I find it frustrating that, in the US, the two party system is so firmly entrenched that other voices are only reluctantly heard and then only every four years. It leads to unholy alliances such as the one between the theocon and neocon and pro-business sections of the Republican party.

It also means that the only way for single issue causes - such as the environmental, pro-life, anti-war, anti-immigration and pro-worker movements - to have influence is to hitch their wagons to one of the only two trains at the station. At least, in the UK, the LibDems, Scottish Nationalists and the Greens theoretically have a chance to influence government - even if it does mean that, occasionally, the British Nationalists win seats (in America, those people would be voting Republican).

Brian Brivati, in platform 3, suggests that the Euston Manifesto represents another step along the road from allegiance to a party to allegiance to a core set of values.

The gradual shift from allegiance to a particular party to allegiance to certain core values that has characterized politics over the last few decades means that the nature of coalitions and the content of alliances that can now emerge may surprise us all.

I would gladly walk that road with him.

I have been reading through NormBlog’s criticism of the criticism of the Euston Manifesto. In platform one, he points out something that I noticed too. So many of the commentators have missed what seemed to me a central point :

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change.

Many supporters of the manifesto explicitly point to the fact that it is a pro-war document as the reason for signing it. Many commentators on the right snearingly claim that a few leftists are finally starting to realize that it’s better to be pro-war than pro-terrorist as though those were the only two options.

For whatever reason, the MSM and the conservative establishment have found it convenient to pretend that the nonsense spouted by Galloway’s Respect, A.N.S.W.E.R. and other fringe organizations like the SWP represents the majority of anti-war opinion. Perhaps it’s easier to argue against shouting lunatics than to confront the quiet voice of reason and moderation? Perhaps it sells more newspapers ?

Anyway, for whatever reason, a lot of people have bought into this narrative. The Euston Manifesto is important because it provides an opportunity to make it clear that opposition to the war is not anti-american or pro-dictator or anti-democratic or pro-terrorist. It gives us a chance to say what we stand for not just what we oppose. That’s why I signed it.

Sign the Euston Manifesto here