Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site tty3b.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!whuxle!pyuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!mhuxm!mhuxl!ihnp4!we13!tty3b!mjk From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Cruise Missiles Message-ID: <294@tty3b.UUCP> Date: Fri, 27-Jan-84 18:13:19 EST Article-I.D.: tty3b.294 Posted: Fri Jan 27 18:13:19 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 31-Jan-84 02:34:47 EST References: <1628@rlgvax.UUCP> Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill Lines: 66 Scott Plunkett in <1628@rlgvax.UUCP>: "In Germany and England, the Governments were recently re-elected with the clear understanding of the voting public that they supported deployment ... "The fact that a bunch of rabble rousers chant, scream, and generally frighten the horses in the streets of "major cities" means nothing ... "Now, you may join the freaks in the street with their red-ink and placards encouraging a blithe attitude toward the Soviets, but even if you don't care what the Soviets could do to the British Isles, others--most--do. It is to the credit of the majority of British citizens that, at least for now, they reject appeasement ... "What will it take to stop european governments participating in this race and persuade them to resist the pressure from the USA to do so?" Answer: When the Soviet regime is toppled." Is there any form of legitimate dissent in your view of democracy, Scott Plunkett, or does dissent merely give "courteous assistance to the Kremlin's fondest hopes"? If dissent is automatically irrelevant (or dangerous), then what is the difference between your view of democratic and totalitarian societies? It has always puzzled me that those who most strongly and fervently defend "democracy" (i.e. by which they usually mean capitalist democracy) are apparently so i gnorant of what democracy really means: that dissent is legitimate. After all, what is the real difference between Scott Plunkett's branding of millions of protesters as "fringe lunatics" and the Soviet leadership'sdescription of its dissidents as "insane"? Frighteningly little. I think that people who comment on European politics should at least be slightly aware of what they're talking about (e.g. more than you find in "USA Today" would be a good start). It's true that conservative governments were elected in Britian and Germany. But it's also true that a majority of people oppose the deployment of U.S. missiles in both those countries. That's not too terribly hard to understand. As I pointed out in a previous note, the same is true in the U.S.; while Reagan gets a 60% approval rating, large majorities of Americans oppose his military policies, and many of us contemplate with dread the prospect of another four years of Reagan. The reason is that people do not vote on single issues (usually) and both the British Labour Party and the German Social Democrats lost the elections on other issues. It seems possible (maybe likely) that the Democrats are about to face the same fate in November, despite the fact that on this issue at least, they are much more representative of Americans (if you believe Gallup and Harris). I don't think Mr. Plunkett is a "lunatic fringe". I think he represents the views of many in this country, a sort of combination of nationalistic macho and a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the arms race. People who suggest that the arms race will end "[w]hen the Soviet regime is toppled" are living in a dream world: a world where we are not faced every day with the danger of instant annihilation, and so have the luxury to wait for the "toppling" of one of the world's most powerful governments; a world where pristine good guys battle for honor with the "evil empire", and where co-existance is impossible, where co-operation is surrender, where it's all or nothing. They think it will be all; it's much more likely to be, simply, nothing. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk