[Peace-discussion] Must read.

[John Walsh]

I agree Aimee.

AND I am not proposing an alliance with Ron Paul or the Libertarians
on health care - although I find many of them are willing to make an
"exception" to their anti-state stance when it comes to single-payer
or public education.  I AM NOT PROPOSING ALL OR NOTHING.  I AM SAYING
THAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE NOT UNKNOWN - AND THEY REALLY ARE IRRELEVANT
WHEN IT COMES TO WAR AND EMPIRE AND LIBERTY.

So why when I propose an alliance on the question of peace, do others
immediately launch into our differences with the Libertarians - i.e.,
reasons NOT to forge the alliance.  That does not make sense.
Moreover, when I get into these discussions I find that many on the
"Left" know almost nothing of the Libertarian viewpoint or even that
of the paleocons.  I encourage them to read Antiwar.com or The
American Conservative.  Or Justin Raimondo's fine book on the Old
Right and its opposition to wars in the face of many Dem presidents.

There is a notion in the GP of a spectrum - which runs from Greens to
Dems to Libertarians to Republicans.  That idea lay at the heart of
the safe-states strategy - and the grand failure of 2004.  I suggest
that that spectrum is wrong.  It might be better put: Greens to
Libertarians to Demopublicans - with the last far away in fact on
another spectrum, a very corrupt with them.

I have worked a lot with a few local Libertarians here.  I like and
respect them and I have learned some things from them.  Unlike the
"progressive" Dems they were willing to demonstrate against Kerry for
his support of the war - as well as bashing Bush.  The local peace
movement dominated by the Dems and UFPJ wanted nothing to do with
that.

I find many Libertarians have a better gut understanding of the
duopoly, war and imperialism than  do many "progressives."  Maybe,
just maybe, we have a few things to learn from the Libertarians.  I
for one do not have all the answers.

john walsh (MA delegate)



On 12/15/07, Aimee Smith <alsmith@hvgreens.org> wrote:
> I appreciate each of you in this argument, but I think that there
> is some "both/and" that is not being thought of.  We should not
> be "getting behind Paul" because we have a party that means
> more than him.  But we should be *working* with folks supporting
> him because many of them are closer to us then him politically  -
> at least in my town.  He *is* exciting people who feel he has a
> platform to rail against war.
>
> I am attaching a file for all not on digest that I hope you will
> consider reading.  It talks about the tension between working
> in coalition with people who agree with us on one of our goals
> without losing our comprehensive understanding of who we
> ourselves are and how our 10 key values all fit together.  In
> other words, if we hope to wage successful resistance to the
> earth crisis and all of the fascism and imperialism that it is
> ratcheting up, then we need to learn how to respectfully work
> with people who only share *some* of our values when we
> are working on a project that we all agree with - in this case
> stopping the war on Iraq...  without compromising our values.
>
>
>
>
> A Green-Rainbow Party member wrote the above.  Let
> me know if you would like to get in touch with him.
>
> Regards,
> Aimee
>
> On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:21 PM, John Walsh wrote:
>
> > Wow, that's news!  And a fresh imaginative approach also.  With this
> > wealth of new approaches, it is quite amazing that the peace movement
> > (oh, excuse me, the peace and justice movement) has simply gone down
> > the tubes.  But we have our purity and the Iraqis are only losing
> > their lives for it.
> > Of course the Dems have been responsible for the killing of 1 million
> > Iraqis in this war, for sanctions that killed 500,000 under Bill,
> > Hillary and Madeleine, have helped in the slow genocide of the
> > Palestinians, gave us the war on Vietnam (2-3 million dead there) etc.
> > Now I am against the death penalty - period.  But who is responsible
> > for more killings, Ron Paul at whom some like to rage or the Dems at
> > whom they do not have similar rage?  (And I am not referring to A.G.
> > here but a declining number in our midst.)
> > john walsh (MA delegate)
> > p.s. If Ron Paul had his way and drug penalties were largely abolished
> > (as we Greens also would like), there would be far fewer prisoners in
> > Texas and elsewhere.  And of course to blame him for everything that
> > happens in TX is a weak debating point or just plain silly.
> > And think about it.  If we make alliances with Paul and Libertarians
> > on the many things on with which we agree, we might convert many of
> > those Texans into our allies.  In fact such an alliance might just be
> > the key to the Presidency and Congress for us.  And we might save many
> > Iraqis and Iranians in the process.  But we would not have our purity,
> > so let us not even think about it.
> > pps.  Anesthesiologists have no business participating in executions.
> >
> >
> > On 12/15/07, a.gronowicz@att.net <a.gronowicz@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Another few words about Ron Paul's state and his and its immoral
> >> support for
> >> the death penalty and libertarian economics:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Texas oversees more prisoners per capita than any other state, a
> >> state where
> >> since 1976, 40% of all United States' executions have taken place,
> >> even
> >> though Texas has but 7% of U.S. population. This gruesome
> >> statistic confirms
> >> Eduardo Galeano's assessment that, "The more freedom is extended to
> >> business, the more prisons have to be built for those who suffer
> >> from that
> >> business." Texas also met Dostoevsky's standard that "Y ou can
> >> judge a
> >> society by how it treats its prisoners." Texan executions like
> >> those in
> >> Virginia are conducted without trained anesthesiologists.[1]
> >>
> >>  ________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] Lancet, April 2005.
> >> -------------- Original message from Nick Schmader
> >> <nschmader@cox.net>:
> >> --------------
> >>
> >> By saying that David's objections to Ron Paul's politics are
> >> standard or
> >> predictable, does not vitiate the accuracy or relevance of those
> >> objections.
> >> If fascism cloaked in libertarian verbiage appeals to folks, then
> >> you all
> >> can get on the Ron Paul bandwagon. But a confused, meandering
> >> critique of
> >> the ISO smacks of red baiting, and for what?  To legitamize Ron
> >> Paul's
> >> reactionary agenda?
> >>
> >> Nick
> >> RI
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discussion mailing list
> > Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org
> > http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion
>
>
>
>