The Euston Manifesto

[barb162]

(an interesting new liberal /progressive group 's statement of principles; the participants all appear to be based in Britain)
The Euston Manifesto
Wednesday, 29 March 2006
A. Preamble
We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.

The present initiative has its roots in and has found a constituency through the Internet, especially the "blogosphere". It is our perception, however, that this constituency is under-represented elsewhere — in much of the media and the other forums of contemporary political life.

The broad statement of principles that follows is a declaration of intent. It inaugurates a new Website, which will serve as a resource for the current of opinion it hopes to represent and the several foundation blogs and other sites that are behind this call for a progressive realignment.

B. Statement of principles
1) For democracy.
We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures — freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold.

snip


http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=1

[Greeby]

1. Read closer the foreign policy section

It's a British PNAC :scared:

[barb162]

4. will do; but they seem like a group of university people

I read it once but will do that section again

[barb162]

5. re-read it ; they are against racism, for human rights for all, etc

so I am wondering which part(s)aren't kopasetic. WHere do you find the info they are a PNAC?

[Teaser]

2. Oh god, don't spread this shit around

it's been snarked to death. These clowns are just being mocked everywhere.

[barb162]

3. what does snark mean and what is so odd about a new

porogressive group which is pro-equality, anti racist, etc

[Warren Stupidity]

7. They aren't.

The text is clearly an anti-left tract carefully massaged with feel good progressive generalities. It isn't all bad until you realize that they have basically painted the left as holocaust denying worshippers of Mao. But more fundamentally the doctrine clearly states that the Iraq war was just dandy as it was justified by all that Baathist brutality and that all good leftists should of course support the continued occcupation of Iraq and wholesale slaughter of Iraqis until the Iraqis who are left alive wake up and accept the damn democracy we are trying to force on them. Really, no thanks.

[barb162]

10. Most progressive statements of this sort are general in nature

They have to be or they will be books. I would disagree with the part about worshippers of Mao though I am sure there are still a few (very few)around. I think most people agree we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and that Saddam was/is a murdering a-----e, but we definitely shouldn't have gone in there.

[Teaser]

14. These guys are wothless clowns

tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/04/we-were-liberals-once-and-had-dry.html

[Warren Stupidity]

15. The generalities were for the most part unexceptionable

As I and others have pointed out, these folks are fine with what they call 'interventions', and make no effort to otherwise address the illegal and immoral imperial adventurism of Bush and Blair. We are in the midst of a hideous violent occupation of oil rich Iraq and about to set out on a similar adventure against oil rich Iran, and these idiots are pretending it is all about human rights. As I said, thanks but no thanks, I want no part of liberal hawks.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Uh, thanks but no thanks.

I got to this gem:

"The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted — rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention."

Sorry but this is yet another apology for american exceptionalism and for our continued occupation of Iraq. The proper concern of the american people, left right and center was and is to force our government to stop killing foreigners in illegal and immoral acts of aggression.

There are major problems in the rest of the document as well. For example:
"6) Opposing anti-Americanism.
We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people."

The Italics are all mine. What an astounding misstatement of at least this 'left liberal's 'infection' with 'anti-americanism'. I am not prejudiced against the people of america, I despise what our vile government is doing around the planet and that cannot be dismissed as slightly as that emphasized statement does. Is there no comprehension at all within this group of the role our nation is now playing in world affairs? How blind are they?

[barb162]

11. Not to defend it but what I think they might have been getting

at is that almost all nations mostly act in some way or another in their own self-interest, whether they think they are above it or not. Somehow the US gets attacked for doing that more than others who are doing the exact same thing. When there is a crisis in some part of the world you see people getting interviewed and it's why isn't the US doing something about this? Remember Bosnia? Where's the US????!!!??? Why isn't the US doing anything? We tend to get damned either way. My guess as to what they meant. (And where's the UN?)

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Trying to rehabilitate themselves after they supported the Iraq war

The leading members, such as Norman Geras (professor) and Nick Cohen (journalist) are prominent commentators on the left who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq. They have since received a lot of criticism from the rest of the left (and centre, for that matter) and the reason for this manifesto seems to be to 'draw a line under the Iraqi invasion'. They know they sided with a right wing money and power grab, are are trying to gloss over that.

They say they are against "picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention" ('intervention'? They make it sound like the US was a referee stepping in to stop a boxing match), but still claim a right (indeed, a responsibility) to intervene (there's that word again) in states that don't meet basic human rights standards - saying the state no longer has sovereignty in that case. But this 'right' goes to "the international community", without the United Nations being mentioned once, or how the international community makes such a decision to invade (sorry, 'intervene'). So they haven't addressed the elephant in the room - what stops Bush making up shit as a justification to invade another country, and calling himself the 'international community' because the Marshall Islands agree with him?

They won't get taken seriously until they have gone through the arguments for intervention. Otherwise they'll find themselves supporting the next annexation of an oil rich country, and all they'll be able to say is "well, there are other countries we'd like invaded first, but it's up to that nice Mr. Bush to decide which order he does it in".

[Warren Stupidity]

13. exactly. nt.

[godhatesrepublicans]

8. You want to read a real statement of principles? Read this.

Now THIS is how it's done people. Where's the leader today that can match FDR?


http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/fdr-econbill.html

Franklin D. Roosevelt
“The Economic Bill of Rights”
Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

source: The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Samuel Rosenman, ed.), Vol XIII (NY: Harper, 1950), 40-42

12 How. 152: “Necessitous men,” says the Lord Chancellor, in Vernon v Bethell, 2 Eden 113 (1762), “are not, truly speaking, free men; but, to answer a present emergency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose on them.”

[barb162]

9. Those are beautiful words and FDR was in a class by himself

An amazing man

And welcome to DU

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. I'd just like to add this Guardian blog entry

(Mornington Crescent is the next Tube station to Euston; I assume everyone is familiar with the game, but if not, a web search will give you the full rules).

I think I got off at the wrong Tube stop on my way to the meeting that all those people were having about reinventing the left. Anyway, I didn't want to waste the evening, so I found a local pub and sat down to have a go at drafting my own manifesto. Unfortunately one thing led to another, and what with the curry, the fight and the transvestites, I lost most of the really good stuff. I put this together from my rough notes, but it captures the essence of the thing.

The Mornington Crescent Manifesto

1. Blah, blah, blah, motherhood and apple pie. Dearly beloved, we are gathered here to join these two young people in holy matrimony.

2. We represent the traditions of the progressive left but also of the democratic right. Unless you're in the southern hemisphere, in which case we represent the traditions of the democratic left and the progressive right. Or is it the other way round?

3. Free speech, democracy, women's rights, EVERYBODYHASTOAGREEWITHMEABOUTIRAQ, anti-racism, equality.

4. Globalisation. Dynamic economy, technology, ANDABOUTISRAELTOOYOUBASTARDS, free trade, fair trade, rough trade, passing trade.
...
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_davies/2006/04/introducing_the_mornington_cre.html

:evilgrin: