[Peace-discuss] Pleonastic Anti-War Peace Movement?
Ricky Baldwin
baldwinricky at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 26 12:30:16 CST 2010
It is getting harder to imagine by the day. But worth a reminder. I don't know that people enjoy being duped as much as they feel trapped - Obama or McCain. And it's also not that they feel trapped because they are ignorant. They feel trapped because of current (but not fixed) realities.
We can support Greens and others, but we all know they have no chance of winning without a number of pieces not currently in place, the largest being an organized and/or disruptive popular movement behind them (or, more correctly, *ahead* of them). Is it a reason not to support these candidates? I don't say that. But when it comes down to it, every time in recent memory (though not at every point in history or in the world of the possible) what we face, regardless of our 'sacred' individual vote, is that one of two undesirables will be the next president. We will face it again before we know it. (Obama, who has failed, at lease to live up to hopes although not by some cynical measures, versus some yet to be determined POP nutcase who will poke at Obama's hypocrisies, exploit complete nonsense like his being "soft" on war or crime or some such gibberish, etc.)
We can argue about how we should vote - and as I think I've demonstrated, I have no problem doing that - but regardless of our vote, regardless of who becomes president, we still have to do the same basic work of educating, agitating and organizing, as we used to say. I agree with the author below about that much.
I happen to think he's dead wrong about re-claiming patriotism. Patriotism, in my opinion, is like a gateway drug for imperialism, or a sort of nefarious (and always selective) isolationism, but rarely to anything good. That said, I also think we should not exclude people who are coming from there. The anti-war movement needs to stop taking itself so seriously, and start taking the goal more seriously.
We can't afford to be too picky at this point. When (e.g.) there's a rally and someone wants to speak from a patriotic position, speak up for vets, etc. we should embrace that, celebrate it, and remember that it's really and truly great to have people who feel this way on our side, working with us, speaking up against the war, and telling their friends and family, fellow vets or family support group members, reporters, and contacts they we just don't have, about how they see it. We forget that as human beings, we often listen to people we trust and dismiss people we don't.
That doesn't mean we don't speak our own minds. We do. I'm thinking of a Vietnam-era anti-war song by Country Joe: "I've never been a radical, but this has changed my mind." I've known people who would say, for example, 'some of those people are a little - you know - different, but I don't mind that, because this [excrement] has gone too far.' People will come around. But sometimes we have to give them the space to do that. And before anybody reads 'between' the lines here that I'm saying we should moderate our stance, nothing could be further from the truth.. By the same token, if we have someone who speaks up for socialism, anarchism, etc. I think it's great, and not just becauise I agree with those things, but because I think we need a more open movement - and at the same time more focused.
I don't think the anti-war movement's been coopted. I think it's lost its focus. We used to say it's not really about Bush, because so many people hated Bush. It's not really about Obama, either. It's about war, torture, human rights, and what we're going to do about it.
My 2c -
Ricky Baldwin
"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
--- On Tue, 1/26/10, E.Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
From: E.Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pleonastic Anti-War Peace Movement?
To: "Ed Mandel" <crazyhawk22 at hotmail.com>, peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 2:40 AM
#yiv575951627 .hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;}
#yiv575951627 {
FONT-FAMILY:Verdana;FONT-SIZE:10pt;}
Maybe you meant to say....
"...all sense of personal responsibility for the current
foreign policy disasters by the Obama administration is lost in the confused
minds of his supporters. "
I have no sympathy for those who voted for McCain.
Surely he would have been worse if one can imagine it.
Maybe Americans enjoy being duped?
----- Original Message -----
From:
Ed
Mandel
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 1:45
PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pleonastic
Anti-War Peace Movement?
My suggestion to the effort to re-new the peace movement is
that they begin calling the current middle east conflagrations "Obama's
Wars". Every time George W Bush is blamed, all sense of personal
responsibility for the current foreign policy disaster's by the Obama
administration is lost & confused in the minds of his supporters.
**********************************************
> Date:
Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:36:21 -0600
> From: galliher at illinois.edu
>
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: [Peace-discuss]
Pleonastic Anti-War Peace Movement?
>
> January 25 2010
>
The Anti-War Peace Movement Needs a Re-Start
>
> America Needs a
Patriotic, Broad-Based and Politically Independent Opposition to
> War.
By Kevin Zeese
>
> In his first year President Obama broke
several war-making records of President
> George W. Bush. He passed the
largest military budget in U.S. history, the
> largest one-year war
supplementals and fired the most drone attacks on the most
> countries.
He began 2010 asking for another $30 billion war supplemental and
>
with the White House indicating that the next military budget will be $708
> billion, breaking Obama’s previous record.
>
> While
some commentators on MSNBC hailed Obama as the peace candidate, he has
> done more for war in a shorter time than many other
commanders-in-chief. U.S.
> attacks on other countries are not
challenged in any serious way even if they
> result in consistent loss
of innocent civilian life. It is not healthy for
> American democracy
to allow unquestioned militarism and put war budgets on a
> path of
automatic growth despite the U.S. spending as much as the rest of the
>
world combined on weapons and war.
>
> Anti-war opposition has
failed and needs to begin anew. The peace movement which
> atrophied
during the election year now must re-make itself.
>
> What would
successful anti-war peace advocacy look like?
>
> The vast
majority of Americans widely opposes war and wants the U.S. to focus
>
its resources at home. Their initial reaction to wars and escalations, before
> the corporate media spin propagandizes them in a different direction,
is to
> oppose war. But, these views are not reflected in the body
politic and certainly
> not in the DC discourse on war. Rather than
anti-war opposition being
> broad-based, it has been a narrow. It is a
leftish movement that does not
> include Middle America or
conservatives who also see the tremendous waste of the
> bloated
military budget and the militarism of U.S. foreign policy.
>
>
Being opposed to war is not considered mainsteam in American politics.
> Opposition to war and support for peace needs to become a perspective
that is
> included in political debate on the media and in the
Congress. It is currently
> excluded. Successful anti-war advocacy
needs to be credible and well organized
> so it cannot be ignored. This
begins by recognizing the broad, legitimate
> opposition to war and the
long-term anti-war views of Americans across the
> political
spectrum.
>
> There is a long history of opposition to war among
traditional conservatives.
> Their philosophy goes back to President
Washington’s Farewell Address where he
> urged America to avoid
“foreign entanglements.” It has showed itself throughout
> American
history. The Anti-Imperialist League opposed the colonialism of the
>
Philippines in the 1890s. The largest anti-war movement in history, the
America
> First Committee, opposed World War II and had a strong middle
America
> conservative foundation in its make-up. The strongest speech
of an American
> president against militarism was President
Eisenhower’s 1961 final speech from
> the White House warning America
against the growing military-industrial complex.
>
> In recent
years the militarist neo-conservative movement has become dominate of
>
conservatism in the United States. Perhaps none decry this more than
traditional
> conservatives who oppose massive military budgets,
militarism and the American
> empire. Anti-war conservatives continue
to exist, speak out and organize. Much
> of their thinking can be seen
in the American Conservative magazine which has
> been steadfastly
anti-war since its founding in 2002 where their first cover
> story was
entitled “Iraq Folly.”
>
> Of course, the left also has a long
history of opposition to war from the Civil
> War to early imperialism
in the Philippines, World Wars I and II through
> Vietnam, Iraq and
Afghanistan. It includes socialists, Quakers, social justice
>
Catholics and progressives. Indeed, the opposition to entry into World War I
was
> led by the left including socialists, trade unionists, pacifists
including
> people like union leader and presidential candidate Eugene
Debs, Nobel Peace
> Prize winner Jane Addams and author and political
activist Helen Keller. This
> movement was so strong that Woodrow
Wilson ran a campaign to keep the U.S. out
> of the Great War (but
ended up getting the U.S. into the war despite his
> campaign
promises). Opposition to Vietnam brought together peace advocates with
> the civil rights movement, highlighted by Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr..’s
> outspoken opposition to the war.
>
> Uniting
anti-war opposition is an urgent initial step to developing strong
>
anti-war, peace advocacy. The cost of U.S. militarism in lives and dollars has
> become so great that Americans who oppose U.S. militarism need to
join together
> to create an effective opposition to the military
industrial complex that
> profits from war. Yes, there will be
disagreements on other issues but when it
> comes to war and American
empire there is broad agreement that needs to be built on.
>
> A
successful anti-war peace movement cannot give up the flag of patriotism. It
> needs to grab hold of America’s patriotic impulses and show the
United States
> can be the nation many imagine us to be – leading by
positive example, helping
> in crisis, being a force for good, rather
than propagating military dominance
> and hegemony. A successful
anti-war movement needs to be a place where veterans,
> from grunts to
generals, can openly participate, share their stories and explain
> the
lessons they learned from American militarism. While the left has been able
> to include the lower level grunts and officers, it has not been a
safe haven for
> generals and admirals who have become opposed to
extreme militarism. A safe
> place, a patriotic, broad-based anti-war
movement, will allow more former
> military to speak out in a cohesive
and effective manner.
>
> And, a patriotic anti-war peace
movement will also be able to attract the
> support of business leaders
who recognize that war undermines the American
> economy as well as
hurting national security, undermining national and
> international law
and weakening the U.S. economy. When the United States is
> spending
one million dollars per soldier in Afghanistan it is evident to anyone
> focused on the bottom line that a teetering U.S. economy cannot
afford the cost
> of war.
>
> Indeed, a well organized
anti-war movement will have committees not only
> reaching out to
military and business, but to academics, students, clergy,
> labor,
nurses, doctors, teachers and a host of others. Outreach and organization
> needs to be an ongoing priority. And, organization must be designed
around
> congressional districts so it can have a political impact.
This demonstrates one
> reason for the need for a right left coalition;
the anti-war movement cannot
> allow “red” states or districts to go
unorganized.
>
> Successful anti-war advocacy will also need new
tactics. The government and
> media have adjusted to 1960s tactics.
Mass marches and disruption of Congress
> reached all time highs during
the build up and fighting of the Iraq war but with
> little effect. The
government has learned how to handle these tactics and avoid
> media
attention. There certainly will continue to be roles for these tactics but
> they cannot be central and more is needed.
>
> Anti-war
advocates need to use voter initiatives and referenda to raise issues
>
that legislators will not confront. This strategy is a way to break though the
> power of the military industrial complex and bring issues to the
people. It
> forces a public debate and pushes voters to confront how
extreme militarism
> affects their lives. The U.S. has already spent a
trillion dollars in Iraq and
> Afghanistan when care for the wounded
and lost productivity is included the cost
> is more than doubled. In a
decades long “Long War” military expenditures will
> cripple the U.S.
economy. Effective opposition to war will show how the cost of
> war
affects every American’s life.
>
> Around the world other tactics
have been successfully deployed on issues that
> U.S. advocates are not
well organized enough to deploy. These include general
> strikes where
people take off work for hours or days to send a message that the
>
people are organized in opposition to government policy. Similarly slow downs
in
> the nation’s capitol that bring the business of government to a
halt demonstrate
> that the people will not let the business as usual
go on without interruption.
> We can see the beginnings of such efforts
in the U.S. peace movement in Cindy
> Sheehan’s “Peace of the Action”
that recently protested drones at the CIA and
> seeks to block the
business of Empire in the nation’s capitol in 2010.
>
> Finally,
and of critical importance, is for the anti-war peace movement to be
>
truly non-partisan and politically independent. Recently peace activists have
> been drawn into silence when John “Anybody but Bush” Kerry ran a
campaign where
> he called for escalation of the Iraq War and expansion
of the military. And,
> when candidate Obama promised to escalate the
Afghanistan war, attack Pakistan,
> only partially withdraw from Iraq
and expand the U.S. military – many in the
> peace movement remained
silent or criticized his policies but promised to
> support him anyway.
The peace movement needs to protest candidates from any
> party who
call for more militarism, larger military budgets and more U.S. troops
> and demand real anti-war positions for their votes.
>
>
Movements cannot stop and start for elections, nor allow party loyalty to
divide
> them. They must continue to build through the election.
Indeed, elections can be
> prime opportunities to build the movement
and push candidates toward the
> anti-war peace perspective. Peace
voters must be clear in their demands: end to
> the current wars, no
more wars of aggression and dramatic reductions in the
> military
budget so that it is really a defense budget not a war budget. This
>
does not mean leaving the U.S. weak and unable to defend itself, but it should
> not be a budget that allows aggressive misuse of the U.S. military as
the
> primary tool of foreign policy.
>
> Developing an
effective anti-war peace movement is a big task that will take
> years.
U.S. Empire can be traced back to the late 1800s and President Eisenhower
> warned America of the military industrial complex fifty years ago.
The U.S. is
> currently engaged in a “Long War” supported by neocons,
neo-liberals and
> corporatist politicians. The pro-militarist
establishment has deep roots in both
> major parties and undoing the
military machine will take many years of work.
> Advocacy against war
and militarism needs to be persistent; constantly educating
> the
American public that war undermines national security, weakens the rule of
> law and contributes to the collapsing economy. We need to show how
investment in
> militarism rather than civil society undermines
livability of American
> communities, weakens the economy and puts
basic necessities like education and
> health care financially out of
reach.
>
> The facts are on the side of the anti-war peace
advocates, now we must build
> organizations that represent the
patriotic, anti-militarist impulses of the
> American people.
>
> Kevin Zeese is executive director of Voters for Peace
(www.VoterForPeace.US).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses
and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be
clean.
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing
list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up
now.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous
content by MailScanner, and
is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss
mailing
list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100126/29c5f9fd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list