I read the side-by-side (or perhaps, more accurately, the one-behind-the-other) interviews of your Self and Congressman DeFazio [hey — an Italian name, ya think?] in this week’s tabloid Willamette Week [the pejorative noun was intentional: I have many and manifest reservations about the way that newspaper interprets its charge to report events].
Now as you know, Mister Blumenauer, I have opposed you politically during several electoral campaigns in the past, and plan to do so in the future.
However, I am running on the basis that I tell the truth.
You won the debate about TPP hands down, you upholder of American Imperialism.
Update 17 May 2015 : Just to rub it in, Congressman, allow me to arrogantly, I say arrogantly, help you out with a line of argument. It’s from the current number of the prestigious London publication The Economist, which I grant it is entirely possible you have already read.
Here is the line of argument. You quote their anonymous [as ever] review of Dominic Lieven’s account of World War I and the end of the Russian Empire — they oversell wildly the originality of Mr Lieven [a world-rank Russian historian, no doubt about that], ignoring the multi-volume work on the same topic by one W. Bruce Lincoln, but let that be set aside — as follows:
[Mr Lieven’s book] begins with a lucid sketch of the decades leading up to the war. The balance between the 6 Great Powers. . . was always at risk of upset. It depended on a mixture of cool-headed bluff and good diplomacy; they were all too often lacking.
You see (I hope), Mister Blumenauer, that the rhetorical force of the citation from this current, prestigious source depends upon the implicit comparison the reader draws between 1910 and 2010. But onwards:
By the end of the 19th city the European political order was disintegrating[in the original, Mr Blumenauer, the ill-written text says “security order”; what the authors meant to say was “political order” — MM], pulled apart by nationalism, imperialism, and globalisation [here in the North American branch of the Anglophone world, we spell that word “globalization”].
The empires were like tigers which even when threatened with extinction will not co-operate.
You see ! — just like people today, Congressman.
Preservation required statecraft based on common interests, not those of ethnic groups whose own linguistic and cultural aspirations were crystallising [there’s that “s” in place of what the Brits call zed again]. . .
Globalisation [hrumph] was eroding national boundaries. But that was
— here we are
anathema to economically illiterate leaders who saw interdependence as weakness
Pretty good, eh? And you can even use the next sentence against your Republican opponents
Thinking was also skewed by what Mr Lieven [one of the leading living students of Russian history in the world, I remind you, Congressman] calls “vapid” biological metaphors in which the state was seen as a living organism, ruthlessly competing for size and resources, prizing [at least they got one zed right] prestige and strength over stability and practicality.
It has the ring of truth, doesn’t it, Congressman; uncomforting, I mean uncomfortable, for both the Left and the Right. Agreed? The Russian word is much more frequently used — soglasnah?
We even have a slogan for it, Congressman: NEITHER RIGHT NOR LEFT BUT GREEN
Hoping to shellac you in 2016 I remain
Speaker of truth
Update 22 May 2015 : In order to convey the idea, Mister Blumenauer, let me quote from Barney Frank’s — he was a rather prominent member of Congress during your tenure there; perhaps he was one of the homosexual friends you referred to when you publicly apologized for your vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act — autobiography, as quoted by Garry Wills in the so-called New York Review of 4 June 2015, p. 8:
There is a price to pay for rejecting the partial victories that are typically achieved through political activity. When you do so, you discourage your own foot soldiers [not that I have any, Mr B] whose continued activity is needed for future victories.
You also alienate the legislative partners you need. . . . When members of Congress defy political pressure at home and vote for a part of what you want, they are still taking a risk. Telling them you will accept only 100% support is likely to leave you with nothing.
O.K. That is not what any Pacific Green Party campaign is about. No Green Party candidate is going to accuse you of having blood on your hands because he or she disagrees with your vote on a trade bill.
And while I’m at it, let me state here once more that E. Blumenauer voted against the invasion of Iraq.
No, we are not believers in the imminent arrival of either Utopia or Armageddon.
We are simply fighting against American imperialism, which you uphold. It is on those grounds that I ask people to vote against you, the Democratic Party incumbent.