While Donald Rumsfeld and his chuckle-headed apologists crow about the outcome of the Bush administration’s use of lies and deceit to justify war on Iraq, we might remember that the war zone created in Baghdad has led to a couple things: armed Islamist militias controlled by local clerics and the rise of rape and terror against women.

Zeinab, a 24-year-old computer science major who declined to give her last name, would drive her own car to college before the U.S. invasion, but now she’s only permitted to leave the house for school with the man she jokingly calls her driver-bodyguard-chaperon.

The beauty salons she used to frequent for pedicures and conversation are closed, so Zeinab spends much of her long hours at home in front of a mirror, practicing different hairstyles for the day she regains a social life.

Girls lost most of their freedom here a long time ago, but now we’ve lost it all, she said angrily. They want to protect our honor.

[LA Times]

And:

Sheik Nasseri, for instance, has been giving the Friday sermon at the main mosque in Sadr City, where he has railed against Americans as infidel colonizers and sanctioned the killing of unveiled women who refuse to comply with his rules, as well as the killing of Muslims or non-Muslims who sell liquor.

[NY Times]

Just in case you have forgotten: these are the same conditions–precisely the same conditions–that led to the establishment of the Islamist tyranny in Iran, and were used to justify forced veiling and other misogynist repression. And they are also the same conditions–precisely the same conditions that led to the horrors of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So thanks, Donald, for lying to us about weapons of mass destruction in order to carry out your dirty little war. What an awful outcome indeed.

Wittgenstein once spoke of the Liar Paradox (This sentence is false) as a Janus-headed figure, facing both truth and falsity. So what is up with Libertarian theorists putting out Janus-headed weblogs that refuse to admit that they are weblogs? My first encounter with the phenomenon was Roderick’s weblog, In a Blog’s Stead. But at least Roderick explains why he hesitates to call his blog a blog. A far more egregious performative contradiction comes from another one of my favorite Libertarians – Chris Sciabarra’s NOT A BLOG.

Chris, of course, is a long-time student of Dialectic, so perhaps he finds the collision of thesis and antithesis amusing. Perhaps, by creating a Non-Blog that presupposes the activity of Blogging, he intends a synthesis — a transcendence of the blogging/non-blogging paradigm. In any case, his weblog compiles a lot of his best material from articles and listserv posts, as well as some interesting discussions that follow. In particular, check out his numerous essays on U.S. foreign policy, on Partisanship vs. Objectivity in Ayn Rand Scholarship, and his fascinating series of articles on Objectivism and Homosexuality.

P.S. The rest of this post is false.

Right on cue, Salon and other leftist outlets have begun their handwringing and pre-emptive Nader-blaming over a possible Green Party run in 2004. Here’s the line: Nader unreasonably pushed his campaign through the 2000 election, creating an acrimonious rift withiin the American Left, and now the Dems are worried that he’ll do it again, siphoning off votes from the Democratic candidate and putting King George II in office for another four deadly years. Those who think otherwise are blind Green ideologues who can’t see the possibility of achieving their goals through the Democratic Party.

The problem with trying to adjudicate this debate is that both sides of it are acting like morons. The lefty Democrats because they are perpetually unable to honestly acknowledge the severe problems that the Democratic Party has faced since, well, always. Also because they are apparently constitutionally incapable of thinking of any strategy to form a Popular Front campaign against Bush except to whine and vilify Greens. Just think of the arrogance of the rhetoric coming out of their mouths: the assumption that Greens are siphoning off voters who belong, by right, to whatever jackass the Democratic leadership happens to pick; the notion that a messageless and meandering Democratic Party couldn’t possibly be to blame for its pathetic election returns over the last two election cycles; the dismissal of third party activitists as naive and idealistic simply for recognizing that, as a matter of hard-headed pragmatism, the chances of achieving significant leftist goals through the established power structure of the Democratic Party are very close to nil.

On the other hand, the Green Party shares a common disorder with much of the rest of the third party movement: their entire electoral strategy is a cockamaimey plan for wasted resources and eventual implosion. I think that building a strong Green Party is absolutely necessary if we are ever to get out from under the claws of the Republicratic Leviathan. Indeed, as an anarchist, I also think that building a strong Libertarian Party is absolutely necessary too, while we’re at it. But none of this can happen with the current stock set of third party campaign strategies. Based on their past few decades of behavior, one of two things can be concluded about third parties: either they being run as think tanks rather than political parties (issuing policy positions and maximizing fundraising to support office staff, rather than trying to win elections)—or else they are being run by a bunch of drunk baboons. Either they are rationally pursuing some goal other than electoral success, or else, they are irrationally throwing contributor money down the toilet. I don’t know which would be worse for the development of independent parties.

What I mean is this: every four years, the whole independent party movement—Greens, Libertarians, the Constitution Party, the Workers World Party, and everyone else, all get bunched up about the Presidential race. Fundraising appeals go out; money is thrown into advertisements; grassroots activist energy is poured out. The issues are predictable: trying to get a few news interviews, hiring professional petitioners to ensure ballot access, getting indignant over exclusion from the debates, putting out a few press releases that get published by a few papers, and going around the country to talk with local party activists. The goals are almost always unclear: candidates generally acknowledge they have no chance of winning, but they hope to get the message out. Ralph Nader, at least, had a relatively clear purpose in 2000: he wanted to get 5% to get federal funds for party-building. But that, too, failed, and even if it had succeeded, it’s unlikely it would have helped that much—one need only watch the decline and fall of the Reform Party over the past decade to see that funds mean nothing without a strong party structure in place, at the local level.

What I propose is this: independent parties, if they want to get anywhere, are going to have to completely write off the federal government for the next 15-20 years. They should encourage their base to vote strategically on life-or-death issues (abortion, war, civil liberties, etc.). Greens and Libertarians have built up an extensive base for fundraising and activist support; they need to turn that base more or less completely towards local and state-level races. Why? Because we can win local races now—with some basic planning, we can win them in a cakewalk. We can start winning state races within the next few election cycles. It’s only by winning these races that we will make winning the federal races possible.

Imagine if, for example, Ralph Nader could take his eyes off the Presidency for a moment, and run for Governor of California instead. Imagine if he used his celebrity, immense fundraising ability, and good name to recruit an unprecedented slate of Green candidates for state legislature, city council, and mayor. What might be achieved in a state with a strong Leftist contingency, an tradition of independent party activism, and a corrupt Democratic Party that only barely made it through an election cycle that should have been a cakewalk?

I think the results could be stunning. Why?

1. Local and state level races very often go uncontested—allowing independent party candidates to enter into two-way races, rather than three-way races.
2. Local and state level races are covered by local media, which offers far more opportunities for free coverage and affordable advertising than the national media.
3. Winning local and state races builds up a critical mass of name recognition and experienced candidates.
4. Winning local races allows us to take immediate action on the issues that impact people’s everyday life: getting rid of urban-sprawl-creating zoning regulations, calling the police off of their pursuit of the war on people who use drugs, making sure the police are sensitive and responsive to violence against women, cutting down on cronyism and corporate welfare, and so on.
5. Winning state races allows us to take immediate and serious action on nearly every issue that matters to us: reforming laws on violence against women, ensuring abortion rights and abortion access, abolishing drug laws, ending the death penalty, ending corporate welfare… need I go on? The vast bulk of these programs are implemented not at the federal level, but rather at the state level. Trying to make serious progress on them by running a Presidential candidate every four years is a fool’s game.
6. Finally, winning state-level elections is what will make a robust independent party movement possible. Why? Because the state governments are the jackpot for ballot access, Instant Runoff Voting, term limits, initiatives and referenda, and nearly every other sort of political reform that is necessary to pry the democratic process out of the hands of the two-party oligarchy.

Now, in all this, I don’t mean that significant victories won’t be possible before some time decades in the future—when they happen, they tend to happen quickly, seemingly out of nowhere. But if they do end up being possible, they will only become possible as an unforseen consequence of the groundwork we lay between now and then. So I’d like to propose some guidelines for Lefties and Libertarians over the next few election cycles.

• Forget about the federal: vote strategically. In fact, don’t even bother nominating Presidential or Senatorial candidates at all if there aren’t compelling ballot-access reasons to do so.
• Focus on the legislature, not the executive: these races are very often unopposed, but ultimately promise a lot more power to bring about democratic reforms than gubernatorial or Presidential victories.
• Blitz the local media: Get your name and message out through every means possible—letters to the editor, local TV appearances, local press coverage, billboards, guerilla media, and so on.
• Work with frustrated two-party voters: Find issues where there is a distinctive message that will draw two-party voters–for example, the war on drugs or the death penalty.
• Build resilient, activist local parties: They’re the only way you can eventually build a strong, democratic national movement.

And now that I have lectured the Greens and Libertarians, allow me to say a bit about what lefty Democrats, in particular, owe us if they expect to get anywhere.

1. Stop vilifying Greens: many people of good conscience had perfectly good reasons to be disgusted with the Democratic ticket in 2000. Trying to browbeat them back into the party is not an effective way to build a good, hope-based relationship with your party base.
2. Get back to the issues: voters expect a clear message and a clear distinction between the two candidates. If you make the 2004 race a referendum on abortion, the environment, the economy, civil rights, etc., then the Democrats will win. They represent the majority position on these issues. Bill Clinton came from nowhere in 1992 to win precisely because he knew this, precisely because he had a clear and hopeful message rather than mealy-mouthed meandering, Republican imitation, and fear-mongering (Bill C. had plenty of all of those too, but he won in spite of them, not because of them).
3. Work together with independent parties, instead of trying to keep them out: trying to prevent spoiler debacles by throwing independent party candidates off the ballot, excluding them from the debates, bullying their supporters, and so on only makes you look sleazy and debases the democratic process. Instead, work with them to open the process up and pass constructive measures that will prevent such conflicts from happening in the future. In particular: Democrats, for the love of God, stop whining about Greens and start supporting Instant Runoff Voting. If your goal is to change things rather than to clutch every scrap of incumbent governmental power that you can, this is the only long-term hope for your success.

The bottom line, I think, is this. It is long past time to stop forming our circular Leftist firing squads. It’s time to start finding constructive and creative ways of working together, and getting smart about how we can actually start achieving our goals.

Let’s begin.

Today, about 100 people braved temperatures just above freezing to stand for peace at Toomer’s Corners in Auburn.

In honor of the event, here’s a thought for Presidents’ Day: What would the other George W. do?

Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

–President George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Editors, The Plainsman:

In a recent letter to the editor of The Plainsman, Jonathan Melville took a rather odd tack in his support for war against Iraq:

As for the argument that Iraq doesn’t pose a threat to us, this statement is completely irrelevant with respect to whether we wage war.

Mr. Melville may not believe that it is relevant whether the United States is unleashing its deadly military might in an act of self-defense or in an act of unprovoked conquest. This is, however, an odd position to take, and requires some explanation. Unfortunately, nowhere in his letter does Mr. Melville support his claim that the United States can be justified in waging wars based on aggression rather than self-defense. Nor does he provide any principle which he thinks is relevant to whether we wage war.

I would like to propose the following test for whether or not the United States is justified in going to war with Iraq. A war is justified if all of the following conditions are met:

1. The Iraqi government possesses, or is likely soon to possess, significant weapons of mass destruction.
2. There is a specific threat that the Iraqi government will use such weapons against citizens of the United States.
3. There is good reason to believe that a war will substantially remove this threat.
4. There is good reason to believe that the destruction caused by the war will not be worse than the threat left without a war.
5. There are no options for removing the threat through less destructive means than war.

Now, neither Jonathan Melville nor myself is a U.N. weapons inspector. Neither of us has any particular access to whether (1) is true or false. As it happens, Hans Blix, who is in charge of chemical and biological weapons inspections, and Mohamed El-Baradei, who is in charge of nuclear weapons inspections explicitly deny that they have discovered anything which should prompt a war against Iraq. Since Mr. Melville claims to know that Iraq does in fact possess banned chemical and biological weapons, and also claims to know that they are about to have nuclear weapons, perhaps he has access to secret intelligence that the U.N. weapons inspectors do not. But he can hardly expect us to take his assertions on blind faith.

But even if (1) turns out to be true, neither the Bush administration, nor Jonathan Melville, has bothered to present any evidence whatsoever for (2)-(4). There is no evidence at all that Saddam Hussein has any more plans to attack the United States now than he did for the past twelve years. Has something changed in that time to transform a broken, beaten, third world country into an imminent threat to the world’s last unchallenged superpower? If something has changed, then the War Party should point it out. But, as far as I can tell, no-one has shown that anything has changed except the belligerence of the ruling party in Washington, DC.

How about (5)? Are there any options other than war? Certainly there are. For example, the United States can step back and let the inspections process continue to work–as Hans Blix and Mohamed El-Baradei have indicated they would be willing and able to do.

Mr. Melville and his fellow epistolator Charlie Vaughan do not present any evidence for believing that (2)-(5) are true. Instead, they both try to use an analogy with the struggle against fascism as a historical backdrop for the Bush administration’s plans for war–by accusing peace supporters of favoring appeasement of Saddam Hussein, as Neville Chamberlain favored appeasement of Hitler.

The attempted comparison is a grotesque abuse of history. Saddam Hussein is certainly a ruthless dictator with a lot of blood on his hands. However, comparing him to Hitler simply blanks out one minor detail: while Hitler stood atop a massive military machine that conquered nearly all of Europe in a few short years, Hussein is the tinhorn dictator of a devastated third world country, completely surrounded by hostile and militarily superior forces. There is no appeasement of Hussein to be done, because he poses a threat to no other country. What peace supporters ask is that we do not go out of our way to unleash the destruction of war on the Iraqi people when we can deal with Saddam Hussein through peaceful means.

Mr. Vaughan also angrily accuses Dr. El Moghazy of comments that are a slap in the face of those currently serving in our military. But El Moghazy never criticized women and men in the military–rather, his criticism was directed against the Administration that is dead-set on putting those brave men and women in harm’s way. It seems to me that it is no disrespect to our troops to try to keep them from being sent off to die in another dumb foreign war. If I were in the military, I’d rather have people support our troops by keeping me alive, rather than by giving me a medal after I’m dead.