Billmon has followed up on his controversial post of a few days ago with
a new piece challenging the notion that conventional politics can rescue the nation from disaster. Let Billmon first address those who believe the world's fate is bound up with CT primary or the '06 midterms so they can move on to the next poll diary without further troubling themselves with the unpleasantness of reality:
I had hopes once that the Democratic Party could be reformed, that progressives could burrow back in or build their own parallel organizations (like MoveOn.org or even Left Blogistan) and eventually gain control of the party and its agenda -- much as the conservatives took over the GOP in the 1980s and '90s.
But I think we've run out of time. Events -- from 9/11 on -- have moved too fast and pushed us too far towards the clash of civilizations that most sane people dread but the neocons desperately want. The Dems are now just the cadet branch of the War Party. While the party nomenklatura is finally, after three blood years, making dovish noises about the Iraq fiasco, I think their loyalty to Israel will almost certainly snap them back into line during the coming "debate" over war with Iran.
I hope like hell I'm wrong about this, but I don't think I am. So I guess I'll just have to accept being labeled a traitor to the cause -- or whatever the hardcore partisans are calling it. Sure, why not. They're certainly free to follow their party over the cliff (we're all going over it anyway) but I'd at least prefer to do it with my eyes open.
No, Billmon was not having just a bout with momentary despair the other day when he wrote that a Democratic victory in November would not avert a wider war in the Middle East and disaster for the U. S. and others. In the follow-up post, he looks at what is coming in the next six months and explains why even Ned Lamont's stance on the Iraq makes no sense when considered in light of his and other Democrats' fervent support of Israel in its current adventure in Lebanon:
The lesson learned from the Democratic reaction to the Israel's war of choice is that the Dems are only likely to oppose war as long as the war in question can be framed as a fight against Iraqi insurgents and/or Shi'a death squads, rather than a fight for Israel. But the Iraq occupation isn't going to fit neatly into that frame much longer. In fact it's already slipped out of it. The Dems -- always a little slow on the uptake -- just haven't realized it yet. But when the time comes to choose (for Israel, or against war with Iran) I fully expect to see Ned Lamont in the front ranks of the pro-war phalanx, right next to the last great white Democratic anti-war hope, Howard Dean.
What of Gilliard's argument that VA benefits provide enough of a "keep-the-trains-running-on-time" reason to support the Blue Team?
People tell me I shouldn't get hung up on this because, you know, if the Dems get in they'll make sure the seniors get their Social Security checks a little faster -- or they'll keep the Supreme Court out of the hands of legal madmen or do something about global climate change or save the whales or whatever else it is that's supposed to make the Democratic Party infinitely preferable to the Republicans.
It's not that I discount these differences entirely -- although they're easily oversold. But compared to the fate that awaits the republic, and the world, if the United States deliberately starts a war with Iran, those other considerations start to look pretty insignificant. I mean, we're talking about World War III here, fought by people who want to use tactical nuclear weapons. I'm supposed to put that out of my mind because the Dems might be a little bit more generous about funding the VA budget??? I'm sorry, but that's fucking nuts.
So is it Billmon who is "fucking nuts" (or some other ad hominem explanation) so that we should move along and get back to the business--and I do mean business--of winning elections? Read his piece in its entirety and decide for yourself. He's not the only one making a "big picture" argument along the following lines:
1) the neocons are determined to widen the conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon to include Syria and Iran (Sydney Blumenthal, Gary Leupp);
2) Israel's lack of success against Hezbollah makes a wider war more likely, not less (Uri Avnery);
3) Fundamentalist crazies in the U. S. and Israel are looking for ways to ignite war (Christian, Jewish and Muslim);
4) War is looking more and more likely in the near future (Hunter, Tradesports, former head of Pakistan's ISI)
4) War with Iran will lead to new levels of repression in the United States, including detention camps for "dissenters" (Ellsberg).
Indeed, the war and peace issue dwarfs all domestic concerns . Unless conventional electoral politics--with the Democratic Party as the only available vehicle--are able to force a major course correction before the Bush administration finds some excuse to widen the war in Iran, not much else will matter. If an all-out war in the ME comes, economic collapse and a police state are the likely results.
Billmon's post is necessary reading. And it's not just a wallow in despair. If Billmon is right, there are actions that can be taken:
1) continue with electoral activity if that's your thing. Who knows?
2) put some effort into non-violent protest
3) make some "Plan B" either for self-sufficiency on the domestic scene or emigrating.
What's foolish is to place all your bets on the electoral solution. Some people make their living from electoral politics. That's great. Some people are in denial about the state of things in the U. S. That's too bad. Be smart. Listen to people like Billmon and Ellsberg and consider what you and your family will do if they're right.