[Peace-discuss] Inauguration thoughts

Mon Dec 1 18:23:49 CST 2008

On Dec 1, 2008, at 2:28 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:

> 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:
>

I don't know. Many anti-Iraq-war folks supported/voted for Obama  
thinking/hoping that he would be also, as he early indicated. They  
can still think that possibility exists, since no overt action, aside  
from dismal appointments, has yet been made. I believe the idea is to  
demonstrate to Obama that these people still hold it greatly  
important that he carry out anti-war policies. Whether they will join  
"us" on these issues cannot be guaranteed. But is it not worth  
trying? The Inauguration seems to be a good time to make the point.
>
>
> >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,
>

Perhaps, some yes, some no.
> (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,
>

Ditto.

> (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.
>

Only mass protests will be effective (aside from what happens  
overseas) in changing foreign policy if Obama means to continue old  
policies. So, what other protest actions exist to effect real change.  
We have to deal with the system as it exists. No revolution is in the  
cards, unless catastrophe befalls us.
> 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.
>
I'm not sure I follow you here (The sentence is too difficult!). Do  
you mean to say that knowledge, education, have no affect on peoples'  
outlook? Or is it to say that it does not make them radical  
progressives? I think pictures and reports of people being tortured  
or blown up or made miserable does have an effect on what people  
think. The media indeed are very important. Of course, other things,  
such as you mention, may be vitally important as well.
> 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.
>
Counter examples abound: Telling folks about the dangers of  
cigarettes, about foods, wearing helmets, about the dangers of  
radioactivity, etc.,—even on those items you mention, communication  
has had decent effects, albeit imperfectly. Ignorance is not a virtue.
> 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
>
On the other hand, without enlisting other support, the movement  
tends to remain marginal.
> 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.
>
A pretty bleak assessment. I think optimism is important for  
creativity in dealing with these problems.
> 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.
>

The so-called "vanguard"… That vanguard had to bring on board many  
others to be successful (in threatening the establishment).
> 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.
>

I'm getting tired. My view is that we live in an imperfect society,  
and we have to use the tools available to us to make it better,  
realizing that we are doomed to disappointments. Yes, we desperately  
need to change the whole "system" in order to have liberté,  
fraternité, égalité.
>
> > 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. Goebles 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.
>
>  To see through such lies, you need knowledge, yes education, and  
> skepticism, and a media to express dissent.
>
I appreciate your skepticism, but we have to have the "…optimism of  
the heart".

Mort

>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081201/0e0d8319/attachment-0001.htm