our ports as well as
our chemical and nuclear plants,? said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a speech
on the opening day of the convention. ?We need to make sure that
homeland security is a priority.? 

The speeches by a spectrum of Democratic politicians were a reminder
that Democratic support for a ?homeland defense? operation goes back to
the Clinton administration, which first established a North American
command in charge of deploying U.S. troops on U.S. soil. 

The increasingly shrill and flag-waving efforts by the Democrats to use
the homeland security question as a factional football against the Bush
administration take place as it becomes clear that the Kerry candidacy,
unable to distinguish itself from the policies of the Republicans in the
White House, has not gained much advantage over Bush. Not even the
announcement of Sen. John Edwards as running mate has given a bounce to
the Kerry campaign.  
 
SEIU head: better off if Kerry loses 
Despite the scripted hoopla, the Democratic gala, more of an infomercial
than a political convention, has been a bust in TV ratings. The viewing
audience on opening night was 10 percent less than it was on the first
day of the convention four years ago. In 2000, barely 15 percent of TV
households watched the Democratic and Republican conventions. 

In face of this dismal picture, the president of the largest AFL-CIO
union, Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU),
said in an interview with the Washington Post that the emperor has no
clothes. 

Stern said both the Democratic Party and the labor movement are ?in a
deep crisis? and devoid of new ideas. ?It is a hollow party,? he said,
adding that ?if John Kerry becomes president, it hurts? chances of
reforming the Democrats and the union movement, and that both might be
better off in the long run if Sen. John F. Kerry loses the election, the
Washington Post reported in its July 27 issue. 

The union president, a committed Democrat, bitterly complained that
Kerry and his party ?have declined to address what he calls ?the
Wal-Mart economy,?? the Post said, referring to the unsustainably low
wages and short hours of many workers. 

AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, himself a former president of the SEIU,
sought to patch up the official happy face. He replied that Stern?s
attitude is ?not justified? and hailed ?the unity and solidarity? of
Democratic support for Kerry. 

Adding to the increasingly coarse and despairing tone of the Democratic
campaign, Kerry?s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, attacked the Republicans for
?un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics.? Asked by
a reporter what she meant by ?un-American,? she denied using the term
and told him to ?shove it.? Hillary Clinton applauded the heiress of the
billionaire Heinz family, saying, ?You go, girl!? 

And at a literary gathering of liberals on the day the convention
opened, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmentalist and son of the late
senator, asserted that Bush was ?put into office by the largest
polluters? and that ?regime change? is needed because his
administration?s policies amount to ?fascism.? The crowd cheered
raucously.  
 
9/11 report pushes domestic spying 
Democratic politicians have been using the report by the 9/11 Commission
as ammunition for their campaign around ?homeland security.? The report
proposes strengthening the FBI, CIA, immigration cops, and other
political police agencies for increased domestic spying and disruption
operations, as well as expanding use of the military inside the United
States. 

The report was presented unanimously by a commission of five Democrats
and five Republicans. It was chaired by Republican Thomas Kean, a former
governor of New Jersey, and Democrat Lee Hamilton, a former Congressman
from Indiana. 

Many of the capitalist politicians who testified at the hearings over a
period of 16 months argued that because of ?intelligence failures? the
Bush administration was unable to prevent the September 2001 attacks.
Democrats insisted that the Republican administration was so focused on
preparing the U.S.-led assault on Iraq that it was diverted from
targeting al-Qaeda, and that a Democratic White House would be more
effective in using the political police to ?fight terrorism.? 

Bush welcomed the report for identifying ?even more steps we can take to
better defend America.? 

The report calls for the establishment of a National Counterterrorism
Center headed by a National Intelligence Director. Such an ?intelligence
czar,? located in the executive office of the president, would help
centralize the U.S. police and spy agencies to collaborate more
effectively and carry out measures that have largely already been put in
motion. 

The report proposes more effective screening of people at the border and
steps to set ?standards? for the issuance of driver?s licenses. It calls
for improving the use of government ?watch lists? and ?no-fly lists,?
which have been used to bar people from flying without explanation or
charges against them. 

In criticizing the commission?s recommendation for an ?intelligence
czar,? acting CIA director John McLaughlin said, ?The intelligence
community of today is not the intelligence community of 9/11.? Today,
McLaughlin said, according to the July 19 Washington Post, ?100 people
do nothing but prepare watch lists of potentially dangerous terrorists.?


The report also calls for strengthening the use of the North American
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) into domestic ?antiterrorism?
operations. NORAD, which is responsible for deploying fighter aircraft
within the United States and Canada, is now part of the Northern
Command, which was established by the Clinton administration. 
 
 




Democrats lead drive for
increased police spying 
Push ?homeland security? in factional move to win elections
lead article
 
  
AP/Laura Rauch 
 
Boston cop searches passenger?s bag on city subway July 26 during
Democratic National Convention. Democrats are using ?homeland defense?
as a factional football in the election campaign. 
 

BY MARTÍN KOPPEL
AND MICHAEL ITALIE  
At their national convention in Boston, Democratic Party politicians
made ?homeland security? the central theme in nominating John Kerry as
their presidential candidate. From Sen. Hillary Clinton to Kerry
himself, they criticized the Bush administration for not doing enough to
bolster the ability of the FBI and CIA to carry out domestic spying and
to expand the use of the military inside the United States in the name
of ?fighting terrorism.? 
The Democrats have pushed the ?national security? theme the hardest, in
an increasingly factional attempt to inject some enthusiasm into their
sagging campaign and gain an edge over the Republicans in the 2004
elections. 

?I will and I can fight a more effective war on terror than President
Bush is,? Kerry told a crowd in Philadelphia on July 27. 

Kerry called for extending the commission investigating the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. He demanded that
?we act now, not talk,? to implement its proposals for expanded domestic
spying operations, released in a July 22 report. 

The Democratic contender, who often waves a copy of the 9/11
commission?s report during campaign speeches or interviews, criticized
Bush for not immediately implementing its recommendations. He said the
commission?s work should continue another 18 months to monitor whether
?we are doing enough, fast enough, to strengthen our homeland security.?


Kerry made a campaign appearance earlier that day at the U.S. naval base
in Norfolk, Virginia, timed to coincide with the recent return of three
aircraft carriers and 13,000 sailors from the Navy?s ?Summer Pulse?
global military exercises. 

Before a flag-waving Navy crowd and with the USS Wisconsin as a
backdrop, Kerry proposed doubling the number of U.S. Special Forces.
Accusing the Bush administration of having left U.S. forces
overstretched in Iraq and around the world, he said that as president he
would expand active-duty troops by 40,000 and add more psychological
operations agents to the army. He would also double the number of
clandestine CIA agents abroad and establish a cabinet-level director of
national intelligence to make U.S. spy operations more effective. 

In choreographed appearances leading up to his arrival at the convention
in Boston, Kerry was introduced by former military officers as a tested
military man who had fought in Vietnam and was ready to become ?our next
commander-in-chief.? His campaign announced that 12 retired generals and
admirals were endorsing his campaign, including Gen. John Shalikashvili,
former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who addressed the
convention. 

At the convention, a string of Democratic Party figures?from former
presidents James Carter and William Clinton to ex-Vermont governor
Howard Dean?highlighted Kerry?s credentials as someone who will ?fight
terrorism? and ?make America stronger at home and respected once more in
the world,? as Sen. Edward Kennedy put it in hailing him as a ?war
hero.? 

?We need to secure our borders, our rail lines, and our ports as well as
our chemical and nuclear plants,? said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a speech
on the opening day of the convention. ?We need to make sure that
homeland security is a priority.? 

The speeches by a spectrum of Democratic politicians were a reminder
that Democratic support for a ?homeland defense? operation goes back to
the Clinton administration, which first established a North American
command in charge of deploying U.S. troops on U.S. soil. 

The increasingly shrill and flag-waving efforts by the Democrats to use
the homeland security question as a factional football against the Bush
administration take place as it becomes clear that the Kerry candidacy,
unable to distinguish itself from the policies of the Republicans in the
White House, has not gained much advantage over Bush. Not even the
announcement of Sen. John Edwards as running mate has given a bounce to
the Kerry campaign.  
 
SEIU head: better off if Kerry loses 
Despite the scripted hoopla, the Democratic gala, more of an infomercial
than a political convention, has been a bust in TV ratings. The viewing
audience on opening night was 10 percent less than it was on the first
day of the convention four years ago. In 2000, barely 15 percent of TV
households watched the Democratic and Republican conventions. 

In face of this dismal picture, the president of the largest AFL-CIO
union, Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU),
said in an interview with the Washington Post that the emperor has no
clothes. 

Stern said both the Democratic Party and the labor movement are ?in a
deep crisis? and devoid of new ideas. ?It is a hollow party,? he said,
adding that ?if John Kerry becomes president, it hurts? chances of
reforming the Democrats and the union movement, and that both might be
better off in the long run if Sen. John F. Kerry loses the election, the
Washington Post reported in its July 27 issue. 

The union president, a committed Democrat, bitterly complained that
Kerry and his party ?have declined to address what he calls ?the
Wal-Mart economy,?? the Post said, referring to the unsustainably low
wages and short hours of many workers. 

AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, himself a former president of the SEIU,
sought to patch up the official happy face. He replied that Stern?s
attitude is ?not justified? and hailed ?the unity and solidarity? of
Democratic support for Kerry. 

Adding to the increasingly coarse and despairing tone of the Democratic
campaign, Kerry?s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, attacked the Republicans for
?un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics.? Asked by
a reporter what she meant by ?un-American,? she denied using the term
and told him to ?shove it.? Hillary Clinton applauded the heiress of the
billionaire Heinz family, saying, ?You go, girl!? 

And at a literary gathering of liberals on the day the convention
opened, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmentalist and son of the late
senator, asserted that Bush was ?put into office by the largest
polluters? and that ?regime change? is needed because his
administration?s policies amount to ?fascism.? The crowd cheered
raucously.  
 
9/11 report pushes domestic spying 
Democratic politicians have been using the report by the 9/11 Commission
as ammunition for their campaign around ?homeland security.? The report
proposes strengthening the FBI, CIA, immigration cops, and other
political police agencies for increased domestic spying and disruption
operations, as well as expanding use of the military inside the United
States. 

The report was presented unanimously by a commission of five Democrats
and five Republicans. It was chaired by Republican Thomas Kean, a former
governor of New Jersey, and Democrat Lee Hamilton, a former Congressman
from Indiana. 

Many of the capitalist politicians who testified at the hearings over a
period of 16 months argued that because of ?intelligence failures? the
Bush administration was unable to prevent the September 2001 attacks.
Democrats insisted that the Republican administration was so focused on
preparing the U.S.-led assault on Iraq that it was diverted from
targeting al-Qaeda, and that a Democratic White House would be more
effective in using the political police to ?fight terrorism.? 

Bush welcomed the report for identifying ?even more steps we can take to
better defend America.? 

The report calls for the establishment of a National Counterterrorism
Center headed by a National Intelligence Director. Such an ?intelligence
czar,? located in the executive office of the president, would help
centralize the U.S. police and spy agencies to collaborate more
effectively and carry out measures that have largely already been put in
motion. 

The report proposes more effective screening of people at the border and
steps to set ?standards? for the issuance of driver?s licenses. It calls
for improving the use of government ?watch lists? and ?no-fly lists,?
which have been used to bar people from flying without explanation or
charges against them. 

In criticizing the commission?s recommendation for an ?intelligence
czar,? acting CIA director John McLaughlin said, ?The intelligence
community of today is not the intelligence community of 9/11.? Today,
McLaughlin said, according to the July 19 Washington Post, ?100 people
do nothing but prepare watch lists of potentially dangerous terrorists.?


The report also calls for strengthening the use of the North American
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) into domestic ?antiterrorism?
operations. NORAD, which is responsible for deploying fighter aircraft
within the United States and Canada, is now part of the Northern
Command, which was established by the Clinton administration. 
 
 


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism