NOtesonline

John Kerry for War President

The convoys are under fire in Iraq. Our Special Forces are stalking Al Queda in the Hindu Kush. And at home President George W. Bush is pressing rival candidate John Kerry in fierce debate about the war. . . the war in Vietnam.

One can understand why the Bush campaign doesn't want to talk plainly about what lies ahead in Iraq: predictions about will happen have proved treacherous, and the road ahead is bound to be grim. Before the war started Social Democrats, USA, endorsed the removal of the monsterous Saddam Hussein, but our resolution also warned that :

It is possible that the first phase of a military campaign will be short, and that casualties will be few. But the perils of war are too often underestimated, and there are signs that some Bush advisers may be unduly self-confident, especially when it comes to security problems that may persist after the present Iraqi leadership has been dealt with.

But even we, in honesty, did not imagine the virulence of the plagues that afflict that unhappy land. The situation in Iraq and throughout the Middle East is too dire for those who have criticisms of what the Bush Administration has done -- and there is much to criticize -- simply to natter on about all that has gone wrong. Democrats must set forward a clear and unflinching program of their own for preventing Bush Administration blunders from bringing on a catastrophic collapse in Iraq and throughout the region.

This is a decisive moment for John Kerry's presidential campaign. He did, with some justification, express reservations about the war in Iraq. The Democratic Party has a strong anti-war constituency, which no candidate for its nomination would have provoked during the primary campaign. But the best way now to answer the Bush Administration's onslaught about Kerry's own record will be for him to set out in no uncertain terms what he will do about Iraq, and other issues that entangle it.

John Kerry won his medals by turning his boat straight into the enemy guns. The way to smash through attacks on his alleged ambiguity and opportunism is for Kerry now to lay out his commitment to win the war against Iraq's die-hards, and to explain clearly how he would do it. At this point there can be no capitulation, and the triangulation that some Kerry advisors are bound to be urging only plays into the strategy of the Bush campaign.

Kerry is right to emphasize the importance of the political and diplomatic tracks. He can win support at home by arguing that he will be better able to mend the torn fabric of our international relationships. But anything that sounds as if he is trying to foist the security mess in Iraq onto the U.N. or our "allies" will seem fishy. Security on the ground will require more U.S. troops, and Kerry has called for them. It will also require more money, and taxes on the wealthy. At times it will demand aggressive military tactics. There will be more casualties.

Kerry is also right to recognize that stability is necessary for democracy to take root. But movement toward democracy, especially in a fragmented society such as Iraq, is necessary to help achieve stability. The so-called "realists" on the Middle East, who counsel collaboration with whatever forces have influence at the moment, have been shown to be our most deluded ideologues.

There is a strong case to be made that George Bush has not taken the central enterprise of his Administration seriously enough. Now we are in a situation that calls for someone who understands the relentless logic of real war. John Kerry has been there. He can make the appeal for the sacrifices that will be needed. And the right thing to do in Iraq is also the right thing to do for his campaign.

Workforce Task Force Calls for National Skills Campaign

A Task Force on Workforce Development sponsored by the Albert Shanker Institute and the New Economy Information Center has just published an analysis of trends in the American labor market and a set of recommendations for "a far-reaching transformation of our strategies and programs or workforce development." (The full report can be accessed at www.newecon.org/TFReport4-20-04.pdf)

The report argues that, while training is no panacea, the good jobs of the future will require skills and education. The American labor movement has a record and a capability that provide opportunities for unions in assistance with training and professional development. The strategy advocated by this Task Force shuns "top-down government programs" in favor of on-the-ground learning partnerships that involve business, labor, educators and local government. These partnerships can be assisted by "learning representatives" at the work site who have the confidence of their fellow employees--a concept being put into practice now in Britain. Additional federal resources will be needed to train and assist those involved in these partnerships: the report calls for an additional $3 billion for the federal Workforce Development Act to reach incumbent workers. (At present our workforce training efforts target those who do not have jobs, which does little to keep existing business competitive.)

The Task Force was made up of an impressive group from labor, business, and academia, and Co-Chaired by AFT President Sandra Feldman and CWA President Morton Bahr.

Behind the Bush Administration's Rejection of the AFL-CIO Challenge on China Trade

Signs of stress are emerging on all sides in China, stirring speculation that the system is slipping into crisis. Beijing's recent declaration that it will not accept a democratically elected government in Hong Kong was so showy and arrogant that some read it as a nervous warning to the Chinese people and the world: the Communist leadership is will react harshly to any challenge.

The challenge the Party worries about is not simply Hong Kong itself, or Taiwan, or even China's small and embattled democracy movement. It is more likely the prospect that the same practices that brought on the Asian economic crisis in 1997 now threaten to burst the speculative bubble that has been building up in the Chinese economy.["China: The New Bubble"]

Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that the Chinese government secretly ordered a moratorium on all bank lending in China. The government immediately and implausibly denied this. This deceptiveness simply confirmed what many financial analysts have been saying: China's bank-financed investment has long been fraught with sloppiness and corruption, and the chickens are coming home to roost. [For an excellent analysis go to: Stratfor.]

The heart of the matter is China's totalitarian political system, which has been sold to the world as a mechanism that maintains the order that enables the Chinese economy to flourish. If cronyism and corruption in the political system instead make that system a source of economic crisis, what legitimacy is left to its aging bosses?

As China's economic difficulties become more manifest, the authorities have begun to harden. Political reforms that some U.S. democracy supporters had hoped would move China toward rule of law -- greater independence for the courts, village elections, academic freedoms -- have been rolled back. The State Department's Bureau For Democracy, Human Rights and Labor even felt compelled to introduce a resolution criticizing Chinese human rights practices at the recent United Nations Human Rights Commission. (It failed.)

But others in the Bush Administration have reacted to China's problems by bending over backwards to help the regime preserve an appearance of stability. During a visit to China this month Vice President Cheney spoke glowingly of the "amazing relationship" between the U.S. and China. And yesterday no fewer than four Cabinet officers turned out in Washington to announce that the Administration was rejecting an AFL-CIO petition to impose tariffs on China for denying its workers the right to organize and bargain collectively.

AFL-CIO officials argue that repression of labor rights enables Chinese companies to lower their labor costs by amounts that range from 47 to 86 percent of what a market economy would allow. This unfair trade advantage is a violation of Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. The Federation's petition was the first time this law was invoked in a labor rights matter.

Bush Administration help for steadying the Chinese government and economy is not without election year considerations. If the Chinese bubble bursts, economic effects could be felt world-wide. The impact at home might not help the President's re-election. But how and when the inevitable reckoning comes may not be something the Administration can control.

Neo-Neo-Cons

The Italian weekly Il Foglio recently described Social Democrats, USA as "neo-conservatives with a human face." We've been called a lot worse. Some of us appreciate the difficulties of crafting accurate labels for political positions that don't correspond exactly to the simplistic red/blue, liberal/conservative, left/right, hawk/dove divide -- a divide that the Washington Post says today defines America's two countries. Nevertheless, despite its nuance, Il Foglio's description will no doubt provoke its share of objections in our modest and always argumentative community.

How should the SD be described? Perhaps, copying media fashion, we should hold a contest -- first prize: a ticket to next year's Oscar Night with Ron and Allis Radosh, whose Red Star Over Hollywood, a book about Communist influence in the film colony, will be published this fall by Encounter Books.

That term "neo-conservative" has recently been undergoing a kind of mission creep. Our recollection is that it was first used by the late Michael Harrington in polemics against those on the left who did not share his enthusiasm for SDS and certain currents in the anti-Vietnam war movement. The term was recently refurbished for use as a cultish, vaguely sinister label for describing Bush Administration figures who pressed hard to take out Saddam Hussein. A cottage industry of exegisis and commentary arose around this subject. (One engaging piece you may not have seen -- Bill King's Neo-Conservatives and Trotskyism, deals with the dismay some old guard conservatives developed when they encountered these zealous neos.

One of the distinguishing features of the first wave of neo-conservatives was its stress on the "war of ideas." During the 1970s and '80s they argued that our universities, cultural institutions, publishing houses and journalism had fallen under the sway of a new leftism that was indulgent toward communism and wrong about group rights, the causes of crime, and its cynicism toward American institutions. A favorite maxim was taken from title of a 1948 book by conservative thinker Richard Weaver: "Ideas Have Consequences."

It is curious that what is now being called neo-conservativism has a much greater fascination with the exercise of power than with the contest of ideas. Adversaries are to be defeated, not proven wrong or convinced. Some discussions of Middle East strategy even recall the "propaganda of the deed" that once inflamed old-time anarchists and Russian populists. Actions speak louder than words; America must become what bin Laden called "the strong horse."

To be sure, the violent ravings of Middle Eastern extremists do not invite serious intellectual response. But contemporary attitudes in Europe are another matter. Reasoning people on both sides of the Atlantic ought to join to rebut the anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and cynicism that is taking hold in significant sectors of European opinion. There is a role here for something like the early Congress for Cultural Freedom, the later Committee For The Free World, and the work done by U.S. "public diplomacy" specialists during the Cold War. There are many Europeans who are dismayed by the popularity of Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky in their bookstores and on their campuses, but they don't have much contact with one another or with Americans who share their concerns. So far, the neo-neo-cons haven't shown much interest. Could this be a job for . . . the neo-Social Democrats?

Robert Kleiman

Robert Kleiman, former New York Times editor, authority on transatlantic relations, and husband of SD National Committee member Mary Temple Kleiman, died at his Washington home on March 22nd. Bob Kleiman served as at the Voice of America and the Office of War Information in WWII, then shipped out to Burma to lead a psychological warfare team that colleagues have described as the model for others that followed. After the war he went to Europe as a correspondent for U.S. News and CBS, coming home to join the member of The New York Times Editorial Board in 1963. After leaving the Times he wrote and taught widely about U.S./ European relations.

Mary's address is 4100 Cathedral Avenue, NW, Washington, Apt. #708, Washington, DC 20016.

NOtesonline

NOtesonline is an electronic bulletin of news and information for the social democratic community. Penn Kemble is the volunteer editor of NOtesonline and is responsible for its contents and errors.

To update your own e-mail address, or to be taken off our list, e-mail us at: notes@notesonline.cc. We are eager to add to our list the names and e-mail addresses of individuals who share our outlook and might appreciate this bulletin. Please send them to the e-mail address above. We look forward to hearing from our readers about items that you think deserve mention.

As always, NOtesonline is grateful for contributions its readers make to defray our costs.  To make a contribution, make your tax-deductible check payable to The League for Industrial Democracy, and mail it to: P.O. Box 18866, Washington, DC 20036.