[Texgreen] Turning Points in US politics

[Art Browning]

The following article by Rahul Mahajan came to my attention thanks to 
Paul Myers, who regularly posts on the discussion list of www.paa-gx.org.

For an even more mordant analysis, see the article titled "The Song 
Remains The Same" at http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml as of this 
writing. (or you can google the title and find it at its source American 
Chronicle, i bet.)

Art B, verdantly

[if you cannot get to the link to the article I mention above, e-mail 
and i shall attach a plain text copy in my reply.]
===========================
December 22, 2006
Where Was He When It Mattered?
Kucinich: Maverick or Stalking Horse?
By RAHUL MAHAJAN
 
Winter approaches and a young politician's fancy turns to thoughts of 
the 2008 presidential campaign. Among the announced candidates is 
antiwar favorite Dennis Kucinich. 
 
I have nothing against Kucinich. He's one of the most progressive 
Congresspeople and a genuinely decent, honest person who seems to have 
no trace of the personal corruption so endemic to politicians. Overall, 
his values and political stances seem highly compatible with the 
transformative left agenda that so many believe in quietly. 
 
I disagree with him on some issues. On trade, I want a fair 
international order with binding rules that apply to everybody ? rules 
that embody values very different from those in the WTO ? while Kucinich 
wants an essentially anarchic world order where the United States 
strong-arms other countries through bilateral trade pacts. A position he 
shares with George W. Bush -- back when Bush had positions on issues 
other than "freedom." 
 
To be fair, Bush wants to impose better conditions for U.S. corporations 
and for militaristic U.S. imperialism on weaker countries, whereas 
Kucinich merely wants to impose "social clauses" that are protectionist 
in effect ? which is, of course, the kind of humanitarian imperialism" 
that Kucinich resolutely  opposes in the military sphere. He also 
doesn't seem to understand that this is
impossible ? the United States, beholden as it is to corporate interests 
and to its privileged position in the world order, cannot possibly be in 
the vanguard on this issue. Look to Venezuela, the G21, Mercosur, 
anywhere except the United States. 
 
I also task him for not voting against the absurd congressional 
resolution blindly supporting Israel's Lebanon war, whose avowed target 
was the civilian political supporters of Hizbullah ? he voted "present," 
a cowardly act for someone who wants to be a leader of the left. 
 
Though these are important defects, Kucinich is in general very good, 
and, based solely on the issues, worthy of support. 
 
Even so, if you are considering supporting him, I want to caution you. 
Given the conservative-nationalistic populist refoundation of the 
Democratic Party, most likely Kucinich will stand out as the only even 
slightly anti-militarist and anti-imperialist Democratic candidate. 
Short of a run by Nader, Bill Moyers, or someone like that, he'll 
probably also be the only worthy candidate with any public recognition. 
 
Still, despite numerous fatuous proclamations of his, there's absolutely 
no way  he will win or even make a respectable showing, and so one must 
consider what is to be gained from supporting him. 
 
Last time, his campaign spent $11 million -- $11 million of activist 
money poured down a rat-hole, in my opinion, along with a great deal of 
time, effort, and enthusiasm. 
 
His campaign was intellectually deficient on foreign policy, a crippling 
fault. His talks were long on platitudes about peace, but short on the 
specifics about real issues that might have spread the left message 
beyond the choir. So ignorant was he regarding the U.S.-backed coup 
against Aristide that, in a televised debate, he said what the U.S. was 
doing was good, but it needed to do more ? it was left to John Kerry, 
oddly, to expose the extent of the Bush administration's animus toward 
Aristide. 
 
Although Kucinich's "position" on Iraq was fine, he had very little to 
say about it and avoided the issue in favor of expansive visions on 
social programs that couldn't possibly make any difference in a 
political campaign defined by  Iraq. What really stood out, though, was 
his behavior at the Democratic Convention. Although he had maintained 
his candidacy in order to hang onto his delegates, loyalty to the Party 
trumped the antiwar cause and he capitulated to the militarism of the 
Democratic leadership, instructing his delegates to back down on the 
question of an antiwar plank in the Democratic platform --even though an 
estimated 95% of all delegates to the convention were antiwar.

 
Even though he did speak there, he went with the flow and talked about 
Kerry the great war hero. Not a mention of the still-fresh Abu 
Ghraib/torture scandal, alluded to only by Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson. 
 
Last but hardly least, he did nothing to help build self-sustaining left 
organizations that could continue to exert influence after the campaign 
was over. Those of you who want to work for Kucinich don't need to rule 
it out right away. But make him accountable. He's not going to win and 
the meaning or lack thereof of his campaign is going to be in relation 
to the antiwar movement. He needs to know if he runs again he's working 
for us. 
 
Rahul Mahajan is publisher of the weblog Empire Notes, with regularly 
updated commentary on U.S. foreign policy, the occupation of Iraq, and 
the state of the American Empire. He has been to occupied Iraq twice, 
and was in Fallujah during the siege in April. His most recent book is 
Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond. He can be 
reached at rahul@empirenotes.org <mailto:rahul@empirenotes.org>