You want to know what would really reengergize the anti-war movement?

If the left-wing activists and the insurgent right-libertarian movement could put aside their wedge issues and unite.

Both movements agree on so much that they should focus on accomplishing what they agree on before splintering ideologically.

The article is pretty much written to be a wedge. Do all “conservatives” love the Iraq War? Is the Iraq War is “conservative?” By what definition? (What is being conserved, exactly?)

Only “progressives” need to “move now?” I guess things must not be very serious if only a minority of Americans needs to take action.

a true conservative, as in someone who thinks the government should be as small as possible and spend as little $ as possible (and not spend $ it does not have), would be against the Iraq war. that’s kinda where RP comes in…

people rarely know what they mean when they use terms like “conservative,” “liberal,” “neo-conservative,” and “neo-liberal.”

Both movements agree on so much that they should focus on accomplishing what they agree on before splintering ideologically.

yeah, like what? what do “they” agree on? (and don’t give me any “distaste for the government” crap, because in order to do that, we need to deconstruct just exactly what each considers the proper role of government, if there is one at all, and this is where incompatibilities arise.) and even if there were some identifiable and accomplishable common goal, what would happen afterwards?

besides you speak of the “left” and the “right” libertarians as though even these groups have common or agreed upon goals in and amongst themselves, which it may appear that they do, but a closer examination reveals the superficiality of this appearance, as few truly seem to know what they’re fighting for.

“they” agree on things like ending the wars, decreasing military spending, respecting civil rights, opposing police brutality, abolishing the secret armies (CIA, NSA etc), opposition to economic sanctions, demanding auditable elections (no Diebold or ES&S), opposition to domestic spying by the government and ending corporate welfare. In fact, any decent person supports all of those things, and anyone opposed to them is evil scum. I realize that every movement has been infiltrated by its share of scum.

we need to deconstruct just exactly what each considers the proper role of government, if there is one at all, and this is where incompatibilities arise

No actually it’s that kind of thinking that’s the problem. It’s not neccessary for a group of people to agree on everything to unite as a movement in support of some things.

“Divide and conquer” is how authoritarian systems win. “United we stand” is how social movements win.

What’s all that lefty rhetoric about “strength in diversity?”

by that logic, we should unite with white supremacists and racists, because if we seek to separate ourselves from them, we’re just falling victim to the elite’s ploys to divide the hoi polloi. fucking poppycock. the enemy of my enemy is not (necessarily) my friend.

and in case you didn’t notice, the so-called “libertarian” Right is quite authoritarian. that’s the difference that i’m talking about.

but then again, the same can be said about many Leftists groups, which is why the anti-authoritarian “Left” (and “post-Left”) emerged. even on this level, just amongst “Leftists,” every time (“Leftist”) anti-authoritarians and anti-statists have worked with (“Leftist”) authoritarian statists, because we had a common goal of overthrowing capitalism, after the revolution “succeeded,” the statist authoritarians turned on us, and killed us (witness Russia, Cuba, etc.). so what should make the think the Right will be any different/better? they’ll be worse.

i’d prefer to discard these Left/Right labels for anti-authoritarian/authoritarian (recognizing that there are both amongst both the “Right” and the “Left”). I suggest this because, to me, the core issue is coercive power. i don’t think there is a true “libertarian” Right in the sense of anti-authoritarianism. in the context of the “Right,” “libertarianism” refers to an economic doctrine of the freedom and liberty of property and capital.

Yes, you should unite with white supremacists in many situations. Like the way the ACLU defends the first ammendment by standing up for Klan members who want to march. If Klan members can march, then anyone can march, if Klan members can’t march, then the government can deny the right to march for anyone they want. So it makes sense to unite with the Klan in defense of the first ammendment. That’s how defending rights works: you have defend other people’s if you want to have them yourself. If everyone only defends their own, then concerted action against the superior forces of the state is impossible. You can oppose the Klan’s ideology but still stand with them in defense of everyone’s right to march. You don’t have to like Islam to be angry when Muslims are discriminated against or to work with Muslims in opposition to racial or religious profiling. You can disagree with what I say but defend to your death my right to say it. Etc etc etc.

Here’s how government encroaches on our rights: first they nullify the rights of pedophiles, because almost no one will stand up for peophiles. Then, the government has a precedent where they can nullify citizen’s rights, so they go after the next most-disliked group, then the next; then the next, until they’ve worked their way up to you. Here’s how you oppose it; you form coalitions around issues, and work with even people you dislike in defense of rights and principles. Ending the war is equally good for the people of Iraq no matter who is in the coalition which ends it.

the enemy of my enemy is not (necessarily) my friend.

You don’t have to be friends with someone to form a working coalition.

It’s pretty simple: By conservatives it is talking about people who call themselves conservative, and by progressives it is talking about people who call themselves progressive. Granted, maybe only 99% of progressives want to end the war and maybe only 99% of conservatives are for the war, but it’s not easy to talk about people as individuals. The writer can’t be like, James, Jerry, Jimmy, and on and on and on for thousands of names – need to act now to end the war. So, groups of people are given names and referenced as if they all have one mind. Animals (like us, for instance) generalize: it’s necessary. Deal with it.

Shift: I think it might be self defeating to only work with people you agree totally with. I mean, do you even agree with yourself all the time? I’ve read lots of your posts, and I agree with a lot of things you have to say. I’d for sure join with you in lots of causes. But I don’t agree with you on everything. Would you rather have me be willing to work with you for a common goal or not? The way I understand your views, I’m guessing that about 0.001% of the population would consider themselves mostly in agreement with you. Is that enough to accomplish your agenda?

Yer damn right you should work with white supremacists. Just not on things involving white supremacy. It helps to have faith that the more people work together, the more they will come to understand their common goals. I bet in the long haul the white supremacy dies out and the anarchy flourishes.

IMO, Bacchus is dead on with the idea that divide and conquer is the main weapon being used against humanity in this time. It is a weapon with a fatal flaw, though. It requires us to buy into it.

Republicans, by a 76% to 17% margin, say that Hussein is responsible [for the Iraq War, as opposed to Bush].

I agree that the vast majority of self-desribed “conservatives” would support carpet-bombing their own mothers if the media and the President told them they should. I also think about 10% are opposed to militarism for the right reasons, and thousands are hard-core anti-war activists. If you want the majority of this country that desrcibes itself as “conservative” to be permanently pro-war, any war, forever, then by all means, don’t work with conservative anti-war activists and exclude them from “the movement.”

Like the way the ACLU defends the first ammendment by standing up for Klan members who want to march.

there’s a big difference between defending their right to speak and march and “teaming up” with them.

That’s how defending rights works: you have defend other people’s if you want to have them yourself.

defending their rights is, again, quite different from aligning with them.

~

I think it might be self defeating to only work with people you agree totally with.

i wasn’t saying totally. i just think it’s important to make distinctions with dangerous ideologies.

and i’m not saying that divide & conquer isn’t a real and threatening tactic. i’m just saying that we don’t have to align with everybody just so we can say we’re not falling victim to it. fuck all that.