In the midst of bipartisan saber-rattling towards a nuclear-ambitious Iran, Tariq Ali has a few reasonable things to say.

http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR27201.sh tml

"At present, Iran has little more than primitive gropings towards the technology needed for nuclear self-defence. Yet these are being presented as a casus belli by Bush, Blair, Chirac and Olmert, whose own states are armed with hundreds--in the American case, thousands--of nuclear weapons. Whining and cavilling over the small print of Vienna protocols, however warranted, is a futile pursuit for Iranian diplomacy. The country would do better to choose the right moment and simply withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Of all the anachronistic emperors in the world, it is the most brazenly naked. There is not a shred of justification for the oligopoly of the present nuclear powers, so hypocritical it does not dare even speak its name--Israel, with 200 nuclear bombs, is never mentioned. There will never be nuclear disarmament until it is broken.

"To face up to the enemies ranged against Iran requires a coherence and discipline of which there is little sign at present. With their own operational habits and doctrines to the fore, the Iranian clerics have played a profoundly divisive role in keeping the Shi'a parties and Sistani, Tehran's bearded queen on the Iraqi chessboard, pitted against the resistance forces. A de-confessionalized alliance of forces from Tehran to Damascus, via Basra and Baghdad, would both damp down communalist conflict and strengthen Iran's position. Little in the recent Iranian record suggests the country's ruling institutions are capable of dealing with imperial arrogance when they confront it, other than with a hydra-headed incompetence. However, circumstances may now be forcing them into decisions they have so far sought to evade. It will not be easy to dress up surrender to Western threats as dignified national wisdom. It will not be difficult to turn Shi'a crowds and militia against the Western occupation across the border. Tehran controls more significant hostages today than a mere embassy. It is unlikely, if the country kept its nerve, that the Pentagon or its proxies would risk an attack. "

Hillary and the two Joes may be supporting the Bush administrations' position in the Middle East yet again, this time by attacking him from the right and forcing him to rattle that saber ever louder. We should be worried about this.

But end of day, Iran will pursue its nuclear program. Why? Because it is in Iran's security interests to do so. And it is the height of hypocrisy to expect Iran to not have nukes while allowing Pakistan, India, and Israel to have them.

Unfortunately, as Ali underlines, the Iranian bearded mullahs will screw this up. Why? Because they are religious fanatics, and because of their fanaticism, they will choose theocratic and confessional considerations over the interests of Iran and its immediate neighborhood.

Not too much unlike the US government, really.

Excellent article in a mainstream Democratic rag, one which broaches the rarely discussed topic of the relevance of Socialism in America today by Ron Aronson in last week's Nation.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060417/ar onson

Aronson opines:

"The reigning economic system will continue to generate opposition as long as it speaks of equality (which it must) yet continues to be unequal and undemocratic (which it must); as long as it incites dreams of a better life (which it must) but deforms social, cultural and political life according to its bottom line (which it must); as long as its rampant abuse of the environment and pillage of natural resources continue (also inevitable)."

I would argue this is the fundamental disagreement on social and economic policy between lefties and the Democratic party, whose Clintonesque motto "a rising tide lifts all boats" simply does not square with economic and social history. The party establishment continue to parrot self-congratulatory neo-liberal platitudes along the lines of a Thomas Friedman, giving short shrift to cornerstone values of social equality, human progress and economic and environmental justice lefties hold dear. This is why many of us are suspicious of Democrats - same economic prescriptions as the GOP, like the GOP, rendering whole classes of society terminally ill, just offering slightly better palliative care than the more regressive GOP.

The party will never win hearts and minds without making these ideals the centerpiece of its agenda once more.

Aronson wraps things up:

"There can be no future social movements without key socialist themes: the importance of economic class, the centrality of labor and workers in shaping the world, the idea that people must act to create their own destiny. Not to mention themes already suggested: the decisive role of the economy in determining the rest of our life, the fact that today it is above all driven by the pursuit of profit, the insistence on freeing people from its domination and the need to think and act politically in terms of the socioeconomic system rather than in terms of individual policies. Whatever language people use, socialist ideas, experience, models, aspirations and analyses will help form the heart and soul of the alternative-in-the-making, or there will be no alternative."

This is indeed the political paradigm whereby virtually all of the West extended civil rights, political equality, economic equity and mutualisation. Progessive movements are essentially socialist movements, have been from the start. To claim you are a progressive but at the same time claim allergies to the word socialism is to exhibit bad faith or cravenness at a fundamental level. For you may not be electorally astute at the present time (though apparently someone forgot to tell Bernie Sanders this). But you will never win the strategic war of ideas with the forces of regression running the nation today without going back to the roots, restating them anew for our times, and making them the core of the message.

Why not? Because socialism is the heart and soul of the left, and the left is the heart and soul of the Democratic party. Without 'em, the Dems are rudderless and value-less. Today's party may be able to generate K-street cash, but they can't generate new constituencies without strong values.

I note also Perry Anderson is also getting print in the Nation. It is heartening to see this. Perhaps there is some glimmer of hope out there after all.

Q: What do Melissa Bean and Joe Lieberman have in common?

A: They're terrible for the Democratic brand.

Branding is huge. Look at yourself, do you order Coke first then change to another drink because the restaurant only has Pepsi? That's the power of branding.

Don't think brand has power in matters of politics and national identity? The GOP does. Where do you think all those round "W" stickers ended up on cars? Perhaps more interesteingly, Pepsi does. In recent Canadian elections, when the Bloc Quebecois was advertizing "Ici, c'est le Bloc," Pepsi ran similar ads, "Ici, c'est Pepsi" and I would invite anyone who knows folks in Pepsico's marketing department to ask them Pepsi's market share in Quebec relative to the rest of North America.

Building a brand is hard work, entailing many things from creative, media selection, tone and execution and many points in between. The product needs to be what we say it is, and the sales force needs to consistently deliver messages which properly convey the tone and content our brand initiative intends to communicate. Salesman and women who refuse to stay "on-brand" in the field, who create their own pitch to make a few quick sales, do so to the detriment of all others on the sales force, as in so doing, they undermine the brand, thereby making future sales, both for themselves and their colleagues, much harder. In a well-run sales organization, such salespeople are typically let go.

If the Democratic Party were a well run sales organization, Joe Lieberman would have been gone long ago. Melissa Bean would never have been hired. Joe Biden would be getting a pink-slip rather than beng in line for cushy upper-management jobs, while Hillary Clinton would have been sent somewhere like HR Benefits where she could do no more damage.