Anti-Republican Prometheism

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 14:48


Józef Pilsudski of Poland is one of the most interesting figures of European history during the first third of the 20th century. Variously a communist, a nationalist, a liberal democrat, and a crypto-fascist strongman, he ran the gamut of inter-war European ideologies. He also employed a wide variety of policies to achieve his various aims, the two most interesting of which were Prometheism and Miedzymorze. Here is a quick description of Prometheism:

Prometheism (Polish: "Prometeizm") was a political project initiated by Poland's Józef Pilsudski. Its aim was to weaken Tsarist Russia and its successor, the Soviet Union, by supporting nationalist independence movements of the major non-Russian peoples that lived within the borders of Russia or the Soviet Union.

Between the World Wars, Prometheism and Pilsudski's other concept of a "Miedzymorze federation" constituted two complementary geopolitical strategies for him and some of his political heirs.

And here is a quick definition of Miedzymorze

Miedzymorze was a project pursued after World War I by Józef Pilsudski, of a Polish-led federation of Central and Eastern European countries. Invited to join were the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), Finland, Belarus, Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and the Czech lands.

The Polish name Miedzymorze may be translated as "Intersea" or "Between-seas" and has also been rendered, from the Latin, as "Intermarum" or "Intermarium."

Neither project succeeded, at least partially because Pilsudski engaged in a series of military conflicts with neighboring states, thus rendering such broad co-operation impossible. However, I admire Pilsudski's audacious strategic goals to defend a series of new and relatively small nations against the massive empires of Germany and Russia, from which many of these states had been recently liberated. Had both plans succeeded, World War Two would almost certainly have been avoided, and the Cold War might have been averted as well. Now, nearly a century later, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent eastward expansion of the European Union, both Prometheism and Miedzymorze have basically been achieved. The peoples of the Baltic, Black and Caspian Sea basins have achieved independence (though some still lack democracy). Most of these new nations have joined with international organizations such as NATO and the EU that provide them with strategic security from what is still quite clearly an aggressive Russia.

I wonder if Pilsudski's goals can be applied to the American political system. For one thing, the pluralist strategy I have discussed for the Democratic Party and progressive movement is reasonably analogous to the international concept of Miedzymorze. Further, the past six months have strongly suggested that a Prometheist strategy might be within reach. At least three major pieces of the Republican coalition have threatened significant breaks with the larger coalition, which collectively would leave Republicans as a rump, minority political party for a generation. Consider the following:

With the rapid growth of both all three House ideological caucuses, Blue Dogs, New Democrats, and Progressives, certainly Democrats have their own balkanization problem. However, in contrast to Republicans where three major third party threats are still on the table, none of the divisions among Democrats have resulted in any serious third-party threats this year. I don't think a total anti-Republican Prometheian strategy is possible in the short term, since I don't know what circumstance would result in the simultaneous splintering of the socially conservative theocons, the country club Bloomberg types, and the American exceptionalist, libertarian Ron Paul types, but it still seems useful to think about. As Democrats expand their coalition to include a series of smaller, very pro-Democratic identity groups, driving deep wedges into the Republican coalition seems to be a natural, complimentary strategy. This is very much what happened to Democrats in the 1980's and 1990's, after all, as Dixiecrats, New Dems, and Naderites all splintered the party in different directions just as Republicans were sweeping to power nationwide.

So, any thoughts on strategies to drive deep wedges into the Republican coalition? This isn't something Democrats have been very good at lately, or really ever, but I think it is a subject worth exploring in more detail.

Chris Bowers :: Anti-Republican Prometheism

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Wedges (0.00 / 0)
Immigration is almost always going to drive a wedge between the corporate, country club types and the social conservatives. (Which is part of the reason I can't believe their strategists are pushing for this NOW, of all times.)

Climate change now also seems to be dividing the business community and the evangelicals that are starting to green.


Off the top of my head.... (0.00 / 0)
Chris interesting post.

Off the top of my head, three issues come to mind:

Government Spying
Immigration
International Treaties

These are issues which have recently been contentious in conservative circles. The Neocons are okay with the government spying on us, but the libertarian-republicans are not. Many conservatives stood against recent immigration reforms, while Bush and McCain types seem more open to reform. Bush and a major camp of Republicans were for the recent Law of the Sea Treaty, while Buchanan-ites and ultra conservatives were totally against it.

I realize this is not very flushed out or quanitative, but I offer it up as possible food for thought. If we can decide how these different camps view the governmnet's role in these three issues, we might find ways to exploit them.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  


Very Interesting Analogy (0.00 / 0)
I think that maybe we should think about pondering its essence a bit more.  For me, this suggests the need for sharpening the logic that is essentially pluralist on our side in a way that splinters the Republicans.

One theme that does this is "Our diversity is our strength"--e pluribus unum. The argument here is that, yes, we are more diverse than we were in 1776, and it's precisely because our diversity is our strength that we've been able to become stronger and more diverse over time: the stronger we become, the more diverse we can allow outselve to become.  And the more diverse we become, the stronger we can grow as a result.

Too often something similar is said, but as little more than lipservice, quickly passing on to other themes.  However, I would argue that it represents a good foundation for discussing a number of major issue areas.

Certainly, in terms of foreign policy, the fact that Americans come from all over the world gives us an entree into dealing with virtually every country in the world in terms of some shared population with a common heritage.

This is no small thing.  The contrary insistence on a foreign policy that still largely resembles the British imperialist model should rightly be seen as an incredibly foolish squandering of a tremendous resource we have as a nation of immigrants from around the world.

Similarly, our cultural diversity sets the stage for a much higher level of cultural creativity, which has value not just in its own terms, creating a more vibrant culture, but also a more creative economy--particularly if we reshape our communication policy to encourage diversity, rather than absentee-landlord, lowest-common-denominator schlock.

The point is, we have a tendency to think of "diversity" as a separate issue, as, indeed, we have a tendency to think of all sorts of issues as separate, rather than seeing it as an interpenetrating issue that touches on virtually every other issue there is.  I would argue that sustained examination of progressive politics through the lens of diversity would offer crucial dividends not just in coming up with better ideas, but also a more coherent agenda.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Excellent point (0.00 / 0)
Moreover, when based on the kind of diversities - I really think a case can be made for using the plural - existent within the population of people that may comprise the "movement" that you had so recently been describing, the commonly held ideals and principles that underpin that movement will be based firmly (?) on the social, intellectual, and practical relationships between those individuals, rather than on tribe, geographical location, or the like.

To me - that's an advance.

Diversity (in its most general sense) can be a double-edged sword, however, especially when the organization gets too big - A Big Tent.  As Harry Nilsson commented, "sometimes a point in all directions is like no point at all".  At the moment, I think that the MSPs are suffering from this problem - and the emergence of the "progressives" (and "libertarians") are, in some ways, a response to such. 

The "Big Tent-ism" is forced upon us by our two party system  and this works to undermine the inherent strength of diversity because it exacerbates the "point in all directions" issue.  This inherent splintering of the MSPs can be countered by authoritarian leadership, which the Right seems to employ more readily than the Left.  In a nutshell, this is why I espouse and end to the "tyranny" of the two party system - because without it, ideas like those YOU espose will have a much better chance of growing to fruition. 



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Cut the Abortion Rate -- attack Republicans on it (4.00 / 1)
Democratic policies are reducing the abortion rate, and Republicans oppose them.

To pro-choice people, it's about fostering women's and children's health, enhancing family planning and adoption programs, etc. It's also just a damn shame for any woman to be in the position where they might have to make that choice, not to mention what is sometimes long-term emotional distress of actually making it.

To anti-choice people, it's about telling them that their so-called pro-life politicians have been voting to raise the abortion rate for the past 30 years.

Let's put a big giant wedge in the anti-choice crowd. I guarantee you there's a chunk of the rank-and-file who will revolt against their political leaders.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee


Wow (0.00 / 0)
I had a gag here that didn't make the cut.

So, just - wow...


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox