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

Tue Mar 22 12:58:31 CDT 2011

I can hardly imagine a more diverse group on the libertarian-progressive 
axis than Iraq Veterans Against the War.

If one insists on Absolute Ideologic Purity, one will find that even he 
himself is found lacking.  Better that we cut everyone some slack for 
their "areas needing further growth and understanding".  I too have been 
guilty of wounding my friends at times.

Carl and others have pointed out that the "Tea Party" is a quite diverse 
group and that its recent incarnation began with the Ron Paul 
R[3voJ]ution on 16 DEC 2007, a quite vocal and large libertarian group, 
and has been seriously defamed damaged and co-opted by the same-old 
same-old neoconnish elements seeking to cop a spin from the unrest and a 
teachable moment.

One can't be a fiscal conservative or any other kind of conservative 
(other than neo-) and favour the War.  Sunday morning flag decals still 
won't get 'em into heaven.

There still remains a Teachable Moment that can be taken at the cusp.

Why not a paleoconservative/classical liberal/libertarian/progressive 
Coalition Against the War?

If such a diverse motley crew as Ron Paul, Walter Jones, Barney Frank, 
Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich, Chuck Baldwin, Tim 
Johnson, et al can put aside deep ideologic disaggregative forces and 
stand together against the War Machine, why cant more of us find it in 
our hearts to do the same?

Why not?

On 2011-3-22 22:13, 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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>     http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110323/c104eb43/attachment.html>