Repealing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force is a prerequisite for a more restrained US foreign policy. But it barely scratches the surface.
I always appreciate your columns, Daniel. I'm troubled by the simplicity of your conclusion and I'm not sure I agree. I think material conditions dictate that no anti-imperialist CAN be elected President because one MUST be an imperialist to gain the baseline of necessary support. And if a potential candidate does have any kind of anti-imperialist sympathies they will be weeded out of the process at an early stage.
Even Bernie, who I'm sure many of us love, was no anti-imperialist crusader. He wasn't pro-military either but I have no doubt that had he become President he would've given the military what they want if doing so would have advanced his domestic agenda. So I guess I'd like to hear you expand on why you think this approach is effective. For me I think your second point in the conclusion is far more salient - we must develop and amass institutional power that can counter and apply pressure to the executive branch and the military industrial complex.
I think electoralism is a tool that is only useful insofar as certain preconditions have been met. At a bare minimum an electoral strategy requires a theory of change and a base of power - I don't see either right now. BOTH political parties (in a two party system) are imperialist. That means the choice for theory of change is either third party (basically impossible) or entryism on one of the two major parties. Entryism will take decades, most likely, and requires starting at smaller levels of local and state government to build up a stable of committed anti-imperialists who can advance through the party ranks. And entryism has to be performed not only on the party itself but on the MASSIVE ecosystem of think tanks, consultancy groups, and funders that are the essential life blood of the party. Once this ecosystem has been overtaken (again, DECADES) then you have a base of power from which to exert pressure using the party's own machinery. So when you say "electoralism" I'm not sure if you mean all of this stuff I just said or if you just mean 'vote for the one who least likes war in the primaries' - if it's the latter then that's neither a theory of change nor will there be a power base to support anti-imperialist actions.
I don’t think entryism makes sense for foreign policy. FP is such an elite-driven issue area that you can actually make change with not that many people and fairly quickly—historically speaking.
I always appreciate your columns, Daniel. I'm troubled by the simplicity of your conclusion and I'm not sure I agree. I think material conditions dictate that no anti-imperialist CAN be elected President because one MUST be an imperialist to gain the baseline of necessary support. And if a potential candidate does have any kind of anti-imperialist sympathies they will be weeded out of the process at an early stage.
Even Bernie, who I'm sure many of us love, was no anti-imperialist crusader. He wasn't pro-military either but I have no doubt that had he become President he would've given the military what they want if doing so would have advanced his domestic agenda. So I guess I'd like to hear you expand on why you think this approach is effective. For me I think your second point in the conclusion is far more salient - we must develop and amass institutional power that can counter and apply pressure to the executive branch and the military industrial complex.
Thanks for writing Brian! Do you mind clarify what you mean by the “approach” you’re referring to? Then I’ll respond!
The approach being electoralism - electing an anti-imperialist to take down the system from the top.
Oh absolutely: I don’t see any other way. Revolution is not on the table as far as I’m concerned. What’s your take?
I think electoralism is a tool that is only useful insofar as certain preconditions have been met. At a bare minimum an electoral strategy requires a theory of change and a base of power - I don't see either right now. BOTH political parties (in a two party system) are imperialist. That means the choice for theory of change is either third party (basically impossible) or entryism on one of the two major parties. Entryism will take decades, most likely, and requires starting at smaller levels of local and state government to build up a stable of committed anti-imperialists who can advance through the party ranks. And entryism has to be performed not only on the party itself but on the MASSIVE ecosystem of think tanks, consultancy groups, and funders that are the essential life blood of the party. Once this ecosystem has been overtaken (again, DECADES) then you have a base of power from which to exert pressure using the party's own machinery. So when you say "electoralism" I'm not sure if you mean all of this stuff I just said or if you just mean 'vote for the one who least likes war in the primaries' - if it's the latter then that's neither a theory of change nor will there be a power base to support anti-imperialist actions.
I don’t think entryism makes sense for foreign policy. FP is such an elite-driven issue area that you can actually make change with not that many people and fairly quickly—historically speaking.