Disconnect Between Anti-War Activism Then and Now
A bunch of unrepentant ’60s activists and socially concerned students met recently at Georgetown University. The usual suspects were there - people such as Todd Gitlin, a former leader of Students for a Democratic Society; Marcus Raskin, a founder of the Institute for Policy Studies; and Katha Pollitt, a columnist at The Nation.
There wasn’t a centrist or conservative in sight, even at the university whose former dean of its School of Foreign Service, the Rev. Edmund A. Walsh, proposed to Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy over dinner in January 1950 that the senator take up the issue of Communists in government to invigorate his political career, which was heading downhill fast. This was not long after the Soviet Union had exploded its first atomic bomb, and Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury. Mr. McCarthy began waving around his “lists” of Commies who had infiltrated every nook and cranny of the federal government.
Georgetown is a different place now, but Washington isn’t, not with the Bush administration reviving one of Mr. McCarthy’s favorite weapons: assaulting your opponents’ patriotism. What’s enormously different, though, is the tone of the opposition to the Iraqi war, compared with the one that Norman Mailer wrote about four decades ago in The Armies of the Night. (The Georgetown conference was convened to observe the 40th anniversary of the October 1967 march on the Pentagon, chronicled in Mr. Mailer’s landmark book.)
To some extent, the conference had a modest self-congratulatory sheen, not just because liberals had “won” their fight - the war did end, although not “on schedule” - but also because they had mustered a muscular, unavoidable presence. They didn’t stop the war in its tracks; that would have been like making an aircraft carrier halt on a dime. But the left retarded the war, and let Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon know that all their actions were being observed, and not many were laudable.
I wasn’t immune from the smug satisfaction that salted the air at the Georgetown meeting, yet that faded quickly as I considered the situation today. At some point, someone asked the panelists whether they had speculated in 1967 where they would be 40 years in the future. Of course, no one had: They were creatures of the moment, defining themselves in the crucible of the instant.
But that question can be thrown on its head:
Forty years hence, what would a conference about opposition to the war in Iraq resemble? Would there be a sheepish hemming and hawing, a belated coming to terms with the low drama of political scheming and strategizing (the damned focus-grouping of it all!) that has supplanted principled and uncompromising opposition? Would there be a coming to terms with the timidity that is keeping voices silent and mute? Would there be a hoary regret that we stayed home, safe behind our computer screens, while convoys rattled through Iraq and our fine youths got killed and maimed, like the 25-year-old I know whose insides were littered by shrapnel and who has just left a hospital after another operation - his 17th?
I won’t be around for that conference in the year 2047, and neither will Norman Mailer. But this war needs a brilliant testament to its spooky and brilliant perversity. It needs a Mailer, and it needs a Thoreau - someone who, while briefly in jail for refusing to pay a poll tax, took his good friend Ralph Waldo Emerson’s inquiry - “Henry, what are you doing in there?” - and turned it around: “Waldo, the question is, what are you doing out there?”
Arthur J. Magida is writer in residence at the University of Baltimore. His latest book is “Opening the Doors of Wonder: Reflections on Religious Rites of Passage.” His e-mail is amagida2@aol.com.
Copyright © 2007, The Baltimore Sun
2 comments:
1. The MSM won’t publicize protests.
2. Liberals too are afraid of Peak Oil and may, if only subconsciously, back the aggressive oilmen.
it is the generation gap come back to haunt the activists of then. they can not or do not want to communicate with now.
Events subsequent to today will define whether it’s proper and appropriate to protest the WoT (and Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran) in the American streets, as was done about Vietnam. During the next decade we will see either more or less terrorism, and the economic effects of oil politics. Demonstrations today could be refuted by a large-scale terror attack tomorrow. Would-be protesters and the MSM all know this, and turnouts are low.
There is also a “difference” between protesting what is fought with volunteers vs. protesting what was fought with draftees. The only ones of us who really have an earned justification to be expressing opinions with organized public protests are those who have served or have suffered losses (such, for instance, as Cindy Sheehan) or hardship due to the effort. This is a far smaller group than everybody, and many, many other people are reticent to go out appearing to disrespect what’s been done by the willing.
As someone in the service noted: “America is not at war. The Army and Marine Corps are at war. America is (has been) at the mall.”
The administration’s use of the National Guard and mercenaries was a major factor in preempting massive, vitriolic protests against the fiasco in Iraq. If there had been a military draft, we might have seen a repeat of the ’60s. Americans are much more complacent when an obvious travesty does not seem to directly affect them.
It’s almost a morality tale in that “activism” should last the duration of one’s life. Like thinking.
And Daniel David, finally you have gone too far for me. I had to ask this of someone else the other day, but are you a prophet? Why are you being so presumptuous that you are giving us our options for the next decade?
And Daniel, having a conscience gives one the right to express our opinions. We developed a conscience because we have been living in the world and we understand the harmful consequences of actions on innocent people and we protest that as we don’t want it done in our name. I presume from your comment that you have not developed a conscience?
I hate to say this, you seem like kind of an establishment square come here to tell us what to think and how we ought to act according to what seems like a narrow interpretation which you insist that we ought to adopt? Are we telling you what to do?
Let’s note the astonishingly low-caliber thought offered by our resident Dem Party shill, Daniel David (12:18 pm), who writes “The only ones of us who really have a right to be expressing opinions with protest are those who have served or have suffered losses (such, for instance, as Cindy Sheehan)…”
In other words, most Americans don’t have the right to protest the war. This exemplifies the “thought process” of this hardcore Dem Party supporter, on the subject of democratic rights.
Another clever thing Dan writes is, “During the next decade we will see either more or less terrorism…” // Gee, really? And tomorrow, it will either rain, or it won’t.
Another obviously ignored fact!
We are all wage slaves, living from paycheck to paycheck, with our basic sustenance coming at the whim of the entrenched elite oligarchy which controls our economic life.
I personally know of individuals being marginalized at work over anti WOT, Iraq war sentiments.
Gee, finally I see others standing up and being counted in views of Daniel David “our resident Dem Party shill”.
Hey lets face it . . . . Everyone wants someone else to take care of it for them. Who among you are willing to put yourself on the line and make the changes necessary to make the war end. Do you really want to give up the use of OIL? Do you really want to ride a bicycle to commute? Do you really want gasoline to be $5.00 a gallon? What kind of changes to your life style do you no longer want? Do you really need to have a 5,000 square foot house? How about heating all that house everyday? Make the changes you want and the rest will happen. Do not expect someone else to make it OK for you any more. It will not happen . . . .
We all have our own ways of protesting neo-conservatism and the military aggression advocated by its adherents, and that presently imposed on the world (in all of our names) by our leaders of the last 6 years.
Some say “be cavalier about elections, let some more neocons be elected by default, but then AT LEAST HAVE THE GUTS to go out in the street and protest what was dumbly elected”. I say, AT LEAST HAVE THE BRAINS to change the nature of the problem in the first place by electing the only alternative that can be elected in a two-party system, the other party. Everything I say on CD is designed toward that end and I spend a lot of time doing it–not because I have no conscience, not because I’m a Party hack or a paid shill, as routinely alleged, but because I care about our future.
As for organized war protests, they aren’t catching on much, either with any large numbers of participants or with the MSM, because they are a questionable strategy–due both to profound uncertainties about future terror events and due to the implied disrespect of military volunteers and their families that demonstrations entail in the setting of an all-volunteer force.
Some will protest that way anyhow, and hopefully they won’t create to big of an errant backfire. I will protest by asking anyone I can find to please consider voting out the Republicans.
kucinich
One of the big problems is people trying to repeat tactics that worked in the 60’s when the US was a very different place.
For instance, back then the Democrats were actually a separate party from the Republicans.
Well said, Daniel D. I know I criticize you unfairly but in this case, you make some sense.
My only caveat, is that voting out the GOP, just because its the GOP, will NOT solve anything. I’m afraid the money interests will just buy differently labeled pols to do their bidding behind closed doors.
Many so-called citizens are allowed to bury their heads and hide from responsibility for the actions of this country.
Censorship is rampant and Goebbels’ like mantras beamed to the people.
Many people I come in contact with appear to be real human beings about any and all topics except Bush and US Security. Then they turn red and accuse others of ’soft on terror’ and ‘I don’t need any liberties if I’m safe’.
A truly wondrous and amazing transformation.
As long as people exist who are afraid, we will have this type of gov’t.
Democrats and the GOP are equally responsible for breeding this climate of fear along with the MSM. They have sold their souls to the corporate purveyors of our amorality, greed, and dissolution (or as put elswhere: corruption, greed and decadence).
First Mr. David, I have to address your defenitions of ‘disrespect’ and ‘volunteer’.
Many of those fighting were sold the job by recruiters who promised them financial security for their family if they joined the military, and most were recruited prior to the war. At a time when the U.S. had not committed reserves to battle in a decade and there was no reason to suspect any change to that plan in the near future. Furthermore, most who joined afterwards ‘volunteered’ under the supposition that disarming Iraq was a necessary action to ensure the safety of their families. In legal contract terms this is called ‘misrepresentation’, the deliberate statement of false information that has the effect of inducing the other party into the contract. Unfortunately, in the military (unlike law) it is illegal to terminate one’s contract under these terms, punishable by lengthy prison sentence. This is not the same kind of volunteer you saw when Bobby’s Mom came with you on school trips.
‘Disrespect’ - Since when does the feelings of a minority of soldiers and their families trump constitutional rights of a democracy??? Each of us holds an equal degree of say in the actions of our government, and to denounce a person for exerting their agency in the public sphere, especially when they are voicing a view held by a strong majority of citizens, is demonstrably fascist. Is it less disrespectful for people to be out protesting for the war, for the sacrifice of life, and not suiting up and going themselves? If both are disrespectful then I assume nobody should be in the streets period; in the midst of a wholly illegal, unsuccessful and admittedly imperialist war.
And if you truly believe that only those on teh front line and their families are the only Americans being affected by this war, I suggest visiting the National Priorities Project website at www.costofwar.com.
I wish I had the time to address your assertion that the Democratic party offers a viable solution to the situation. The defence industry is donating more money to Dem candidates than to Republicans at a 3-2 rate, with Hilary “Just Bomb It” Clinton well in the lead in these contributions.
Daniel, you’re no one to tell anyone else to “HAVE THE BRAINS” to do anything. After your idiotic comment at 12:18 pm, where you said flat out that most Americans “don’t have the right” to protest a criminal war that their country is perpetrating, you’re in no credible position to offer advice to anyone.
Your constant pimping for Democrats is disgusting & stupid. The Democrats are HELPING Republicans to commit these war crimes. If a Democrat wins the ‘08 election, she will simply become the new Bushler.
Among your other braindead remarks: there is NOTHING about antiwar protests that “implies disrespect” to military volunteers or their families. There IS however plenty about criminal wars which use these people as cannon fodder, that “disrespects” them.
Demonstrations won’t work this time. American politics of today are way different. First of all we don’t have a free press anymore. Second, we don’t have a government anymore. Everything is by and for our corporate masters. I first noticed in the early 90’s that no one in government represents me. Americans being americans however, refused to see. They still do. Americans are scared to death they may be seen as outsiders. We all want to be in with the in crowd. In the sixties hippies were in. Today hippies,(liberals), are seen as just above child molesters. Nothing will change until enough people care enough to participate in democracy. Not just voting but at work, school, and in the streets. And boy howdy what a job it will be. If we ever get there.
I have pretty much given up. I was active in Veterans for peace and the socialist party U.S.A. But no one gives a rats ass. Here in Oregon people are pretty much with the program. But the south and midwest seem to be hell bent on running backwards as far as they can. I can’t change anything myself and neither can you. When the revolution starts wake me up.
I could buy the bit about reservists and volunteers who joined the army for jobs and benefits and didn’t expect to fight a war back in 2002.
By now though, this has been going on for 6 years. So virtually anyone who is in the military today has either signed up while this was going on, or they’ve reenlisted while this was going on. Iraq itself has been going on for 4 1/2 years now. Anyone who has signed up in that time knew precisely what was happening. Or at least they had the opportunity to find out.
Its not the ‘implied disrespect’ for members of the military that keeps turnout low at protests. Its the very basic fact that almost all Americans know that a boring protest through an empty downtown on a Saturday won’t do a dang thing to end this war. They know the corporate media won’t report it no matter what numbers are there. And they know that no elected officials on either the Democrat or Republican side are going to care a dang about the fact that there’s a protest. Going to a modern protest is a complete waste of time that won’t change a thing. Thus, most people who leave busy lives don’t bother going.
Its like the communist block just before its collapse. Most people know in their hearts things are seriously wrong. But they don’t see any actions they can take to change thing. Protesting won’t change things. Voting Democrat won’t change things. In the communist block, as soon as it became apparent that joining in protest marches might really change things, there were millions of people suddenly in the streets. If something develops in the US where people can think there is a real chance for change, then you’ll see millions of people in the streets here too.
COMarc:
That’s exactly what it will take “millions of people in the streets here too”.
Until the US populace gets the courage to take to the streets and follow the example of Gandhi’s non-violent marches and demonstrations nothing will change. The people have got to WANT the Constitution restored enough to ACT accordingly. If there is no such desire, there will will be no more US Constitution (except in name only).
Things will change only when the populace is alienated and hopeless and find a chance for change.
Then they may :
STAND UP - for what they beleive to be right.
SIT DOWN - in the nearest street to bring transportaion, retail, everything to a standstill.
FIGHT - I hope like Gandhi’s Pathan friend Badshar Khan(Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan) (check him out)a Pashtun nonviolent Muslim
FIGHT - Even if it means sacrifice to themselves to totally repudiate the oligarchy
FIGHT - As if their lives depend on active resistance - which they do
When people realize that they cannot ignore the actions of the government and relaize they themselves are the governmet, only then is change possible.
What a shame to let cowardice bring down such a noble experiment of human governance!!
Pardon the interruption of the Daniel David “Pile On” - but I would like to make a short comment on the article.
FOR ALL THE MASSIVE DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE 60′S - NIXON WON A LANDSLIDE VICTORY AGAINST McGOVERN IN ‘72 AND THE WAR IN VIETNAM CONTINUED.
NIXON WASN’T IMPEACHED FOR THE VIETNAM WAR.
I’m getting tired of reading articles and posts about how “Great we were in the ’60’s”, how lame the protests are today, and why we all should just give up.
I marched last saturday in S.F, I marched in Manhattan in Feb 2003, and I shall attend the next march as well.
Again, sorry for the interruption, you may now return to your very important debate with Daniel David.
Thanks,
Ramsay
Oh, I should make clear, I’m not defending Daniel David nor do I want to debate him.
He’s obviously proud of the fact that, he and the nation voted the Democrats into power in ‘06, and they brought the troops home.
Ramsay
I stood a stone’s-throw from Mailer and Dr. Spock while they were arrested in Oct ‘67, on the steps of the pentagon. I was there.
In the 60’s I didn’t know any junkies…now, every family in my life is suffering from some family members addicted to soul- and mind-killing drugs. The marketing of these drugs has crippled almost an entire generation very successfully. Not by accident, either.
Emerson and Thoreau were not ga-ga from meth, crack or heroin.
As a long time activist who remembers the march mentioned and others very well … and as a proud liberal (no friken shill) Democrat … I have to say that the majority of the posts here are full of bush’s sreaming manure … and not addressing the truth about why they/ others are NOT MARCHING!!
jennywren … right on … The young today are also addicted to their cell phones, text messaging, myspace and beer bongs … Too busy (???) to be active!
When Big Brother comes to hook up their living room monitor/tracer … they will probably say “cool” …
Go to a march … most there have grey hair !!
some really great observations here all around today I think.
Thomas Albright 3:38 pm
Demonstrations won’t work this time. We all want to be in with the in crowd.
I was watching some really intelligent film makers in a documentary lamenting that film had died. But Antonioni took the optimistic outlook that what was required was adaptation. Maybe we are going through an adaptation of sorts.
You can waks up, Thomas, this is the revolution! It’s not loud and boisterous just yet but you can see it coming! Better to arrive early, be first.
Mendo Chuck 2:00 pm
Do you really want to ride a bicycle to commute? Make the changes you want and the rest will happen.
I believe this was the sentiment that Thoreau was expressing. And also this goes back to what Thomas Albright wrote about not seeming to be outsiders. What’s required is a little more behavior out of the ordinary and to hell what anybody else thinks, why are they behaving the way they do?
For me this has been fairly easy because as chance or fate would have it I was raised by a bunch of radical naturalist environmentalists and when they were done with me a few insane artist types took over. Which, by the way, has often made me wonder just how difficult or impossible it would be to dissuade someone like Bush from his point of view, given his up bringing. Was there any hope? The rest of us can be thankful that we aren’t him. That would be truly misguided and miserable.
finally, curmudgeon99 1:04 pm
We are all wage slaves, living from paycheck to paycheck.
I was thinking today about how the “independent contractor” has been slowly vanishing. Ok there are a few out there, but a few year’s back everyone willingly incorporated into the system thinking it was all great. Now the system, while generously providing for many of us, is far along the way of turning us all into serfs, and that’s troubling, and also makes it prohibitively difficult to travel somewhere to protest.
Particularly if we are reluctant to travel anywhere except by bicycle.
During the lead up to the Iraq war, there was the largest protests ever in history. It just didn’t do any good. So I think there are (or were, at least) people willing to go out and protest in the streets, but they don’t get appropriate media coverage.
I think the media is the biggest problem.
1) Not covering the anti-war movement in a proportionate amount to how unpopular the war is.
2) Not covering the violence going on in Iraq with the same intensity that it was covered during Vietnam. When people see the reality of dead civilians, women, children, and babies they tend to question the policy that is causing it.
Dearest baby boomers,
I heart all of you dearly, but please remember that the boomers constituted–and continue to constitute–an enormous population who were able to ride a wave of surplus wealth to Haight Ashbury, the ‘67 March on Washington, ‘68 DemCon, Freedom Summer, Columbia U. takeover, etc. If you don’t believe me, check with UK sociologist Mike Brake’s book _Generations of Youth_. U.S. prosperity took a downturn after capitalism shifted from the fordist manufacturing economy to the flexible accumulation model (see David Harvey). Baby busters and subsequent generations have been facing lowered economic expectations ever since and have also lacked the sheer demographic numbers (though I’d have to check the stats for people born in the 80s).
And don’t forget that boomers came of age on the heels of some serious social reforms, like the New Deal and the labor victories of the mid-20c. Subsequent generations have grown up under increasingly mean, conservative, and authoritarian governments and increased corporate power.
Furthermore, in the ’60s, there were only 3 TV networks, the movie industry was in disarray, and it was pretty easy to spot The Man in his Grey Flannel Suit. But capitalism is a rascally critter, and now, via cable and satellite and digital TV and radio, the Interweb, cell phones and iPhones and iPods, we have intense media saturation and The Man is harder to spot because he’s clothed himself in hip or passes himself off as a revolutionary by being loud-mouthed and irreverent toward the “oppressive,” “poltically correct,” left-wing “establishment” that pushes its anti-family, anti-Christmas gay “agenda.”
I’m not dissin’ the ’60s at all. Nay friends, it remains an inspiration, and I’m all for the street demonstration, but I think that we have to look at other forms of protest, which are often entangled with radical “lifestyles” (to use a lame term).
Young people may be missing from protests (though in my home town, you could fool me), but they’re also volunteering for Food Not Bombs, running Independent Media Centers, living on anarchist communes and in squats, being vegetarians and vegans, taking part in Buy Nothing Day, DIY-ing their own cultures, recruiting for the Socialist Party, embracing new gender, sex, class, and racial identities, distrusting authority, hating the Iraq war, building an international community through blogging that can spread counterinformation against the MSM, etc. If they seem to be in the minority, it may be that, again, no generation has been as populous as the boomers. Did the ’60s counterculture represent a majority of its generation? I’m curious about the ratio of radical to conservative youth in the ’60s. Is it the same as now?
Sorry for the long post. Couldn’t help myself. First on CD.
thepunchline,
good job punchline. informed, intelligent. keep posting.
Mendo Chuck,
Commute by bicycle: check. 10 times a week.
$5/gallon gas: check. maybe it’ll get more people on bikes
5,000 sq. ft. house: no way. got about 850 right now, though i’m the sole occupant which probably isn’t the best scenario.
heating 5,000 sq. ft.: where i live, AC is the problem. run it sparingly.
changes to lifestyle: actually, will be bummed if i can no longer make electrically-powered music after peak oil. i love the electric guitar. but i’ll adapt by building new, weird instruments.
To the Dearly Defeated:
George Bush today admitted that protests have an impact. I just took this off of Yahoo News.
“When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground,” Bush said, “and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.”
Message: The Democrats feel threatened. Ramp up the protests. Keep up the pressure.
Allow me to be so arrogant as to give you all a little lesson in politics.
The Democrats don’t care about peace, democracy, or the hungry. They only care about one thing - Power.
Proof? Ms. Pelosi “If they were poor I could have them arrested..”
You are progressives - their base. If they lose you - they lose the election. They lose power and the money that comes with it.
So tell them and show them that you are unhappy with them. Don’t contribute, threaten them with going Green, show up at their town hall meetings and tell them you’re pissed, write letters to the editor, attend marches etc.
Getting back to the article, and the comparisons between then and now, and all the nostalgia for the 60’s.
Does anyone remember the “Silent Majority?” The people who actually ended the war?
You have the silent majority behind you. 75% of your fellow citizens think the president is an idiot. And 60% want troops out now.
Why are you all so damn defeated? Pathetic.
Ramsay
P.S. There were many plenty of young people at the protest last Saturday - you just weren’t there to see them.
If you want to know what can happen, study the fall of the communist block.
At first there was both a government trying to struggle with huge problems of its own making while pretending all was ok and squashing any dissent. There was some small dissent by small groups of people who were monitored by the police, harrassed and sometimes arrested and sent to Siberia. There were always very small, ineffectual protests in the Soviet Union, similar to what we see in the US today but even smaller as it was more dangerous to participate.
When the process started that led to the collapse of the communist block (largely Gorbachov starting some reforms that he thought he could control), there were some protests and marches that weren’t much larger.
But then, people sensed there was a chance for change. The government itself was admitting it by the reforms they were putting into place. And at the same time it seemed less dangerous to protest. So there was both a sense of change in the air and it became less dangerous to protest at the same time.
Most people in the communist block would have always told you there was much wrong in their societies if they felt safe to talk to you. Just like in the USA today where many people are vaguely dissatisfied with what’s happening and some 60-70% tell pollsters ‘we are on the wrong track.’
So, the protests started to grow. There were more people out in the streets. It didn’t go from 50 to a million overnight, but it did gather steam and strength like a snowball going downhill. The key point is that as the people of the society began to feel that change was possible, they became more active and involved. Eventually it ended in a mass rejection by a large number of the people represented by mass crowds in the range of hundreds of thousands and the millions in the various capitals.
The key is that when there seems to be an effective chance of creating change by acting, a public that had seemed vaguely discontent and apathetic can suddenly be willing to act. They won’t be visible until just before that time. And it will surprise the heck out of the politicians, pundits and experts who won’t see it coming nor imagine that it can happen so quickly.
This article is friggin nuts.
The anti-war movement in the 60’s was a complete failure. It had very little impact on public policy and possibly had the opposite desired effect on public opinion. It drives me nuts to hear the baby boomers wax nostalgic about the days of rage and levitating the Pentagon etc. They’ve created a false history deifying a particular tactic. They’ve created a cult that worships the grand symbolic gestures and have given everybody permission to forget the grunt work that successful movements have used.
Conveniently, this narrative gives permission for middle class activists to avoid any sort of accountable strategic activism. Instead they are freed to pursue an activism that allows them to “speak truth to power” and “witness”. They are motivated by a desire to make a good case for St Peter at the pearly gates rather than actually accomplishing anything. This kind of self congratulatory dilettantism is only possible if you don’t actually have your back against the wall. They can satisfy themselves that they’ve “done the right thing” and go home to their 401k’s and hybrids.
Meanwhile back in the reality based community, it might or might not be convenient to recall that Americans started polling in majority numbers against the Vietnam war after Walter Cronkite balked at the inability of the US to deal with Vietcong’s Tet Offensive (which apparently might have been a misreading of the actual effectiveness of Tet). Studies are quite inconclusive about the relationship between street domeonstrations and anti war resolutions in Congress in the 60’s and 70’s. I’m thinking the savvy guerrilla tactics of the North Vietnamese had a bit more effect on U.S. foreign policy than the various mobes. Anecdotes about Nixon cowering in the White House and wandering among the demonstrators only go so far.
There is some evidence that Americans actually disliked the anti-war demonstrators more than they disliked the war.
The military calls that blow back. I call that common sense.
In Puerto Rico a demonstration is called a manifestation because the will of the people is manifest. It’s an instant poll. You either display your power to the elected officials or you don’t. If you are rowdy, ala Argentineans in the streets upset about the IMF, then you might be able to worry the ruling elite. But paper mache puppets and drums probably aren’t worrying Wall Street too much.
All you are doing with carnivale demos is alienating the folks on the couch at home watching television.
So much for your effective grassroots movement building tactics.
But remember, this isn’t the goal of your middle class activist. They aren’t focused on actually getting the troops home. They are focused on EXPRESSING that they want to get the troops home. And for this they need grand displays in the streets. The actual troop movement outcome is optional. The primary purpose (SELF expression) has been satisfied. They can then go home satisfied that they are good people.
The writer decries the “damned focus groups” but as an organizer within the anti war movement I can tell you that the writer’s romanticism is one of the main problems with the anti war movement. I get paid to do this work and if you talk to organizers all over the United States you will hear the same story- that the romanticism of the middle class anti war types is crippling the ability of the movement to actually change public policy. These middle class types would rather “take to the streets” in a personal expression of their opposition than actually do the nitty gritty work of bringing our troops home. We’re talking about focusing the anti-war energy on the decisionmakers in Congress. They’d rather stand on a corner holding signs complaining about the people who won’t join them ‘in the streets” than actually make the necessary phone calls to push congressional representatives to vote our way.
If the writer had skipped the conference and instead spent the time working the phones the world would be a better place.
Enough of this BS. Get to work.
And yet a power vacuum can be filled by organized crime, a serious problem in Russia (as it is here, though we don’t call it as such).
My chief concern is that if something collapses here we’ll have a table somewhere inaccessible filled with the same sorts of scoundrels who caused this mess. And perhaps the sort of people with reptilian intelligence but no wisdom, or players who merely go with the wind and have no scruples or ethics whatsoever.
There needs to be some sort of national grassroots/populist convention or think-tank that hammers out the new system now, clarifying and building on the current Constitution.
jennywren:
Being totally against the racist, fascist WOD doesn’t make one pro-drugs.
In the film Sicko, there is bit in France where the observation is made; In France, the government is afraid of the people. In America, people are afraid of the government. Protesting is what French people DO.
The notion that protests are not effective is nonsense. If they become large enough, they will be very effective. In Europe and other countries, when people protest, they actually do shut everything down. That is effective.
In terms of Daniel David’s post; What a bunch of nonsense. Daniel, let me tell you this, the effects of war go beyond the ‘battlefield’ or ‘theater of operations’. The whole world DOES suffer and that gives the whole world the right to protest. In fact, even if everyone didn’t suffer, everyone still has the right to protest. Who are you to decide who has the right to express themselves?
I didn’t go to Vietnam, even though I was of the age. I didn’t try to ‘avoid’ the draft, I was lucky. However, had I been called, I would have gone to Canada if I had to. Why? BECAUSE I DON’T BELIEVE IN FUCKING WAR!!! You think that just because I don’t believe in war I don’t have the right to criticize it?
Think again!
gtree61; troll
It amazes me to see today’s students go ballistic over Steve Colbert & J Kramer. They march not for peace but like sheep Blaa and Bleet for the media creations.
Daniel David hits a new high, two profoundly stupid observations in one night:
“There is also a “difference” between protesting what is fought with volunteers vs. protesting what was fought with draftees. The only ones of us who really have an earned justification to be expressing opinions with organized public protests are those who have served or have suffered losses”
All of us, throughout the world, have suffered monstrous losses as a result of the disaster in Iraq and therefore have earned justification to be expressing opinions in whatever form. The futures of literally billions of people (not to mention 50% of the other species) have been forever blighted or destroyed by the use of DU weapons. This is but one example.
“As for organized war protests, they aren’t catching on much, either with any large numbers of participants or with the MSM, because they are a questionable strategy–due both to profound uncertainties about future terror events and due to the implied disrespect of military volunteers and their families that demonstrations entail in the setting of an all-volunteer force.”
As for the implied disrespect of military volunteers (i.e. paid war criminals), we will one day curse them in unison. But, of course, by then it will be too late.
As interesting as this discussion is, I must say that all the bitching and moaning is not really to the point. Facts are, that our entire human system (”civilIzation”) is wildly out of control and we know it. I protest weekly and call my congressman also, demanding action to halt the worst insanities, but I have virtually no expectation of any sensible response coming from Washington. Protest is simply something I do to act out my deepest needs and hopes and ideas. Freedom of association still exists and we must use it often, as a reminder to the young. In these times all actions and thoughts have meaning and power far in excess of mere superficialities…we musn’t assume we understand how things will work out or when tipping points might occur. A radical reorientation of all of human actions could come soon, on the heels of pandemics, peaceful revolutions or global disasters, for instance. Never think you know what tormorrow brings…..LIFE is bigger than us all, bigger than our imaginings….PEACE AND LOVE ALWAYS
estebandido - you have a good message - and I respect your efforts..
But when I start thinking, like you say, that life is bigger than our imaginings, I sometimes then think that, okay, so, we humans aren’t as crazy as we imagine. But what if we’re crazier than we can imagine….?
Wrong thinking direction. I know.
I must need more broccoli or something.
Whateveryousay and Estebandido prove my point that the middle class anti-war activists who don’t want to organize focused grassroots activity (letter writing campaigns and phonebanks) yet are purely focused on dramatic and romantic street actions.
Whateveryousay didn’t even bother to read my whole post and misses my distinction between actions that scare the ruling elites and those that are viewed as containable. His focus is solely on the “right to protest”. Yes you have the right to protest. But what will you tell your grandchildren when they ask you why you didn’t take effective action against the Pelosi’s of the world and instead spent your time holding a sign on the corner. Will they be satisfied with “I had a right”?
And Estebandido’s commitment to another world that is possible is endearing but won’t happen if all they do is stand on the corner and make phone calls to their representative. If that’s all Ella Baker had done then the south would still have Poll Taxes. If that’s all Bayard Rustin had done the Civil Rights Act would have languished as just a good idea.
Movements are effective when the grassroots displays its power and coordinates the outside game with an inside game. At the ground level this means organizing people to amplify their voices by reaching out to other people and targeting those in power in an effective way.
Anti-war activism failed in the Sixties. Remember? The war didn’t end in the Sixties! 500,000 people on the National Mall in Washington in 1968, just a few steps from the White House, and the war kept right on killing for another five years.
I can’t imagine why all those old hippies feel “the smug satisfaction” that Mr. Magida describes in this article. How stoned do you have to be to forget the bitterness of complete defeat?
There are 58,195 names on the Vietnam Memorial! How stupid do you have to be to feel “smug satisfaction” at an anti-war reunion in Washington DC?
“In the 1960s, three factors came together to undermine the effectiveness and popularity of the draft. First, the military’s manpower needs lessened to the point that the Selective Service began instituting a draft lottery and offering an array of deferments, including for college. Second, as the Vietnam War turned ugly, more and more sons of the nation’s elite availed themselves of such deferments to avoid fighting in what they saw as a pointless and unjust conflict. Third, a group of libertarian economists, led by Milton Friedman, began applying free-market principles to various aspects of government, including military manpower. They concluded that the policy of conscription amounted to a hidden “draft tax” on those chosen to serve. A fairer and more effective military could be had, they argued, if the government simply paid competitive wages to attract those interested in serving. President Richard Nixon, eager to defuse the anti-war movement, seized on the economists’ ideas, and in 1973 created the all-volunteer military.”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0303.glastris.html
Mark my words, the antiwar left will yet rue the day it crawled in bed with Richard Nixon and Milton J. Friedman to end the draft and found the All Volunteer Force.
gtree61;
I made no comments about your post whatsoever. I simply noted that you sound like a troll. Just a community service.
As well, I did not say anything about spending all one’s time or efforts “standing on the corner” and doing nothing else, as you imply.
You are just fabricating a scenario about what I am “purely focused on”, what I did or “didn’t read”, that I “didn’t take effective action”, and socioeconomic conclusions about me, absolutely none of which you have any knowledge of and are not as you try to claim. Just hostile and negative fiction you are promoting.
I challenge anyone to name ONE and only one method or effort that is, by itself, capable of stopping the war, from the grassroots level, that has demonstrated known success. Something that can be done quickly and with complete success. There is no one thing, obviously.
All of the ‘disgruntled’ folks, with so many sour grapes about the sixties, do no one a service by casting dispersions on people or their efforts that are simply ONE of the MANY parts of the process. Your comments are bigoted, in fact.
Mr. David,
So, you are porposing that only the the hired thugs who go to Iraq to occuply their country and kill them, and, ocasionally get killed and mained, are entitled to protest? Sorry, but opposing the Iraq outrage isn’t even about them, it is about the Iraqis we are killing. Even Cindy Sheehan now largely protests the war from this perspective.
Does an awareness of the suffering of the Iraqis even exist in you Hillary-loving mind?
The democrats will do nothing to stop the killing of Iraqis. Even if they do “bring the troops home”, they will, like your Bill Clinton, use even more feroceous, indiscriminant bombings and air strikes in their place.
And, I don’t have to tell you where you can put your “terrorism” remarks. As Spain showed, and William Blum wrote (later cited by Bin Laden), the US could end the terrorism problem overnight by simply ending it’s own terrorism - its murderous foreign policy and it’s unconditional support of Zionism.
PJD,
“And, I don’t have to tell you” that your brand of political activism—praising what is cited by Bin Laden–is a prescription for having American voters put you under conservative Republican control for the rest of your life. That’s how you get there, but pardon me all to heck for refusing to go down with you on the SILLY platform
There are a bunch of people here who reserve unto themselves a right to protest our military members just ’cause they’ve read some books and think they’re intellectual. The real Americans who vote in real American elections don’t see it that way. Most of them are grateful to our troops even if disagreeing with where Bush sent them. That you don’t instinctively know that is scary.
I was a protester in the 60’s and 70’s, that war was wrong as is this one.
A hundren thousand people protested last week, all over the US. It didn’t make CNN or very many papers for that matter.
Find news media’s that aren’t controlled by corporations, get active, get involved with your local Dem clubs, get people joining protests and most importantly voting.
Our government wants people to feel hopeless and frightened, don’t do it.
Dennis Kucinich is calling for the impeachment of Cheney this Tuesday. Monday join him by calling your congresswomen and men demanding your voice be heard, demanding Cheney be impeached.
You can read more on the Progressive Democratic wedsite.
Those with the loudest voice win.
I don’t see why you’re congratulating yourself. When did the first “advisors” go to Vietnam? 1954? When did you and your fellow protesters bring the war to a close? 1972? 1973? After 58,000 Americans were dead and countless Vietnamese as well.
I can’t understand why you think you can compare yourselves favorably to today’s war protesters.
Meanwhile…the latest Zogby poll indicates:
A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.
Want to see the subgroups that pushed support for U.S. military strike against Iran over 50%? Full cross tabulation data now available
The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of “lying” about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of “serious consequences” if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.
Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.
I’m guessing that by the content of the remarks above that these bloggers are republicans and wanting to discourage people on this site, don’t let them.
Get out and stand up for your belief, don’t support the old line of my country right or wrong and don’t do what the above writers want you to do–nothing. If you do nothing then you get what you deserve.
I (Gasp!) am a conservative. I dropped into this website to check out what various people not of my political view point are saying. This article was of interest to me, because I grew up in the 60’s and was active in protesting the war in Viet-Nam. I’d like to throw in some brief recollections why I opposed that war, and the differences between then and now.
1. The opposition to McNamara’s war included a broader spectrum of people. Many conservatives were unhappy, because the US was not interested in winning the war. “Go in, kick butt, get out” was the way wars were fought prior to Viet-Nam and Korea.
2. Both conservatives and liberals were willing to put aside differences on other issues to join forces to protest an unpopular war and various other problems of the age, (Segregation in the South for example).
3. We were also much more willing to listen to, and tolerate opposing views. In our modern society, the vitriol and name calling have caused us to segregate ourselves into political ghettos. The rule is, “If you don’t agree with me, you’re my enemy.” I remember some excellent knock-down, drag-out verbal debates with liberal friends (and I do mean friends) in college. When was the last time you invited a conservative out for a beer, and some friendly political discussion?
4. The current anti-war movement is suffering from fallout of the Post Viet-Nam Era. Many of the conservatives, who opposed the war, remember what happened when Congress canceled the financial backing of South Viet-Nam. The refugees, and reprisals, many felt were a stain on our Country’s honor. We wanted to get out of the war and let the South Vietnamese defend themselves, as they were doing quite well until the funding stopped. We see this scenario as a definite possibility in Iraq, and don’t want it to happen again.
5. The modern anti-war movement has too many “Leaders”, all going different directions. Many of the former leaders of the anti-war movement of the 60’s and 70’s are now more interested in keeping political power, than leading. To quote a former candidate for political office “I served in Viet-Nam!” To me, the individual who used that statement as a political tool, bailed out on the very people and principles that got him into office in the first place (If he ever had any). I disagreed with him politically, but I despised him as a sheep in wolf’s clothing. Don’t get too worried, conservatives have the same problem.
I’ve enjoyed reading some of your comments, and I’m wondering what the response will be to mine. I’ve lit the cigarette and refused the blindfold. Fire away!!!
chisten,
Glad to read your post and hear your thoughts here.
Yes, perhaps a shock to see what people here are saying, I hope you continue to visit this site and read the many articles and comments and follow often informative links. I imagine the information you will see here will be well documented, intelligent, accurate, and yes - an alternative to what you read on “conservative” websites.
Many of your points are accurate, informed, and well thought out, I believe. I do see some things differently.
I don’t particularly remember a great putting aside of differences between conservatives and liberals, in the sixties. I remember tremendous hostilities and hatred abounded. If what you mean is that today’s cooperation is perhaps even less, I don’t disagree. In terms of a willingness to listen, on the part of both conservatives and liberals, I know almost no conservatives at all who are open minded, and didn’t then. It sounds as though you may be, so i don’t direct that at you in any way.
One of the things that, I believe, most everyone here will agree with is that the most hostile, non substantive, dishonest, spun, and negative rhetoric comes in tidal waves from the right wing/conservative pundits, talk and radio show hosts, writers, bloggers, and - let’s not forget - politicians. I can safely say that almost any hostility and negativity you feel here is, in fact, because the people here are just entirely fed up with the continued lies and injustices of this administration, combined with the utterly worthless, do-nothing democrats who promised to do something. As well, there are other things people are fed up with here, including global warming, corporate takeovers of gargantuan scope, New Orleans, Africa in so many ways, Burma, etc etc etc etc. Not to mention the illegal actions and lies of Bush and Cheney, the attack on the constitution, torture, depleted uranium, and……did I mention Iraq? And let’s not forget the upcoming war with Iran that the conservatives are spinning us into. And IF, the conservatives are concerned with all of these things, why aren’t they talking about them? You hear neither hide nor hair of any of these things in the main stream media or on any conservative show - other than ‘pro war’ spin, fear mongering ala ‘the threat’, or the grade school tactical marginalization of anyone or any issue that is contrary to conservative desires. It is the ‘if you aren’t with us, you are a traitor’ school of persuasion, so deftly used by our president and his allies. Did I mention health care? Oh, what is the first thing EVERY conservative says about Michael Moore? Something about what a jerk he is. Nothing substantive about the issue but a direct personal assault.
Why aren’t the conservatives talking about the fact that the White House spokesvixen, Dana Perino, could say something as insanely ridiculous and disingenuous as ‘global warming also has some health benefits’..(such as?)..’less people will die from cold weather’ and still have her job a day later? There are a thousand insanities that the conservative political and business establishment are involved in every day, and the conservative media reports none of it at all.
The main thing is to become fully informed by reading alternative news and information and researching it well. So welcome here and keep coming.
Could you tell me what conservative sites you usually frequent? Perhaps it would be good to see what information they give you and others.
w.
geoff29
thanks for the encouragement!