Date: Tue, 17 Sep 96 06:59:59 UT
From: "Ang " <uls-AT-msn.com>
Subject: RE: Muddled Thinking on Korea,  Iraq,  Vietnam


Louis is correct that:

"Concerning my recent criticisms of Rakesh's view of domestic Vietnam war 
dissent,   "Ang" is skeptical:

Louis, by the way, there's no need to put my name 
in quotes - it's needlessly offensive.    Isn't it sufficient to 
simply respond to the substance of my post - do you really 
care about who did the writing?  Do I have to show my 
driver's license at the door?)

You say:

" A much more profound poll--the results of  which our
head-shaking,  incredulous "Ang" and Rakesh may more easily find at the public 
library,  occurred in 1968 and 1972,   while the Vietnam War still raged (and 
not as "recently" as ten 
years after!).    In 1968,   Nixon and Wallace won together nearly 64 per cent 
of the vote;  four years later,
Nixon,  already besieged by scandal  and still ensconced 
in the Vietnam quagmire,   won a resounding victory over 
the candidate most closely identified with the view that the war was 
"fundamentally wrong and immoral."

A profound poll?  Profound in what sense?  Since 
when does an election represent the views of the American public?  Which is 
more comprehensive - a poll which is allegedly taken from a statistically 
significant cross-section
of the population, or by an election, where only people who believe in the 
"democratic process" participate?

Then, Louis goes on - not citing any poll or study, third-hand 
or otherwise, (presumably the following consisted of his 
own personal examination):

"An examination of the demographics of American public opinion confirm that, 
overwhelmingly,  the lower middle 
and working classes supported either vigorously pursuing
 the war to victory (Wallace) or,  at the very least,
salvaging American "honor"  (with "peace",  of course,  as Dick himself
would tell us--if he only could) by "gradually" disengaging 
"our boys" from
the "our" Vietnam  "nightfmare."    These are not the actions of a populace 
convinced in any meaningful way of the war's fundamental "immorality."   

If you are correct, Louis, I'd like to know.  If I shouldn't take Chomsky's 
word for it, why should I take yours instead?

Louis, then says:

I'm not sure what,  if anything,  this has to do with my 
original argument that the antiwar movement had a much narrower base and was 
seen by most people as being predicated more on the perceived self-interest of 
students, intellectuals,  and other elites, than on any mass base.    

Louis, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not an "argument"
I would like to know if there is any resource we can point to 
that would definitively indicate the level of American support for the antiwar 
movement and what that consisted of.  Either it 
had a narrow base, or it didn't.  It's not an argument that 
should be decided on based upon which is more logical or persuasive.

Louis again:
 
"This in spite of the tattered lacunae of "human rights" and "moral" issues 
which were for a time floated before an increasingly disinterested public."    


Increasingly disinterested public.  Prove it Louis.  
That's what I'm questioning.  And unfortunately, your opinion just isn't 
enough.

FinalIy, Louis 

"caution(s) both "Ang" and Rakesh against accepting convoluted theories of 
mass feeling and opinion which,  clearly,  fly in the face of common sense; 
above all,  be skeptical of wishful thinking.  Even if it is all gussied up in 
books by 
notable and normally sensible scholars."

I won't give up my "wishful thinking" unless I'm forced to.   
Why should I assume the worst?  Can you gussy up your "argument" in books by 
notable and normally sensible scholars?

         	           Ang, that's my name, not my game.


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---