[Peace-discuss] Inauguration thoughts

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Mort,

 

> Most Obama supporters, even the apolitical ones, want to see the Iraq war
ended.  They agree with us even though they voted for Obama.  Indeed, many,
many peace activists >supported Obama despite his weak foreign policy
positions and proclaimed victory when he won the election.  So, the crowd
that will be at the inaguration will be with us on the >Iraq issue but also
be with Obama, celebrating his presidency. 

 

>We need to pull people to our position and develop a broad protest movement
against Obama's foreign policy positions -- which we know we willl not like.


 

The above statements that are quoted gave me pause and started me wondering,
which I suppose they were intended to do.  I began to wonder, if the Obama
supporters before the election wanted to see the war ended and supported
Obama despite his weak foreign policy and national security positions (the
same can probably be said about some of Obama's other pre-election
non-foreign policy positions to varying extents), why would anyone expect
those supporters to change after the election and not continue to support
Obama and proclaim  and celebrate victory despite his currently weak foreign
policy and economic positions which - if they have changed since the
election - have taken a turn toward the right, toward hawkishness, toward
reneging on pre-election promises?  Then I read the next statement quoted
below:

 

>We don't pull people to us by protesting at his party.  It just will not be
effective, indeed it will marginalize more than broaden the peace movement.
Communication needs to        > serve the purpose of broadening the peace
movement not making us feel good by shouting our anger.  Effective
communication is the goal.

 

It says to me that there is no expectation that Obama supporters have
changed in the least, that they are still inclined (1) to turn a blind eye
to Obama's retreat from pre-election promises, (2)  to rationalize and
justify their continued support and claim to victory despite his continued
weak foreign policy and national security positions and selections for
appointments, (3) to his reinstalling persons from the establishment into
positions of authority and power as well as to positions of influence
screening incoming petitions, feedback, and potential appointments before
they hit Obama's desk, and (3) to being unwilling to do anything that might
embarrass or challenge Obama in terms of any sort of direct actions and
protests for fear of alienating people, who probably were not really about
to join the peace movement anyway except symbolically despite their saying
that they opposed the war or that they desired to end the war.  We further
see the age old progressive belief despite historic evidence to the
contrary, that education and effective communications are the way to change
people's values, commitments, goals, attitudes, and behaviors as contrasted
to direct actions, demonstrations, protests, strikes, and even threats of
and the use of negative sanctions which may marginalize those on the margins
and drive out or prevent from joining those who were really not one of us
anyway.  How many years of effort and dollars of expenditures  by way of
educational programs and communications have gone into trying to get people
to stop speeding on the roadways, to stop driving while intoxicated, to stop
at stop signs and to what effect?  The only things that have even limited
effect tend to be threats of negative sanctions such as jail time, heavy
monetary fines, loss of driving privileges, etc.  Why do we expect education
and communications to change people now with respect opinions and beliefs,
behaviors, and values so as to effectively transform them into a force for
making Obama and his administration do the right thing in the short run
(never mind the long run - because in the long run Obama will be out of
office and he damage will have already been done just as was the case with
the Bush administration where the so-called opposition to Bush/Chaney sat on
their hands while trying to educate the masses and communicate with them)?

 

The problem with broadening the movement, democratizing and popularizing the
movement, and/or making the movement an umbrella movement is that it
marginalizes the movement itself and renders it substantively meaningless
and ineffective since its focus will only be on very broad and general
symbols, on common abstract goals without agreement on concrete details
which may alienate segments of the membership, and on playing by the rules
that the opponents have set as the ground rules because those are the rules
that the masses view as being respectable and responsible even if they favor
those whose interests are not their own.  We have seen how effective
umbrella organizations such as the political parties are at representing
anything but watered down symbolic but not substantive versions of what the
man-in-the-street wants while giving substantive benefits to the powerful
and the establishment elite as a result of all the  compromises that are
made in the name of winning the game while attempting to accommodating a
diverse set of participants.  The same has been the case for movements such
as the civil rights movements, the 1960 hippy/yuppie/anti-war movements, the
labor movement, and others where the umbrella components were only effective
because there were more forceful splinter groups and factions alongside them
that could be used as a threat should the establishment not  exhibit
flexibility and give in to some of the movement's substantive demands in
significant ways.  When the establishment did not do that, the splitter
groups and factions within the umbrella movements in effect said "fuck it"
and told the moderates to go screw themselves.  They then engaged in direct
actions and violence when necessary to get heard, respected, and treated
seriously at the socio-political and economic table.  They often were
effective - more so than the umbrella organizations who became effective
only after the extreme components had won the moderates a seat at the table
and some respect.

 

> We have to walk a fine line of demonstrating our independence for Obama,
but at this stage of his presidency, especially inaguration day, showing
hope for the new 

> administration -- despite our expectation that hopes willl be dashed,
rather quickly.

 

Evidently, we are not tired of symbolic gestures, ritualistic chanting, and
genuflecting before the alter of being moderate, centrist, and acceptable as
defined by the establishment and bought by the misguided middle classes of
by working classes, and even the upper lower classes who aspire to upward
mobility into the middle class style of life (both culturally and
economically).  Evidently, we have had instilled in us an unshakable faith
in the righteousness, effectiveness, and workability of education, of verbal
and graphic communication, of mass marketing, and of public relations and
advertising. Gobbles was right.  If you tell a lie loud enough and long
enough, people will believe it and you (even you will believe it).  To
paraphrase, P.T. Barnum, there is a sucker born every minute, the
liberal/progressive/reform community just happened to come along at the
right time.

 

 

 

 

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Brussel
Morton K.
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 10:35 AM
To: Peace Discuss
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Inauguration thoughts

 

These thoughts come from the UFPJ listserve, in which it was suggested that
there be protests at the inauguration ceremonies in January. Its author is
one Kevin Zeese.

 

While I share John's [Walsh] views on the national security team Obama has
appointed and expect that these are the people who will be running foreign
policy for the next two years while Obama focuses domesticallly, the peace
movement needs to figure out what -- if any -- message at the inagurartion
will be effective.

 

Most Obama supporters, even the apolitical ones, want to see the Iraq war
ended.  They agree with us even though they voted for Obama.  Indeed, many,
many peace activists supported Obama despite his weak foreign policy
positions and proclaimed victory when he won the election.  So, the crowd
that will be at the inaguration will be with us on the Iraq issue but also
be with Obama, celebrating his presidency. 

 

We need to pull people to our position and develop a broad protest movement
against Obama's foreign policy positions -- which we know we willl not like.


 

We don't pull people to us by protesting at his party.  It just will not be
effective, indeed it will marginalize more than broaden the peace movement.
Communication needs to serve the purpose of broadening the peace movement
not making us feel good by shouting our anger.  Effective communication is
the goal.

 

Carl's [Davidson] approach of building on the "Yes we can" slogan of Obama
is closer to what would be effective.  The phrases that come after "Yes we
can" are important.  "End the Iraq War NOW" -- with the emphasis on NOW is
one that might work.  Expressing the urgency of now -- another Obama phrase
and one that shows that he can stop the killing now -- he can stop the
drones in Pakistan  --  now, the bombings of wedding parties in Afghanistan
-- now,  Israel getting out of Palestine - now.  The same could be true with
other foreign policy issues. After inaguration these killings in Pakistan
etc. willl be Obama's responsibility as he does have the power to stop them
now.

 

We have to walk a fine line of demonstrating our independence for Obama, but
at this stage of his presidency, especially inaguration day, showing hope
for the new administration -- despite our expectation that hopes willl be
dashed, rather quickly.

 

KZ

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081201/bb5f4b38/attachment-0001.html