[Peace-discuss] Inauguration thoughts

Tue Dec 2 00:39:14 CST 2008

> 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.

In short what you appear to be saying (and I would not disagree with you) is
that they deluded themselves before the election into
thinking/believing/hoping that Obama would be anti-war in the same way as
they were (even if he never explicitly made it clear that he was and they
never pressured him for confirmation that he was anti-war in the same way
that they expected); during those pre-election period, they justified not
putting Obama on the spot by demanding  a commitment on his part to a set of
specifics regarding his anti-war position on the grounds of expediency of
winning the primaries and then the election. If I am understanding you
correctly, you further appear to be saying that they are still deluding
themselves into believing/thinking/hoping that the possibility still exists
even though all indications seem to point to this not being the case.
Indeed, the indications are that if he is to change his pre-election
positions, it is not going to be in the direction hoped for when one takes
account of the details and specifics of his current statements on his war
positions and the statements of his appointments.  At what point do you
think that they will get realistic and recognize that they have been fooled
again should things not work out as they hoped and Obama does not listen to
them or move in the directions they desire?

> 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.

First, even if they do find a way to demonstrate to Obama that these people
still hold it to be of great importance that he carry out anti-war policies,
how do they make it clear to him that the policies that Obama and his people
feel are anti-war (shifting the surge to Afghanistan from Iraq or reducing
the number of troops in Iraq over 16 or more months to some residual
unspecified number rather than completely removing all the troops
immediately) are not what the anti-war folks consider to be anti-war
policies?  While inauguration time might be a good time to try to make such
points, I see no talk about doing anything that will forcefully demand Obama
and his people pay attention to anything of substance presented to them
during that period by means of demonstrations, petitions, or street theater.
No one is proposing anything that can be used as a stick to back up their
requests, signs, speeches, etc.  In fact, the opposite seems to be the case
where people are warning against doing anything that will embarrass/disrupt
the normal routines and inauguration activities rather than celebrate
Obama’s election  and inauguration without causing trouble or alienating
anyone.

Second, I did not say it was worth trying to make one’s point at the
inauguration; I question the fact that people are proposing that activists
do the same old things that they were doing prior to the election which were
not really all that productive in the end; for fear that doing anything that
is in the least disruptive will delegitimize the anti-war activist’s demands
as being too radical, too leftist, too irresponsible and will alienate the
middle-of the road citizen who may dislike the Bush policies but will go
along to get along if Obama throws them some symbolic crumbs as he is doing.

> Perhaps, some yes, some no

> Of course, I cannot argue that this is not the case.  It is not a zero-sum
phenomena.  The question is what the percentages of the two will be and if
a large enough percentage of people who will be converted and become part of
the movement is will exist to make it worth the compromising the movement’s
specific substantive policy positions needed to result in the broaden the
base and attract a broader membership.

> Only mass protests will be effective (aside from what happens overseas) in
changing foreign policy if Obama means to continue old policies.

If true, then why aren’t people talking about planning and organizing such
mass protests to be held if Obama does not change foreign policy to be in
line with what the anti-war activists expect?  They do not actually have to
carry out such protests at the inauguration; but they do need to let it be
known publically that they are planning and organizing such things for use
in the future as a substantive threat and stick to back up their verbal
demands and petitions.  Instead, what we see is people advising not to do or
threaten any such actions because it will spoil the celebration and alienate
people.  I wonder what the Obama reaction would be if he knew he would be
faced with a Nixon period anti-war demonstrations in the streets if he
follows the anti-war policies that are not in line with those desired by the
anti-war movement.

> So, what other protest actions exist to effect real change. 

General strikes, removal of support for any and all politicians and
political parties at all levels who support Obama’s policies which violate
the movement’s expectations while giving support to third parties and
candidates as well as  write-in campaigns and candidates, civil
disobedience, disruption of traffic and normal natural daily routines, etc.

> We have to deal with the system as it exists. No revolution is in the
cards, unless catastrophe befalls us.

While I agree that no revolution is in the cards as things stand; but
accepting that we have to deal with the system as it exists may be to buy
into the system and not producing any fundamental systemic changes at all.
If working with the system is a dead end and revolution is not currently in
the cards, then maybe the appropriate strategy is to precipitate conditions
conducive to a revolution by exasperating existing problems to the point of
catastrophe.  Maybe we should work toward the complete collapse of the
economy, toward reducing everyone to the status of being poor and
impoverished, and/or toward shutting down the government and its routine
operation to the point of forcing enough dissatisfaction to lead to a
revolution instead of dealing with the system as it exists and maintaining
the status quo. 

>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. 

I do not mean to say that knowledge, communications, and/or education have
NO effect on peoples’ outlooks; to say that would be foolish and incorrect.
I do mean to say that knowledge, communications, and education does not have
the effect on peoples’ outlooks to the extent that people claim it to have.
They are but one source of impact and have about the same amount of impact
as many sources, less than some, and more than others; but one should not
put one’s faith in those factors exclusively or primarily as it seems to be
the tendency to do today.   Similarly, I would say the same with respect to
the radicalization of people or making them radical progressives.  Pictures
and reports of such things may make people feel bad or guilty,
uncomfortable, and the like; but they themselves do not propel most people
into action.  Most treat such images and reports as experiences in the
abstract and not as concrete phenomenon that they actually experience in
person; they can turn away and leave when they have had too much without
taking any real action toward changing things. Typically, if they do attempt
to do something it is often to throw money at the problem or give a donation
of food, clothing, or shelter to the victims.  More often than not, they may
engage in symbolic gestures like signing petitions and participating in
non-violent and civil obedient demonstrations, writing articles and letters
to the editor, 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. 

Ignorance may not be a virtue; and I never intended to say it was.  However,
education and communications does not necessarily result in making one
knowledgable, wise, or non-ignorant.  I tend to disagree with you that
communications has had decent long range effects – perfect or imperfect.
Despite anti-smoking campaigns, smoking after a temporary decline in the US
is on the rise again; despite information on radiation, there is a renewed
push for nuclear energy and a willingness of certain locations to let
radioactive waste to be stored in their communities or near them.  The
effects of  communications are often short lived and in need of constant and
continual reinforcement, often backed up by actual tangible sanctions like
monetary fines, taxes and/or jail time, and usually enforced by public peer
pressure and acceptability by those in authority.

> On the other hand, without enlisting other support, the movement tends to
remain marginal. 

In actuality, you do have a point; but it does not necessarily have to be
the case.  The establishment is a minority elite and not a broad based
group; but it is not marginalize despite the fact that it does not have
broad based membership.  It remains non-marginalized typically even without
broad based support as long as it controls power and resources so as to be
able to buy support or force support.  If one reduces society to chaos and
anarchy, than any organized group that is able to maintain internal
discipline and commitment no matter how marginalized within the society
stands a chance of controlling things including the operation of that
society to one extent or another.  When one dilutes what one stands for in
order to enlist support, then one facilitates the speed of the entropy of
one’s movement.

From: Brussel Morton K. [mailto:mkbrussel at comcast.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 6:24 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Inauguration thoughts

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/20081202/77aa4f43/attachment-0001.htm