What MIM would like to talk about regarding Saddam Hussein's court case and struggle is the lack of struggle by the anti-war movement in the united $tates. MIM hopes there is not a single persyn in the anti-war movement condemning Saddam Hussein during his trial and sentencing by u.$. lackeys. Saddam Hussein put his all into defeating the invasion by u.$. imperialists and it is unlikely that his oppressed nation of Iraq will be defeated by u.$. imperialism.
We cannot say the same of the u.$. anti-war movement, which should be in the dock with Bush & Blair as accomplices. We're sick of the "dissent is patriotic" stickers.
The anti-war movement seems content with expressing dissent and thus cleansing the consciences of individuals. It were as if Amerikan anti-war activists were gathering up brownie points in Heaven for pure thoughts about the afterlife or perhaps that is all they can manage to do after all the psychic expenditures on behalf of politically correct language.
How about just go kick some ass? How many of our readers just can't say it, because it's not good college-educated language, because it smacks of patriarchal domination even. In other words, I wonder just how useless our educated people are.
These same people will go on to make jokes about the Taliban and their Christian brethren in the Red States. Yet even the Taliban is more concerned about this world than the u.$. anti-war movement.
While even multi-millionaire sons of Saddam Hussein go out guns-ablazin', the u.$. anti-war movement contents itself with snide remarks about the lack of "education" of the Red States that voted for Bu$h.
True, absolutely, the 15 states out of 50 with the lowest proportion of college education all voted for Bush in 2004, while only 4 out of the top 15 states by percentage of population with college degrees voted for Bush.(1) There is also much discussion of IQ via standardized tests. The SAT is the main standardized test for college admissions in the united $tates. Another major one is the ACT. There are other tests for specific subjects. A website supposedly debunking a link between SAT scores and votes for Democrats nonetheless showed that 13 of the bottom 16 states (including DC as a state) were for Bush.(2)
MIM is going to cut through the b.s. even further than the Google research team and various Internet "debunkers." North Dakota came out on top in SAT scores,(3) because only 4% of North Dakota took the SAT test to begin with compared with 85% in SAT-loving New Jersey. People who take the SAT in North Dakota are thinking about going to colleges that want the SATs. They are the most nationally-oriented in thinking they should not just take the ACT test.
Among states with at least 70% SAT participation and average SAT scores over 1000, not a single one voted for Bush. By itself, that may not mean much, because all states with at least 70% SAT participation voted for Kerry. It could show those states are college-oriented or it could show that analysts overlook the ACT test. On the whole, based on just this much information, we are suspicious already of the Bush activists in denial about their education level, because at the very least we have to admit that the SAT is the dominant educational test and people who take it are interested in colllege. Even taking the lousy test is some kind of indication of a state's interest in college as a whole.
In the second-highest participation range, the 50% to 69% SAT participation range, we start to learn the truth. Out of 8 states in that range that had SAT scores over 1000, Kerry won 5 the next year. Bush won all four states with SAT scores below 1000 in this participation range.
All the other states not already discussed in the highest and second-highest participation ranges had SAT participation rates of 38% or lower. None had SAT scores below 1000. Obviously those doing best in school took the SAT where the SAT is not popular.
We can also slice it the way the SAT test-producers sliced it themselves. They see an average state participation rate of 48% and an average score of 1026. So the mark of pride for a state is to have over 48% participate and still score higher than a score of 1026 on SATs. It's difficult to say much about North Dakota, with only 4% participating.
There are 24 states (including DC as a state) in 2003 that had a participation rate over 48%, the average for all states. Among those 24 states but adding the condition that scores average 1026 or better, Bush lost 6 out 7. That 7th was Alaska, not exactly adding a lot of people to Bush's tally or the Republican Party claim to being equally "smart" as Democrats.
When we turn to the ACT test, we have a similar cut-off. In 2000, 38% was the average participation rate in the ACT test by state. 21.0 was the average score.(4) So the real trick for a state is to have more than 38% participate in the ACT and still score higher than 21.0 on average. That includes Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming. So Bush did well in this group and we would have to combine it with his wipe out loss in the SAT group with higher participation rates.
Based on Bush's showing in the above-average ACT group, there might be some tendency for some to say that the ACT is just being ignored. Colleges that take the SAT are not better etc. This would be to forget that if college graduation is any measure, the ACT states are disproportionately from the lower-end achievement states, so we can interpret it as Bush winning only among the upper end of the bottom.
Even if we take a completely friendly outlook on the ACT-oriented states, if we take that approach and buy the ACT as the Republican test, then it still remains true that Bush won every pro-ACT state where ACT participation rates exceeded 38% but average scores fell below 21.0--10 states, including Bush's largest prizes, Texas and Florida. This result combined with the result for percentage of a state that is college-educated and the picture for bottom-dwellers on SATs results in a total and damning picture of the Bush state--a nasty white-dominated state which does not do as well in school as others. Adding to the picture, Bush won his lowest vote total--45%--among the 16% of voters with the highest education, post-graduate work.(5)
And if we are going to talk about size, then Bush's beloved Texas where he administered education as governor dragged down the statistics for his supporters the most, both on the SAT and the ACT.
Yes, right, Democrats, you are more educated than those Bu$hies; you did better in school. If we subtracted out the bias in the education system favoring higher wealth students, then you would stand out even further as better students than Bushies. The rich voted for Bush while those averaging under $50,000 a year did not. The rich also sent their kids to better schools, with cultures favored by tests.
Maybe even more importantly, rich parents pay to send even their children uninterested in school to graduate from places with low standards of learning, especially religious schools and degree factories. This is also why Republicans favor private school vouchers: they know their students cannot compete in a fair contest, so they seek to return schooling to a question of how much money there is to send children to private schools. Destroying public schooling is the best way for Republicans--who have money but no interest in school to come out on top. While daughter is busy shopping at the mall, mommy and daddy Republicans can still ensure that she not only gets an appearance of education, but in such a way that other people cannot.
There is no other way to explain that there is a correlation between income and SAT scores that exceeds the correlation with grades or later academic success. High school class rank determined by grades has only a .029 correlation with family income of the student. However, SATs have a .286 correlation with family income.(8) The income association is much stronger than between SATs and later academic success of the student.
So higher income voters voted for Bush, but higher income is tied up with higher education. Somehow the Red State versus Blue State thing brings out a delicate separation of Bush getting the high income people but anybody-but-Bush getting the high education people. There are those with high income who appear to be high achievers, simply because they bought their academic achievements. If this were accounted for, the statistics separating Red States and Blue States would be even more grave than reported, maybe even worse than in the "hoaxes" we see reported. MIM is not denying any of these facts regarding those we criticize in this letter. We seek to understand the cultural divide for our own reasons.
Moving on from the subject of the higher education level of Democrats and especially Democratic Party activists, yes, true, Bush himself was educated but among the most irresponsible people till shortly before becoming govenor. Would you get over it please?
No, we don't believe those New Right talking heads like Ann Coulter and their recent studies trying to show that they are equally intelligent as people who oppose Bu$h. We know that is far from true and it is obvious. The problem is if we keep responding to those Coulters and talking at their level, we will become as stupid as they are. So it's important: yes, you have the facts right. The Coulters are wrong, but get over it and go onto the next stage--power struggle.
We're so sick of hearing that Bu$h supporters--the more than 60 million who voted for him in 2004--are "stupid." The unofficial blog for Ned Lamont in Connecticut(6) in his campaign to dislodge Senator Joe Lieberman in the August 8th Democratic Party primary is typical. The pro-Lamont campaigners repeatedly and correctly link Lieberman to Bush and "stupidity." MIM knows from talking to you that this is where you Democratic Party activists are at--that you feel little connection to Bush and can only imagine that people vote for Bush because they are "stupid." The top vote getter for article to read on Netscape based on reader response August 3rd was an article about how Bush "doesn't get" the foreign policy disaster he is in.
These questions overlap today more than ever, because there is a partisan divide on the Iraq War.(7) Three-fourths of Republicans still think it was good to undertake the ground invasion of Iraq in 2003, but only 24% of Democrats agree. There is a 50 percentage point gap and it shows up along the lines that we found in our own surveys of anti-war rally participants discussed in previous MIM Notes articles.
Yes, indeed, since intellectuals are overwhelmingly opposed to Bu$h, they should prove their intelligence by defeating Bu$h politically. And putting in Kerry or Clinton to continue the war would not have counted.
The problem is that the anti-Bu$h crowd is indeed "more educated" than the other side. What it lacks is a will to power, a discipline to evaluate itself by earthly means instead of purely verbal jousting. Victory is not getting up, reading the New York Times, sipping a latte, and turning to your cut-from-the- same-cloth urban and educated friend to diss Bush in politically correct language.
Where were you?
So you, the 10 or 20% of Amerikans really paying attention to foreign affairs, you largely knew this war was no good and never had any potential. Professors even signed a petition against the invasion of Afghanistan, never mind Iraq.
Bu$h put down his challenge in advance. He gave you from soon after 9/11 to stop the invasion of Iraq, but despite your supposedly huge advantage in smarts, you lost and the invasion started in 2003. You were supposedly so smart, but you could not manipulate Ohio and Florida as well as Karl Rove did in 2004. Those Red Staters had a shortage of education on their side, but a handful like Rove was enough.
Now some of these oh-so smart people who opposed Bush should go on trial with him in war crimes court. "You knew better, so where were you?" The fact that you were smarter than the Bushies only increases your culpability in that aspect. Some of the Bush supporters will have to be freed from war crimes responsibilities on account of stupidity, notso for the u.$. anti-war movement.
When have we last seen such an effete educated class? Being so much smarter should make it that much easier to kick Bush's political ass.
Then again, the type of education you have--you don't look at it critically. You have the big picture of what is happening, but not much of a clue on how to fight for what you want.
You say that we at MIM want a revolution and the people will not go for that. Partly why you say that is you respect the opinions of Bush voters too much, to the point where you uphold majority rule, but OK. We will settle for a power struggle that grinds this war machine in Iraq to a halt. If you have the power to do that, you also have the power to contribute a percentage point of the Pentagon budget to the UN to buy land for a global reforestation preserve to fight global warming and so on. It is possible to win the struggle, mainly because the Iraqi people themselves are fighting hard enough to make the most dense understand the impossibility of the imperialist course.
If you want reforms, that is fine, but that will require a power struggle. In case you did not notice, your Democratic Party is pretty much a loser. If it gains any power in 2006, some of you will pipe down, but it will again be because of default failures of Republicans controlling every branch of government, not because Democrats earned it from a progressive perspective. Even when the Democratic Party has executive branch power, it is thanks to a southern governor who does a better job catering to rednecks. You were so effete you could not launch a power struggle well enough to keep Monica Lewinsky off the front pages every day. Even had Clinton not been an imperialist, he could not have done anything, because there is no critical mass of progressive people lusting for power to back up a president who did have progressive intentions.
It's time to be done with naive faith in the Amerikan public. There is no nice way to get the vote of average Joe voter--a proven sado-masochist and a fool willing to throw away a ton of money in Iraq. Average Joe voter changes his mind after an accumulation of power struggles, not prior to those power struggles as a favor to your reform agenda.
Lust for power to grind this Iraq war to a halt is a good thing. Yes, we know that 80% of the intellectuals are appalled. Even before the war, we spoke to a Republican Party professor who was nonetheless not on Bush's payroll, and even he was appalled by the entire Bush agenda of aggression before the war started.
We're not asking for intellectuals to stand against the patriotic tide in a situation like that of Russian intellectuals during Napoleon's invasion of Russia. We're asking that u.$. intellectuals and anyone really actively concerned with international politics figure out how to twist arms here in the united $tates of 2006, the country doing all the invading. Pulling a lever every couple years or calling people to do so is not going to cut it. Arms do have to be twisted to end this war. Public opinion has long asked for a staged withdrawl over a year's length of time. It's not happening, because even public opinion is not anything by itself and it can be remolded and twisted by powers-that-be.
We don't want to hear how nothing is possible. The statistics on MIM's website show that there are over 100,000 readers (excluding arts) every month. Far from "speaking to the converted," our readership numbers have grown rapidly. As Web Minister, I believe had even a quarter of our degenerated members we have lost since 1983 not quit and stayed at some kind of post or another, we would be the New York Times people are sipping lattes to.
It is also my persynal opinion, that one persyn--yes, just one persyn, and I refer now to anyone who considered herself the most powerless or uninterested in politics at first--had even one more such persyn who might think of herself as arbitrarily stuck in MIM circles stayed as part of a real contest with Bush, I persynally don't believe Bush would have come to power in two close elections. The whole political atmosphere can change quite a bit with just the determined action of one persyn, not to mention over a period of 10 years or so. ("10 years you say?" Yes, somehow this has to be more interesting than shopping. It has to beat Nintendo and so on. Anyone who is a dedicated bargain shopper or a Nintendo champion should be able to "keep the score" in the battle with U.$. imperialism too.)
Those who left MIM's circles--some of you thought of yourself as not very political, not likely to be political leaders: you made the wrong choice. You might to this day still think, "how could it possibly come down to me?" Well, it already did come down to you, including all the little irrational factors that you based your decision on. Bush has his people supporting him for every crazy reason under the sun. Then you think that your crazy reasons for leaving MIM do not matter?
Part of it was Bush's non-margin of victory in 2000 in Florida. Anyone saying they could not have swayed that many people in Florida--you are just wrong. If MIM has over 100,000 readers a month now, the idea that someone dedicating him or herself to politics could not have influenced a few hundred in Florida is just ludicrous. So this sort of reformist power is already in reach and anyone should know it.
One might say MIM would have persuaded more Democrats to stay home in Florida in 2000. That would also be true in addition to our influence on Republicans and Independents. Nonetheless, at some point, what the candidates have to say and do changes after the voters change. The Democrats would have to shift to reflect a perceptible shift in voters. The Democratic Party might take back MIM Notes readers, but they would have to pay something for that--not proletarian revolution, but something. Thus far, MIM is not in position to be able to stop a Howard Dean from arising to co-opt potential MIM Notes readers, for example. Understanding how that works is the most basic element of our political system.
So even directly counting the votes in 2000 is wrong. The power struggle happens long before the election. Bourgeois candidates only register what voters are already thinking, within the range of money available for capitalist television advertising. If MIM Notes had had 500,000 readers, already that would have been a factor in electoral thinking, just to put it in language that everyone understands. Even had Bush won in such circumstances, it is possible it would have been with a different agenda than what did win him his election in 2004.
That does not mean that building public opinion and independent institutions of the oppressed is "reformist." It means that there is no proletarian politician who is so advanced that she can operate in a vacuum beyond the complete reach of the imperialist parties. They will react and try to bring back people into their fold and electoral politics will end up being part of the equation, whether we like it or not. So we raise this to say that political professionals such as Leninist party members have wide-ranging impact as would anyone who puts the time into politics.
Supporting revolution does the most to support reform possible, so there is no trade-off, because that is how politics works. The political atmosphere changes first and then political opportunists called professional politicians jump in. There are no ultra-revolutionary tactics we can apply that can change that. The economic system itself delivers up the revolution and at that point there won't be any squirm room for the bourgeois politicians much as they would like it. For now, they can dive into any u.$. situation and salvage a bourgeois political answer.
More important than the interaction with the imperialists' own political system, there is much power struggle that goes on with journalists that most people do not understand yet. Most of us experience power struggle as backstabbing in white collar career atmospheres. MIM is talking about something different. Yet anti-war power struggle is something any number of people MIM has attempted to recruit could have done.
Yes, I am talking to you. Public opinion could have been marginally different in the last 10 or 15 years based on what you a few individuals did with MIM or didn't do with MIM just on public opinion. In addition, and more importantly, we would have been in better position to take up more varied and more advanced forms of power struggle short of armed struggle. But if you don't believe me on that, because you don't have the experience, I know you saw the 2000 election results too.
Instead of holding back condemnation of the puppet trial of Saddam Hussein, remember that most people do not undertake any kind of power struggle against imperialist war, but even Saddam Hussein's sons died in armed struggle. As such, we at MIM hold Saddam Hussein and his sons in higher esteem than the Amerikan parasite left, the alleged anti-war movement and the educated elite of the country.