|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
Tom Hayden: Revolution, Protest and AmericaPosted on Apr 9, 2006
By Tom Hayden Editor’s Note: Author and political activist Tom Hayden speaks at length about his politics, the war in Iraq, Cuba-U.S. relations and a range of other topics with Cuban journalists in an interview for Juventud Rebelde. The English translation of the interview is published here in full, courtesy of Hayden. During the past five years, the American people have seen vivid pictures of American soldiers torturing prisoners. We now have evidence that the Bush administration is engaged in a massive domestic surveillance program, without judicial or congressional approval, that targets American citizens. President Bush ordered American soldiers to war over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration and FEMA failed the people of New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Can you explain why the Bush administration seems immune from the political fallout that ordinarily results from such scandals? Why is there is no serious move to impeach the president for any or all of these scandals? I do not wish to sound like an apologist, but the Bush administration is not immune. Legally, the cases against Libby and Abramoff and DeLay are slow-moving bad news for Bush. Politically, the Bush poll ratings are below the 40% range. Republican candidates for Congress are in trouble even though their congressional districts are designed to protect their power. As to impeachment, something like half of Americans favor impeachment or censure. If the Democrats win back the House this November, Rep. John Conyers will chair the Judiciary Committee and introduce impeachment. In general, American politics is still suffering from the stolen election of 2000, the chilling effects of 9/11, and the fabricated and unjustified invasion of iraq. The difference is that during Vietnam there was a military draft and the number of casualties was far, far higher. Relatively speaking, therefore, the level of protests today is greater—200,000 in October 2002 in D.C.; 1 million in February 2003; 500,000 in New York in 2004; 300,000 in D.C. in 2005. The reformist presidential campaign of Howard Dean was larger than the antiwar Eugene McCarthy campaign of 1968. A majority of Americans, including a majority of U.S. soldiers, want a troop withdrawal within this year. The “notable” difference, I believe, is that there was a broader radical movement around the world, certainly in 1968, than there is today. That makes the antiwar movement, here and globally, a surprising development, it seems to me. There is an exit strategy available, with some support even within the Pentagon, but it is unlikely that Bush will adopt it. The strategy would consist of a U.S. announcement of withdrawal, a cease-fire by the Iraqi resistance during the withdrawal, an international peacekeeping force composed of countries not involved in the occupation, a transitional coalition in Baghdad, new elections under international auspices, a peacetime reconstruction, and reparations from the U.S. And UK. Advertisement Recent trends in Latin America make it appear that it is no longer an American backyard. Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay are some of the countries that are taking an independent path to political and economic development. It would appear that with the expected election of Lopez Obrador, Mexico may soon join that list. What can we expect from the Bush administration with respect to Latin America in the coming months? I have traveled extensively in Latin America since 2000, and it is a place of exciting and dramatic developments, as you know. I think progressives across our boundaries should propose a new U.S. Latin American policy “beyond the Monroe Doctrine.” We in the U.S. also must invigorate solidarity movements like those towards Central America and Cuba in past decades. It is a dangerous period because of the Bush administration. Towards Cuba, their malign intentions are well known. Towards Venezuela, they are defining a new security threat of “radical populism,” and seeking ways to destabilize the democratically elected government. Even assassination of Hugo Chavez is an option that some are considering. On the trade front, the Bush team will try to divide Latin American countries through bilateral trade agreements. In the Andes, they will continue to send U.S. troops under the cover of the war on drugs. Latin America, along with U.S. social movements, has defeated the so-called Free Trade Agreement of the Americas for the foreseeable future. In general, the response to the Venezuelan initiative has been positive or neutral. Objections by some members of Congress is to be expected, because they want to prevent any U.S. acceptance of the Chavez government. Of course it is a contradiction. Unfortunately, there is little media attention to the issue up here. But the issue is a definite complication for the Bush administration’s efforts to improve its status in Latin America. You were one of the Chicago 7 that Leonard Weinglass defended in 1968. Now Mr. Weinglass is one of the lead lawyers in the case of the Cuban Five. Do you think that anyone sympathetic to the Cuban revolution can get a fair trial in Miami? I have read the materials concerning the case, and believe it is a great untold story here. Of course, Leonard Weinglass is one of our greatest defense lawyers and is working constantly to generate political and media interest in the Cuban Five. No, a Cuban revolutionary cannot get a fair trial in Miami. But I believe the grip of the anti-Castro Cubans over Latin American policy has been weakened severely by events in Latin America and the recent growth of a vast Latino and immigrant movement in the United States. They always have and always will. Bush is imposing a frustration on all of us, apparently to placate his Cuban allies in Miami. Who knows, but I think Bush will be marked with illegitimacy for the stolen election of 2000, fabrication and failure in Iraq, corruption and unconstitutional spying at home. Perhaps he will face impeachment, perhaps not. Certainly he is going through his Watergate moment today. It is important to speak of the system, however, not simply Bush. Since the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has attempted to be the sole superpower in a so-called unipolar world. But its efforts towards military and economic empire have faltered and will be, in a sense, re-negotiated. As Hugo Chavez and others have argued, the reality is that we live in a multipolar world. The combination of massive social movements and the multipolarity of power will prevail over any forces seeking to dominate. As they say, another world is not only possible but is already being created. The United States cannot succeed with superpower tactics even on the baseball field. I know the horrors of U.S. imperialism in Latin America, but I hope that Latin American nationalists will welcome and reach out to the “American people,” especially those in social movements and independent media but also those in political and economic sectors who have no interest in blockades, subversion, assassination or economic dominance. We are here, and our numbers are growing, especially because of the immigrants who are the “harvest of empire” [in the words of Juan Gonzales]. Those who live in the imperial center cannot be expected to “come to power” any time soon, but can restrain and complicate aggression and forge new policies which have the support of a majority of the U.S. people—out of Iraq, support for energy alternatives, funding for Katrina victims instead of war, civil liberties instead of secret tribunals and policing, no intervention in Venezuela, lifting the blockade on Cuba, and so forth. Strong support for such measures not only makes imperialism more difficult to sustain, but lays the basis for a broad center-left alternative which actually can succeed in the U.S. in the years ahead. It has nearly happened here before, in the 1930s and ‘40s before the Cold War, and again in the 1960s. Such moments will come again. Previous item: Foreclosing a Media Debate on U.S. Policies Toward Israel Next item: Molly Ivins: The Daily Drip of Special Favors for Special Interests New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By William, January 12, 2009 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Tim Bickford, you see the symptoms but not the problem. Capitalism is the medium with which the few oppress the many. It is through the trickery of the monetary system that they harness their wealth and influence at the expense of reasonable decent people.
explore democratic socialism.
Report thisBy Tim Bickford, April 15, 2006 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Bush’s ruthless War is on Middle Class Working Americans. It is their tax money his profiteers have been robbing. It is their children he has been sending to become occupiers in an illegal preemptive War. They are the ones who pay outrageous health insurance premiums to cover the uninsured and the profiteering by our Pharmacutical industry.
All these actions provide corporate influences with their global initiatives at the cost of a reasonable middle class. Workers are suppose to work far in excess of 40 hours in order to pay the increasing bills. Lets not forget the profiteering of the energy industry on those who only want some electricity and to stay warm.
There are multiple of areas where protests should be louder. We need to end this war and remember how to truly pursue PEACE.
Report thisBy Richard La Brecque, April 12, 2006 at 11:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I like Hayden’s conception of democracy; reminds me of Dewey’s conception of democracy as a “form of associated living”. As Hayden puts it democracy is not some mechanical contraption but a deep, psychic disposition as to how to deal with conflict. It’s what might be called the “culture of democracy”.
Report thisBy nate, April 10, 2006 at 9:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
the powers that be,have 110% scorred thier target in creating caose in places that cant touch americans, after the small cost of two new york office buildings,the moniplelation will go on for centures and all people will suffer, never knowing the truth,or even whanting to.
Report thisBy Jack Shultz, April 10, 2006 at 8:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
In Latin America, the beat goes on. An election is taking place in Peru, and the likely winner will be Ollanta Humala. Here’s a bio on the man from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ollanta_Humala
And in France, the protests of the students and the unions have succeeded in turning back the legislation to “produce more flexibility in the labour market” by undermining the rights of young workers.
In the US, hundreds of thousands are in the streets today in protest to the new tougher immigration laws.
Momentum seems to be gathering for real change, for a reawakening. Is it possible?
Report thisBy Carmelita McQuillan, April 10, 2006 at 7:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“The strategy would consist of a U.S. announcement of withdrawal, a cease-fire by the Iraqi resistance during the withdrawal, an international peacekeeping force composed of countries not involved in the occupation…”
Why should countries not involved in the occupation be expected to go in there to clean up the mess and put themselves at risk? That’s what’s happening in Afghanistan at the moment. Peacekeeping doesn’t even come into it any more. Anybody in a uniform is a target.
Report thisBy Joseph Ponessa, April 9, 2006 at 8:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Interesting article.
Report thisYou do not mention Brazil, which mandated ethanol a number of years ago and is the most alternative-energy major state in the world, yet recently hosted a summit of Latin American and Middle Eastern leaders which forged an informal alliance. Is there some reason for not mentioning Brazil, along with Venezuela, Uruguay, Bolivia, Mexico and Cuba? On a multipolar planet, Brazil has the size to constitute a major player.
By Roger Drowne EC, April 9, 2006 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Hello Tom… Great Read
Here R the ideas we have been working on 4 30 years…
A Way 2 Help All People Join Together
and
RE - DO OUR Global Community
With A Minium of Conflict…
http://www.OneGlobalCommunity.com
feedback wanted, Thanks, RogerART.com
Report this