Mark Phillips: The American Question

We've gotten used to our government going to war against people we'd like to see win.

The Sandinistas were the good guys, the Contras weren't. I was for the Sandinistas. You probably were too.

The popular movements everywhere were good guys: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Chile, Columbia, Iran, South Africa, Palestine. Our government in its lack of wisdom sided time after time with the most murderous forces available to stifle popular aspirations and kill those who disagreed, along with anybody else who had the bad luck to be around. Usually in the name of an ignorant and counterproductive "anti Communism" which was just plain barbaric in its actions and consequences. Suharto, Pinochet, the South Vietnamese generals, Marcos, the Shah, Mubarek, Sharon, even Pol Pot when it suited them. If there was a government willing to murder people, ours was its ally. Nixon with a straight face gave the Shah the Medal of Freedom. That was our country's foreign policy.

We were for the other side. It became almost a conditioned response. Our government supports bad guys. We're for the ones they oppose.

Then like generals re-fighting the last war, many on the left were caught unprepared by the new one. The "long war" or the "war on terrorism" or "World War IV" or whatever marketing tag they give it this week. What's our slogan? "Victory to the... I mean, all power to the... I mean... Hmmm. Wait. Hmmm." Because we're not for the victory of the other side. I'm certainly not.

Then who are we for? The Imperialists? Some old friends of ours came to that conclusion. Mistakenly, in my opinion.

IMO there's a principled line of orientation which has to be disentangled before you can find a "left" or "socialist" or "progressive" way to oppose the new war without supporting the other side and without falling back on simple pacificism. Here's a shot.

Let's take it for granted that Islamist fundamentalism is a bad thing. I don't want to argue that. I'm not gonna support those people.

Let's also take it for granted that all fundamentalism is a bad thing. Islamist, Christian, Jewish. I'm not for any of them. I'm for democratic secularism. That's a first line of principled demarcation.

And, let's agree as we always have that Imperialism is a bad thing. That's a second line of principled demarcation. Furthermore, that Imperialism of the U.S. variety is, in its dominant Republican wing, tied up and interconnected with domestic fundamentalism, of the Christian flavor. That relates the two lines together, although it wouldn't strictly be necessary to do so.

IMO, that's enough. We're against Imperialism and we're against fundamentalism. We're for democratic secularism, at home as well as around the world. That's the dividing line. I think we're done.

There really is a contest of civilizations. It's not between Imperialism and Islamist fundamentalism, it's between democratic secularism and all fundamentalisms. It's right here at home, as well as around the world.

The Republican elite are incapable of leading that struggle. They're anti democratic secularist. They're anti democratic; and they're anti secularist. Aside from being helplessly incompetent.

The Democratic elite are incapable of doing better. The Democrats tailed after the Republicans' foreign policy for generations. Democrats don't lead struggles, they tail them.

We're for the struggle against fundamentalism. We suggest that, to win, it needs new leadership.

There's an opening here. A healthy, self-confident "progressive" movement would be out talking to real people, saying, Republicans and Democrats are the wrong leadership in this struggle. We're the right leadership. Here's why.

Slogan: "Convert the Imperialist war into a democratic secular war". Where "war" doesn't mean the usual blow 'em up stuff. Rather, support for the people to liberate themselves, from all tyrannies, of the spirit as well as the state. The Prime Directive. A democratic secularist foreign policy.

Of course, we haven't got a healthy, self-confident leadership.

This piece is too "literary" and too convoluted. I'll keep trying to simplify. This is, in my opinion, one of the key things which a current like ours of "veterans but refugees" can contribute.