by BAR executive editor Glen FordRon Paul’s anti-war stance has some progressives thinking that there’s a large pool of accessible anti-war sentiment on the Right. “But, is it really the socially tolerant ‘Left’s’ fault that these people don’t show up at anti-war events?” Or do their prejudices outweigh their anti-war sentiments?
The Right, the Left and the Ugly: Fear and Loathing in White America
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
“Are we witnessing a left-right convergence – or two fundamentally opposed camps intersecting at a certain point in time on the way to very different destinations?”
When President George Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi first, unsuccessfully, attempted to ram a bank bailout bill through the U.S. House in late September 2008, only one-third of Republicans and three-fifths of Democrats voted for the measure. The Congressional Black Caucus was opposed, 21 to 18, with the more progressive CBC members mostly voting No. Former presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich asked, "Is this the U.S. Congress or the board of directors at Goldman Sachs?" Two-thirds of the GOP Caucus bucked their president.
Were we witnessing a left-right convergence – or two fundamentally opposed camps intersecting at a certain point in time on the way to very different destinations?
Republican Rep. Ron Paul has long opposed war for “empire,” and any government that is big enough to bail out anything. The two-time presidential candidate is welcomed in many leftist anti-war circles and is an icon among fellow libertarians on the Right.
Does Paul personify the possibilities of left-right collaboration in a more broadly based peace movement? Or is his core constituency beyond the pale – so far to the Right they just appear Left?
In Washington on February 20, under the auspices of Voters for Peace, a one-day “Across the Political Spectrum Conference Against War and Militarism” explored the possibilities of a Left-Right and in-between anti-war movement. Prime conference mover Kevin Zeese, executive director of Voters for Peace, laid out his position in an article circulated a month earlier:
“The vast majority of Americans widely opposes war and wants the U.S. to focus its resources at home. Their initial reaction to wars and escalations, before the corporate media spin propagandizes them in a different direction, is to oppose war. But, these views are not reflected in the body politic and certainly not in the DC discourse on war. Rather than anti-war opposition being broad-based, it has been narrow. It is a leftish movement that does not include Middle America or conservatives who also see the tremendous waste of the bloated military budget and the militarism of U.S. foreign policy.”
“Could it be that nationalism and racism (i.e., white nationalism) is the stronger political current among ‘Middle Americans’ and ‘conservatives?’”
True – and it is a significantly non-white movement, as well. But does this mean that the “leftish” and darker denizens of the movement drive away their fellow Americans – or could it be that nationalism and racism (i.e., white nationalism) is the stronger political current among “Middle Americans” and “conservatives,” trumping their weaker anti-war and egalitarian impulses every time?
The 30 or so conference participants reflected the diversity of thought Kevin Zeese envisioned for a “broader” movement, although not in race – there were only two Blacks in attendance. Ralph Nader and The Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, for example, balanced out Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute and the American Conservative Defense Alliance, and George D. O’Neill, Jr., a former chairman of the Rockford Institute and 1992 supporter of Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign.
What quickly emerged is that the right wing of this prototype of a larger anti-war movement is culturally repulsed by language that is redolent of the Sixties, a time, we were informed, that is replete with negative associations for conservatives who might otherwise engage in anti-war activities. “Peace” is out, banned. So is “imperialism.” “If we used these words,” said one conservative, “we will be called ‘traitors.’” After some discussion around the huge conference table, it was decided that “empire” is acceptable terminology.
Another word, “redemptive,” floated favorably around the room. A strong tendency among the gathering sought to redeem the values of a bygone (or imagined) time when an agrarian and more egalitarian ethos thrived in America. But the term creeped me out, a reminder of the fire, bullet and lash Redemption movement that “redeemed” southern states from Reconstruction-era governments, plunging Blacks into non-personhood for a century.
“What part of Paul’s anti-government message really resonates with CPAC ‘youth’?”
Ralph Nader spoke over lunch. The topic: “What does it take to stop a criminal war of aggression?” (I wondered if all of the words in that sentence were acceptable to “Middle American” conservatives, and rather doubted it.) Nader thinks it will require an anti-war budget of “about $70 million a year,” until the newly solvent movement “catches on…and people realize that they have to pay for it themselves.” In the interim, “We have never had more older, progressive billionaires” who could underwrite the endeavor, people like speculator George Soros, who “came out against the war in 2003.” Nader’s new book, Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us, examines the idea in fictional form. The prospective sugar daddies include Warren Buffett and Ted Turner, as well as Soros, which makes one wonder about the definition of “progressive,” and why these gentlemen haven’t yet taken the initiative. Could it be that they also find words like “peace” and “imperialism” repugnant? Or maybe it’s because they don’t want to energize millions of non-billionaires who might agitate in unwanted directions?
There was a sickening brown-shirt stench in the Washington air. On the day of the Right-Left conference, the Conservative PAC (CPAC) fascist-fest was reaching its crescendo across town. Ron Paul had just won a plurality in the CPAC straw poll. Paul attributed that to “the young people [who] are sick and tired of what is being dumped on them politically and economically.”
Is it a good thing that young right-wingers prefer Paul? Don’t fascist movements also attract and need young people? What part of Paul’s anti-government message really resonates with CPAC “youth”? How many also cheered for nullificationists and state’s-righters? Is it really the socially tolerant “Left’s” fault that these people don’t show up at anti-war events?Who is hatin’ on whom?
A number of Right-Left attendees took issue with my assertion that Tea Partyers are “white nationalists” to the core. Ralph Nader reminded them that people who take their cues from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh should not be shocked at being called racists. Whether the Tea Party sympathizers in the room believed that they, themselves, were racists or not (few racists do), they were obviously quite tolerant of bigoted behavior. Yet the Left is blamed for the anti-war movement’s “narrow” base, and urged to tone down its vocabulary.
“African Americans, by and large, have no problem with the word “imperialism.”
Clearly, the Black is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations, of which I am a member, is anathema to many of the whites on the Right (and lots in the “middle”) to whom the Right-Left conference directed its appeal. But that’s too damn bad. African Americans, by and large, have no problem with the word “imperialism,” which is generally understood as “internationally organized white folks lording it over colored peoples.” Peace is very cool in Black America – cooler than anyplace else in the country – and the Sixties was a time of righteous struggle and rebirth.
Black people who know their history also feel little nostalgia for the Populist Party of the late 1800s – an iconic reference at the conference. Although white Populists, in their southern incarnation, initially supported Black voting and civil rights and collaborated with Black Republicans in putting together Fusion tickets and governments, they ultimately folded into the White Terror-backed Democratic Party. Tom Watson, the Georgia politician who was southern Populism’s best known proponent, devolved into a raging white supremacist, supporter of the Ku Klux Klan and inciter of the mob that lynched Leo Frank in 1915. He died an archetypal southern Democratic U.S. senator, spewing racist bile against a helpless and abandoned people.
It is through this prism that contemporary white “populism” on the Right is best observed. It is a good thing that Rep. Ron Paul opposes U.S. wars for “empire” – whatever his reasons. It is also a good thing that he fights against bailouts and ceaselessly strives to slay the dragon of the Federal Reserve – again, for his own reasons. But pretending that Ron Paul and the Black is Back Coalition are in the same “movement” is ridiculous. And if “conservatives” and “Middle Americans” (a euphemism for a certain kind of white people) do not join the “leftish” ranks at anti-war demonstrations in significant numbers, it’s mostly because of their own prejudices, fears and loathings, and the shallowness of their commitment to peace.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.
Comments
Soccer Shoes Cheap Soccer
Soccer Shoes Cheap Soccer Shoes Nike Soccer Shoes Adidas Soccer Shoes Nike Soccer Shoes sale Adidas Soccer Shoes sale MBT MBT shoes MBT Men shoes MBT Women shoes MBT Chapa Chapa GTX MBT Chapa GTX MBT Changa Women UGG Women UGG boots ugg boots cardy ugg women ugg cardy boots Nike Air Nike Air Max Nike Air Max Shoes Nike Dunk Nike Dunk SB Nike Dunk SB Shoes Nike Shox Nike Shox Shoes Timberland Timberland sale Timberland boots Timberland boots online Timberland on sale New timberland boots Women Bags Women Bags Sale Women Handbags Women Handbags Sale Women New Bags Cheap Bags Cheap Bags On Sale UGG UGG boots UGG boots short Short ugg Short ugg boots Ugg boots tall New women bags New women bags sale New women bags sale online Louis Vuitton Handbags Gucci bags hair straighteners hair straighteners sales GHD straighteners GHD straighteners sales CHI iron CHI iron sales BOSE headphones discount cheap CHI iron Nike Nike Shoes Nike Shoes Sale Nike running Nike running shoes Nike trainers Nike trainers shoes Timberland boots Timberland boots sale Timberland boot Timberland boot sale Timberland boots cheap Men timberlands
The civil war was about
The civil war was about states' rights and the conflicts this had with the emerging needs of the method of organization for the evolving capitalist system. The history books conveniently use slavery as the whitewash to hide behind. If we are to believe the big lie that the North and the Federal Government were at all gave a flying f*ck about the rights of black people, we might as well just quit trying to understand history at all. Corporate personhood came on the back of the 14th amendment. "The rise of Big Business generated the most important transformation of American life that North America has ever experienced. By the end of the last century the Supreme Court had declared corporations to be persons under the 14th Amendment, entitled to the same protections as human beings. As Morton Mintz pointed out in the National Law Journal, this 1888 case ignored the fact that "the only 'person' Congress had in mind when it adopted the 14th Amendment in 1866 was the newly freed slave." Justice Black observed in the 1930s that in the first fifty years following the adoption of the 14th Amendment, "less than one-half of 1 percent [of Supreme Court cases] invoked it in protection of the Negro race, and more than 50 percent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations." During this period the courts moved to limit democratic power in other ways as well. For example, the Supreme Court restricted the common law right of juries to nullify a wrongful law; other courts erected barriers against third parties such as banning fusion slate"
Lincoln ushered in the big government/big business alliance that is with us to this day. Slavery was no longer a viable economic model by the time of the civil war - the major imperialist Euro powers had already moved on. A monolithic federal government working in tandem with corporate interests is what we have today. It is the destruction of the separation of powers that gives the executive the sway it does over decisions from fast-tracking NAFTA to wars without congressional approval to prosecution of so-called terrorists and American citizens without due process. I agree the sentiment of "states rights" - deep in the psyche of the Southern states can easily be conjured up to be used as the "psychic fuel" to be exploited by Republicans to hate on Obama and democrats in general and used by corporate PR groups to create great antagonism to any kind of "public" health care bill, but I would make the argument that the fire can burn both ways. A state could nullify the use of its National Guard troops in imperialistic wars, it could refuse to empty its coffers to bail out the banksters, it could nullify Federal "regulation" of small farmers and artisans which often concentrates wealth and power in the agro-business sector, it could nullify the use of Federal Reserve notes based on nothing as the currency of choice and instead use a currency based on tangible, locally held resources. I agree that American Exceptionalism and white privilege is what keeps the guns pointed the wrong way.
This assumption that the Federal government is going to be accountable to the people should of been thrown out a long time ago. I mean Enlightened Cynic - come on , a "jobs bill" and effective "environmental regulation?" You are talking about the biggest Empire ever to be known in human history! There is no way there is going to be any change coming from the "top down." And there is no way for an empire to even know what is best for communities and "legislate it in."
I agree that American Exceptionalism and white privilege is what keeps the guns pointed the wrong way and militates against a broad based coalition. However I also think that there is a deep-seated need to keep people in different political camps divided over issues. I think sentiments on both sides can be manipulated to keep the ship steering on course. The exploitation of the myth of Obama carrying on the legacy of Lincoln who "abolished slavery" while symbolically including black people as able to "make it" - even as symbolic head of the Empire has been used to elicit a sense of defense of said system and dulled criticism.
Populism and White Supremacy
Mr. Ford has written one of his best pieces to date. I have no doubt that Ron Paul is sincere in his convictions regarding war and the dictatorship that the banks and Wall Street have over the country. Make no mistake, at the end of the day Paul remains a Southern Cracker through and through. Alex Jones, Paul's fellow traveller is the same. Jones' site, Infowars, stirs up white Middle America's anxieties about President Obama using the basest racism. While many Black progressives are opposed to Obama, we do so out of principle. Jones and Paul are opposed to Obama because they feel that their white entitlement is under attack. Jones and his white reactionary readers are concerned about the totalitarian police state only since the police have started treating them the same way they have treated Blacks since this country was founded. Now that whites are starting to see their livelihoods drop and finding themselves begging for welfare and food stamps, they are enraged. 10 years ago, all the supporters of Paul and Jones voted for Bush. 15 years ago, they supported Newt Gingrich. 25 years ago they supported Ronald Reagan and believed that Blacks were lazy and all that Black women were "welfare queens" driving Cadillacs. The Tea Party is a white movement through and through. Nary a black or brown face can be found in their marches, rallies and town hall meetings. If they are not racist as they proclaim, why do they not make an effort to reach out to Black and Brown people? Why should we, who are Black, Brown and progressive, reach out and make alliances with those who don't like us in the first place and whose interests are diametrically opposed to ours? Ron Paul and Jones do not support reproductive rights. They are against safe sex education and birth control. They advocate State Rights (we know what that is all about). They are all gun toting rednecks. At the end of the day, they all support the capitalist system and ruthlessly defend private property. We need to forget about them and build Black is Black and create real alliances with true white progressives such as Cindy Sheenan who was smart enough to attend the first Black is Back rally in D.C. We need to look out for our own and protect our own. Moreover, we need clarity of focus and strength, rather than muddled paranoid conspiracyy theories about the coming world government which is the trade of Ron Paul, Alex Jones and their flocks of sheep.
Get in where you can fit in
Will always be my motto because fundamentally Mr. Ford's analysis is spot on. Tea Partier's are about as authentic as "pleather." While I give Paul credit for railing against imperialism and militarism as a threat to the republican form of government, individual freedoms and a "free market" (in terms of sucking up investment capital), there's little promise of Tea Partiers/Baggers (whatever you call them) coalescing with African Americans on say a jobs bill or even environmental regulation (which impacts Blacks more than others) because of their "libertarian" views.
The average "Middle American" is still drunk on American Exceptionalism. They oppose militarism not because it's a cohort of colonialism but because of the reasons previously stated. They believe (to their own and the country's detriment) in "the Protestant Work Ethic" as inviolate and do not believe in institutional racism or structural poverty. They believe in the "Holy Grail" of rugged American individualism. And quite frankly, this type of individualism is anathema to the cultural and "spiritual" bearing, history and customs of most African Americans and their sense of community and belonging.
Last but not least, for the umpteeth time, the Tea Partiers will be coopted by the nasty Rethugs. The wannabe Partiers who are upset at Bankster bailouts, erasure of individual freedoms, an encroaching police state, absence of FED transparency, and US Militarism will be sidelined just like the "Liberals" and "Leftists" in the Democratic Party's "movement" were sidelined. The MSM is already seeing to that. At the end of the day, the Partiers will be another constellation of reactionary, facist-oriented "Middle Americans," upset at the threats, real and perceived, to their holy "lifestyle." The ones who don't share this view will be squeezed out by the GOP movers and shakers and because, at it's core, it's a White Nationalist Movement.
Frankly, most Whites are not going to "sign on" to a "Black is Back Movement" it simply scares the shit out of them, conjuring up images of Afros and dashikis and black gloved fists. Hell most Whites are not going to sign on to damn near anything that, on the surface, is legislation geared or designed to help Blacks, even if the legislation actually benefits them more. (there is roughly a 10 or 11 to 1 ratio afterall).
I have long maintained that the truest "religion" in America, even amongst hard-core atheists and "realists" is the Religion of American Exceptionalism which is rooted consciously or subconsciously in White Supremacy. This is why "imperialism" is just to upsetting a term to "Middle Americans." It's why the "Hurt Locker" can win the Oscar. All the good Paul "anti-empire" types don't lose a whole lot of sleep over foreigners eating steel and white phosphorus, their problem is the money that's spent to exterminate them. Or the fact that "our boys" are put in harms way. But they could give a shit about the destruction of one of the oldest cultures or civilizations on the planet. Whatever. I still say, "get in where you can fit in," think coalitions rather than coalescing. "Post-Racial" America is rapidly becoming "Post-Reconstruction" America, though most "Middle Americans" would deny it. I wished the conference had identified at least two things: (1) defunding the military complex, and (2) stopping the outflaw of tax dollars to corporate cronies and banksters, that all sides can agree on.
Tea Partiers are white nationalists
I don't care how much they proclaim the contrary tea partiers are racists. White nationalists are racists and they are white nationalists. You don't have to be a genius to make the connection. These middle and lower class white people are angry at rich white people, including the Jewish elite, but they have no access to them to redress their grievances with a bought and paid for Congress, a Jewish president Obama and a police force that protects and serves only the wealthy. So what do they do? Project and displace. Every other race takes the brunt of their frustration via racist scapegoating because they simply do not want to admit to themselves that white people would do this to other white people. All of these issues are ultimately tribal feuds between whites, European Jews and the sellouts on either side. Black people are just caught in the middle as always. I'd still prefer repatriation to Africa to be honest. At least there we can unite the diaspora and fight a unified battle.