To chime in with Doug's comment on the Left's attitude towards the
"militias", I'm concerned that many leftists have gotten too caught up in
the new media obsession with the armed Right. Perhaps it's the PC version
of the OJ trial. I asked one person what exactly was the use of this new
obsession on the militias and he admitted it was just morbid fascination.
But some people seem to take it for granted that it's very important to
know all the arcana of these right-wing grouplets. Witness the slew of
articles in the Progressive and even my beloved Nation. To me the only real
political purpose of such study of the militias would be either you think
these groups might actually be in a position to seize power in the
forseeable future and you want to prepare yourself to flee quickly or go
undergraound (I doubt whether anyone on this list believes this) or you
think that their terrorism is going to increase to become a meaningful part
of political life that has to be responded to (like anti-abortion attacks
on women's health clinics -- which is getting more newsprint?) or you want
to understand how these groups are appealing to mass discontent, the better
to formulate left strategy. I take this last to be the angle of Doug's
post. I would like to see some evidence that these groups represent a
greater threat to democracy and freedom than those now in power (e.g.
Clinton just gave away habeas corpus -- according to this "compromise", you
get ONE appeal in federal court...)
Perhaps that the current craze has some roots in nostalgia for
simpler days when it was Communists vs. Fascists and all the cool kids
were on the right side and you didn't have to spend time explaining to
people things like why the deficit crisis is bogus and why "welfare reform"
is an oxymoron...
-Bob Naiman
on the Urbana front...
http://www.wri.com:80/~naiman/
