[Peace-discuss] A new left/right antiwar movement?

Tue Mar 22 12:14:47 CDT 2011

I don't think I'm ignoring the anti-war Randists; after all, I think we
should oppose any alliance with them, formal or informal. Besides being
anti-war, they are anti-union, anti-poor, and they work among Tea Partiers
who have largely racist and xenophobic motivations. I'm totally for engaging
these people, libertarians and Tea Partier alike, to convince them to drop
out of the Tea Party and Libertarian groups.

Those of us active in the Bloomington-Normal Citizens for Peace and Justice
have steered clear from the relatively strong ISU chapter of the Paulite
group Young Americans for Liberty. When we did a forum with them last year,
it turned into a campaign pitch for the Libertarian Party and was mostly a
big mistake on our part. They are the most opportunistic group in town and I
see no reason to give them a platform. The Libertarians sometimes bring 2-4
people to our anti-war rally (sometimes, because often they themselves don't
show), and they never participate in the larger national demonstrations.
There are many more liberals in town who come to anti-war events than the
Randists. They attract youth at ISU to their "anarcho-capitalist"
greed-is-good philosophy by filling a political vacuum on campus. They
highlight their anti-war position, and especially marijuana views to attract
youth, while attacking unions, public education, any state spending for
human need, etc., etc.

I think your characterization of the Democrats is correct, but this argues
for independence from the two business parties and not for an alliance with
a Republican Party front group (I don't agree that the Tea Party hasn't
already been coopted. It started out coopted, largely the creation of Fox
News and others with a lot of money.) Wisconsin's Walker was supported by
the Tea Partiers and now he's trying to bust my union and attack the poor.
Ron Paul is to be feared as much, perhaps more, than Obama. The anti-war
movement should be independent from both parties, Democrats and Republicans.

---- Corey

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:16 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:

>  The so-called Tea Party is as we know a mood rather than a movement, much
> less a party, and is even more various than the anti-war movement.  Unlike
> the antiwar movement, it has moneyed interests (such as the Koch brothers)
> and traditional political groups that re trying to co-opt it.
>
> But we can't simply ignore the anti-war currents within the
> TP/Libertarians, e.g.
>
> ~ the Ron Paul movement: Paul won the straw poll for president at both
> recent CPACs; he's been consistently anti-war, anti-intervention,
> anti-Pentagon.
>
> ~ <antiwar.com>, one of the best sites on the web, is a Libertarian site.
>
> ~ paleo-conservative elements, such as the journal American Conservative,
> have been against the neo-con wars in principle from the beginning; Pat
> Buchanan has attacked the Libyan adventure as unconstitutional (which it
> is).
>
> For the anti-war movement itself, the co-option has already taken place, by
> the Democrats and Obama. We forget that the Democrats were given control of
> Congress in 2006 specifically to end the war, as they recognized.  The
> firing of Rumsfeld after the election was the administration's recognition
> of the fact. But the Democrats quite consciously and cynically pissed it way
> - e.g., with "timelines" - when they could have de-funded the wars (which
> required only 41 votes in the Senate) in the SE Asia and LA were finally
> defunded.  Then the coup-de-grace was provided by Obama's smiling lies and
> the foolish trust that so many people who should have known better put in
> him.
>
> Remember that the antiwar movement of the 1960s grew up in opposition to
> both business parties.  There were attempts to co-opt it, notably by Robert
> Kennedy and Richard Nixon.  Nixon (whom Obama much resembles in this regard)
> was elected in 1968 as the "peace candidate" because in part it was widely
> believed that he had "a secret plan for ending the war."
>
> Events of this week have shown once again how much a new antiwar movement
> of that sort is required.  The percent of the population opposed to the
> administration's wars is now about where  it was in 1968.
>
> Regards, Carl
>
>
> On 3/22/11 9:13 AM, Corey Mattson wrote:
>
> I support what Iraq Veterans Against the War did in Madison on March 12 ---
> bring the anti-war cause to our natural allies, workers and students *
> fighting* the Tea Party. When I was in Madison February 19th, there were
> about 1,000 Tea Party counter-demonstrators to our 80,000. Those 1,000 Tea
> Party activists were way more than any of their number ever protesting the
> war.
>
> An anti-war Tea Party movement? Where is it? Fledgling right-wing
> libertarian groups clearly haven't been that successful in bringing them to
> the anti-war cause. It's not worth diluting the substance of our opposition
> to the war to attract a handful of libertarians who are opposed to the war
> for the wrong reasons and are our enemy on practically every other issue. In
> the proposed movement to "Stop the War, Stop the Spending," what are
> left-wingers supposed to say when their right-wing partners attack the poor,
> bust our unions, and make U.S. capitalism even more savage and inhumane?
>
> By the way, in the piece below, David Boaz gets the timeline wrong as to
> when the anti-war movement weakened, and I believe he does it purposefully
> for political points. The anti-war movement was already seriously weakened
> by 2006, maybe as early as 2005, as demoralization set in. Surely hopes in a
> electoral victory played a role, but there was no sudden death of the
> movement upon Obama's election. If Boaz is going to blame the Democrats for
> the movement's demise, he should at least get it right. I suspect that he
> wasn't involved in the anti-war movement back then and wouldn't know what
> happened.
>
> --- Corey
> Bloomington-Normal Citizens for Peace and Justice
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:29 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:
>
>> [From a director of the 'libertarian' Cato Institute.]
>>
>> "...the $64,000 question — though these days it would have to be at least
>> a $64 billion question — could a new antiwar movement hook up with the Tea
>> Party movement in a Stop the War, Stop the Spending revolt?"
>>
>> What Ever Happened to the Antiwar Movement?
>> David Boaz - March 21, 2011
>>
>> About 100 antiwar protesters, including Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers
>> fame, were arrested Saturday outside the White House in demonstrations
>> marking the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. It’s a far cry
>> from the Bush years, when hundreds of thousands or millions marched against
>> the war, and the New York Times declared “world public opinion” against the
>> war a second superpower. Will President Obama‘s military incursion in a
>> third Muslim country revive the antiwar movement?
>>
>> On a street corner in Washington, D.C., outside the Cato Institute,
>> there’s a metal box that controls traffic signals. During the Bush years
>> there was hardly a day that it didn’t sport a poster advertising an antiwar
>> march or simply denouncing President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. But
>> the marches and the posters seemed to stop on election day 2008.
>>
>> Maybe antiwar organizers assumed that they had elected the man who would
>> stop the war. After all, Barack Obama rose to power on the basis of his
>> early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it. But after two
>> years in the White House he has made both of George Bush’s wars his wars.
>>
>> In October 2007, Obama proclaimed, “I will promise you this, that if we
>> have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first
>> thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this
>> war. You can take that to the bank.” Speaking of Iraq in February 2008,
>> candidate Barack Obama said, “I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this
>> war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.” The following
>> month, under fire from Hillary Clinton, he reiterated, “I was opposed to
>> this war in 2002….I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and
>> I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused.”
>>
>> Indeed, in his famous “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to
>> slow” speech on the night he clinched the Democratic nomination, he also
>> proclaimed, “I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be
>> able to look back and tell our children that . . . this was the moment when
>> we ended a war.”
>>
>> Today, however, he has tripled President Bush’s troop levels in
>> Afghanistan, and we have been fighting there for more than nine years. The
>> Pentagon has declared “the official end to Operation Iraqi Freedom and
>> combat operations by United States forces in Iraq,” but we still have 50,000
>> troops there, hardly what Senator Obama promised.
>>
>> And now Libya. In various recent polls more than two-thirds of Americans
>> have opposed military intervention in Libya. No doubt many of them voted for
>> President Obama.
>>
>> There’s another issue with the Libyan intervention: the president’s
>> authority to take the country to war without congressional authorization. As
>> many bloggers noted over the weekend, in 2007 Barack Obama told Charlie
>> Savage of the Boston Globe,
>>
>> The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally
>> authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an
>> actual or imminent threat to the nation.
>>
>> Candidate Hillary Clinton spoke similarly:
>>
>> If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the
>> President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the
>> Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the
>> President can take military action – including any kind of strategic bombing
>> – against Iran without congressional authorization.
>>
>> And candidate Joe Biden:
>>
>> The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the imminent
>> threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of force.
>>
>> Fine words indeed. Will their supporters call them on their apparent
>> reversal?
>>
>> It’s hard to escape the conclusion that antiwar activity in the United
>> States and around the world was driven as much by antipathy to George W.
>> Bush as by actual opposition to war and intervention. Indeed, a University
>> of Michigan study of antiwar protesters found that Democrats tended to
>> withdraw from antiwar activity as Obama found increasing political success
>> and then took office. Independents and members of third parties came to make
>> up a larger share of a smaller movement. Reason.tv looked at the dwindling
>> antiwar movement two months ago.
>>
>> With his launch of a third military action, President Obama seems to have
>> forgotten a point made by Temple University professor Jan C. Ting: “Wars are
>> easy to begin, but hard to end.” Americans haven’t forgotten, though.
>>
>> Nearly two-thirds of Americans now say that the war in Afghanistan hasn’t
>> been worth fighting, a number that has soared since early 2010. Where are
>> their leaders? Where are the senators pushing for withdrawal? Where are the
>> organizations? Could a new, non-Democratic antiwar movement do to Obama what
>> the mid-2000s movement did to Bush? And the $64,000 question — though these
>> days it would have to be at least a $64 billion question — could a new
>> antiwar movement hook up with the Tea Party movement in a Stop the War, Stop
>> the Spending revolt?
>>
>> http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/03/happened-antiwar-movement/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttp://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110322/861f7bb9/attachment-0001.html>