So why the great gap between popular sentiment and effective antiwar action? I submit that the war parties, Democrat and Republican, very effectively use a divide and conquer tactic--and the antiwar forces play into it, usually quite eagerly. So when some on the left have good things to say about Ron Paul, the sterile lefty ideologues quickly change the subject. If that does not work, those who speak favorably of Paul are excoriated for being right wingers in our innermost thoughts, which we ourselves cannot plumb, we are told, although the psychoanalysts of the left can. And if that does not work, the thought nannies tell us that Ron Paul is a Nazi, another Hitler, who is to be opposed at all costs. That kind of stuff emanates especially strongly from the precincts of the New Republic, which has been calling for Paul's head ever since he dared say "AIPAC" in public. In so doing the asps at TNR are merely repeating the hate campaign against Pat Buchanan whom they and their allies at the National Review labeled an anti-Semite. And so the antiwar left is manipulated into avoiding alliances, which might actually make some headway. Thus we have the spectacle of progressives who eschew alliances that might make--well, progress.
The same is true on the other side. The Paleos and to a lesser degree the Libertarians cannot put aside differences with Greens and other leftists long enough to make headway against war and empire. As soon as common cause begins to be made, then the specter of increased social spending is raised by the Libertarians and of creeping secularism by the Paleos. Because everyone wants only allies that are in complete agreement, no alliances are made. And presto, the ruling war parties have divided and conquered.
