Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHow the Peace Movement Can Win: A Field Guide
The Republicans, led by George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani and their hard-core neoconservative hit squads, have spent millions on television messages supporting the military surge in Iraq. They mounted a major campaign to demonize MoveOn.org in order to derail the group's proven ability to raise funds for antiwar messages and Democratic candidates. During the election year, pro-war Republicans are poised to promote staying the course in Iraq while threatening or even instigating a war on Iran. The Democrats will have to respond with more than an echo.
But at this point the leading Democratic contenders are reluctant to say they would pull out all the troops from a war they claim to oppose. In sharp contrast to Republicans, Democrats at least support withdrawing most or all American combat troops on a twelve- to eighteen-month deadline. Asked for exact timelines, however, the top contenders indicate that they would put off the withdrawal of all troops until sometime in their second term. The platform of "out by 2013" may be a sufficient difference from the Republicans for some, but it won't satisfy the most committed antiwar voters. Asked about the five-year estimate, Senator Hillary Clinton's spokesman on Iraq policy, Philippe Reines, expressed surprise, but his formulation of her views did not conflict with the idea of a long US presence: that she wants substantial troop reductions starting immediately, without a deadline for completion, and with a smaller American force left behind dedicated to training Iraqis and counter-terrorism.
"It's beginning to feel like 2004," says one Washington insider at the Center for American Progress, a think tank led by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta. CAP issued a key memo on October 31 complaining about a "strategic drift" setting in among security strategists and the Democratic leaders they advise. The schizophrenia consists of wanting to end the war as painlessly as possible while running away from their anti-Vietnam past. In the triangulating phrase of Barack Obama, one can't be seen as a "Tom Hayden Democrat" on Iraq.
The leading Democratic contenders buy the line of a more hawkish think tank, the Center for a New American Security, a mostly Democratic cast of auditioning future national security advisers. They propose the gradual, multiyear withdrawal of combat troops and an increase in the number of Special Forces and trainers, who are somehow supposed to train the Iraqi army and chase Al Qaeda from Iraq. A similar proposal was made at the beginning of this year by the Iraq Study Group, based on a December 2006 report. The dangerous, even irrational, assumption of this thinking is that a small number of American trainers and Special Forces can accomplish what 160,000 troops have failed to do.
Nevertheless, the proposal has understandable appeal. Bush plans to withdraw 25,000 to 30,000 troops this spring to salvage an army at the breaking point. If the next President withdraws another 75,000 troops in 2009, the peace movement will face the challenge of opposing a war that appears to be slowly ending. Iraq would then likely evolve into either an Algerian- or Salvadoran-style dirty war or tumble toward a South Vietnam-style fiasco with American advisers trapped in the cross-fire. But it would be mostly invisible until the endgame if managed successfully, with American casualties declining in a low-profile war.
Can anything be done to avert this scenario? Actually, yes. The peace movement does have an opportunity to solidify public opinion behind a more rapid withdrawal--regardless of what the national security advisers think.
Peace advocates will likely have the best-funded antiwar message in history during the coming election year. Tens of millions of dollars will be raised for voter education and registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns through the 527 committees, which disseminate election messages independent of partisan candidates. The Democrats defaulted on their opportunity to use these independent committees for a peace message in 2004, when they muted and muddled their antiwar position. But this time they will have to contend with the frustration of millions of antiwar voters, and their nominee will be pledged, in rhetoric at least, to end the war.
Backed by real resources, skilled organizers and volunteers across the electoral battlegrounds of 2008 will be able to identify, register and turn out voters through door-to-door work combined with radio and television spots. Already, former MoveOn political director Tom Matzzie is being entrusted with a $100 million fund for independent expenditures during the 2008 electoral cycle, a significant portion of which will go to antiwar messages. The money will come from antiwar unions like the Service Employees International and big-money donors like investor George Soros and Hollywood producer Steve Bing. Podesta is personally involved in the independent campaign as well, through a 527 entity called Fund for America.
This plan poses enormous challenges. Who will make the decisions, what will be the Iraq/Iran message, who will deliver it and by what means? The independence of the 527 committees is based on an organizational separation from the political parties. But the message will likely be consistent with, if not identical to, the candidates' message, influenced by the same hawkish consultants. Yet the peace movement has an opening to exert its influence: it can demand a role in the independent campaign as a condition of enlisting its legions of local peace activists. The challenge will be to draft an antiwar formula that unites the peace forces and progressive Democrats rather than one that depresses vast numbers of antiwar voters.
Beyond the issue of message, there's the question of whether the independent campaign is controlled from the top or is open to the thousands of volunteers already devoted to antiwar efforts in their local communities. Matzzie is a brilliant field organizer in his early 30s, trained in the post-1960s staff-driven methods of groups like USAction. Most of these organizers have little knowledge of Iraq, foreign policy or peaceful alternatives to the "war on terror." Their backgrounds tend to be in labor or consumer organizing or door-to-door canvassing for donations. Typically, they are results-oriented (number of phone calls made, voters identified, "hits," etc.) rather than community-oriented. Ideally, Matzzie will map out a battle plan calling for cooperation where local groups already have strong track records (like New Hampshire, Iowa and northern Illinois, to take three examples) and new initiatives in areas lacking an active base. A final question to be finessed is whether the independent campaigns will invest in a long-term local strategy, including simple things like leaving contact lists behind with local groups, or whether they will pull up stakes and vanish on election day.
The peace movement can succeed only by applying people pressure against the pillars of the war policy--public opinion, military recruitment and an ample war budget--through marching, confronting military recruiters and civil disobedience. The pillars have been eroding since 2004. The tactics that are most likely to accelerate the process are greater efforts at persuading the ambivalent voters. This is where the interests of the peace movement converge with Matzzie's operation.
A massively funded voter-identification and -registration drive and a get-out-the vote campaign have enormous potential to tip not only the presidential election but also the scales of public opinion. Rather than merely pounding away at a simplistic message--Republicans dangerous, Democrats better--such an effort would require, as a foundation, resources to educate voters and involve them in house meetings. The house-meeting approach allows for voter education and participation on a scale that cannot be achieved by hit pieces or TV spots. It is also critical for cultivating grassroots leadership capacity for election day turnout and beyond. Voters may be persuaded by a narrow end-the-war message, especially if Giuliani is the Republican candidate, but they will also need the ability to answer questions about the interconnected issues of Iraq, Iran, energy, healthcare and the threat posed by neoconservatives.
Only in this way will the peace movement succeed in expanding and intensifying antiwar feeling to a degree that will compel the politicians to abandon their six-year timetable for a far shorter one. In the worst-case alternatives, Giuliani and the neocons will roll to a narrow victory despite a platform of promising war, or the centrist Democrats will prevail without a mandate for rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq and negotiations plus containment toward Iran.
The coming war is a political one, to be fought at home. There will be a yearlong showdown that will determine the presidency and the climate of opinion. If the Republicans succeed in electing the next President, the Iraq War will continue and probably expand. If they lose the presidency, they are already positioning themselves to charge the Democrats with "losing" Iraq and ride that theme to a comeback in 2012.
The key dates in this coming domestic war will be:
January 2008 onward: the budget. There will be attempts to limit or reverse Bush's supplemental demand of $200 billion for a war that has already cost more than $470 billion. CAP recommends a goal of cutting the request in half. Two-thirds of Americans favor a reduction of some kind, and 46 percent favor sharp reductions. It appears that the best that can be hoped for in this battle is to rebuke Bush, reduce funding for the war and make the budget vote so painful that Congress members will never want to cast one again. There is no reason to support $5 billion to $10 billion for the sectarian torturers operating under cover of the Interior Ministry, for example. Already a high-level military commission has called on Congress to scrap the Iraqi police service as hopelessly corrupt, a position reflected in HR 3134 put forward by Representatives Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee and Lynne Woolsey. This simple focus on the Frankenstein monster fostered in Baghdad might generate a movement against using taxes for torture and thus begin to unravel the occupation.
January-February 2008: presidential primaries. The Democratic candidates have been at least shopping for the peace vote in the early primaries, if only to differentiate their brands from the others. Voting for Kucinich, Richardson or Gravel is a legitimate choice to support an important voice--but not a nominee. Joe Biden's proposal for partitioning Iraq is the most dangerous of any of the Democratic candidates' positions and should be rejected. John Edwards's proposal is the best of the front-runners', though it leaves a gaping loophole for "sufficient" US troops to continue fighting terrorists and training the Iraqi police. Barack Obama has been sharpening and improving his position somewhat, defining a more limited role for trainers and counterterrorism. Obama (and Edwards) also have toughened their stand against bombing Iran. That leaves Hillary Clinton struggling in the center, promising she will "end the war" while leaving a scaled-down force to fight Al Qaeda, train the Iraqis, resist Iranian encroachment and demonstrate her awareness that Iraq is "right in the heart of the oil region." What she means is anyone's guess, leaving her with little more than an anti-Bush "trust me" platform. These Democratic positions may underestimate the passionate demands of peace voters, potentially driving a significant fraction of those voters into apathy or toward third-party alternatives. All these candidate positions can be drawn out further in the heat of the early primaries by sharp questioning and selective voting by peace activists. The "bird-dogging" of candidates by New Hampshire Peace Action is an example.
April 2008: the Bush deadline for withdrawing 25,000 troops (by not extending their tours of duty). Unless the Administration has bombed Iran, Bush will use this deadline to promote the Nixon-like theme that the war is "winding down." The Democratic candidate will have to insist that 25,000 is far too small a number of troops. This risks a Republican attack that the Democratic position is "too extreme"; there is also the risk that Democratic candidates would fall into Bush's trap by calling a 25,000-troop withdrawal a "positive first step."
Summer 2008: convention protests and platforms. The time is now for advocates and insiders to write and propose platform language that promises to truly end the war, without the usual ambiguity that drives activists to despair. Both conventions will be held in protest-friendly cities, offering an outside strategy to highlight the differences and deficiencies in the two-party debate.
Fall 2008: House and Senate races. It is perhaps here that groups like MoveOn and Progressive Democrats of America can have the greatest effect, by bolstering the numbers of antiwar senators and representatives who favor terminating the war in 2009. Think: Senator Al Franken.
November 2008-January 2009. This will be a test of whether the peace movement will hit the streets and pressure the incoming Administration to promptly end the war or face four more years of deepening confrontation.
If a one-year campaign seems too long, consider Vietnam for perspective. After the McGovern Democrats took over the Democratic Party in 1972 only to lose the presidency, it took three long years before Nixon's "Vietnamization" policies ended in debacle and in a cutoff of Congressional funding. Along the way, a young Senate staffer named Tom Daschle spearheaded a campaign to block Nixon's funding for a secret gulag of "tiger cage" torture chambers. Like Baghdad today, Saigon was a US-backed police state, a hideous system abetted by 10,000 American "civilian contractors." American activists were arrested outside the US Embassy in Saigon for distributing leaflets against the torturers. Another 1 million educational pamphlets were passed out in fall 1972 by local organizers in a hundred cities. Those local groups demanded that candidates sign a peace pledge or face the loss of critical votes.
It all seemed too little, but the pillars of the policy kept crumbling in Vietnam and at home. In May 1973, in response to Indochina and the Watergate impeachment crises, both houses of Congress voted a deadline of August 15 for further funding of American combat forces. Henry Kissinger refused to comply with any deadlines, and his position was defeated on a tie 204-204 House vote that allowed only a last extension of the bombing until that August. The country was so divided that a small, determined faction was able to tip the scales.
We are approaching a similar chasm in public opinion today. The neoconservatives, conservatives and liberal hawks have been discredited for their foolish 2002 belief in a quick and easy invasion of Iraq. A beleaguered neocon minority is pressing to strike Iran and stay the course in Iraq. Democrats, despite their electoral majority, have not proven to be as tenacious about Iraq as the neocons. Nor are progressive activists always as educated and focused for battle as their adversaries. With a majority of Americans wanting and expecting a withdrawal from Iraq, the outcome of 2008 may depend on who has the greater will to win.
Tom Hayden is a former state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice and environmental movements. He currently teaches at Pitzer College in Los Angeles. His books include The Port Huron Statement [new edition], Street Wars and The Zapatista Reader. His most recent book is Radical Nomad, a biography of C. Wright Mills
© 2007 The Nation
47 Comments so far
Show AllI really want to thank Bill from Saginaw for his very sensible comments. Couldn't agree with him more!
Good job, Bill!
First I want to, as strongly as possible, thank Tom Hayden for his well thought analysis, and his development of a really solid, concrete plan for how the peace movement needs to use the electoral process to further isolate the war hawks, and create the conditions needed to end the war, reallocate the war spending to spending for needed social concerns at home. Hayden shows the rich experience he has gained in organized movements for social justice in how he outlines the need for the peace movement to break out of its self-imposed, self-defeating policy of isolating themselves from mainstream society.
I've often times felt the need to repeat a formulation that I'd heard the great red union leader, George Meyers say; "Frustration is not a legitimate political program!"
Never have I seeem a more correct application for that formulation!
Many writing in, attacking Brother Hayden, have never been involved in these long, tough, difficult struggles with its complicated ups and downs, searches for allies, disappointments. I don't mean that in any nasty way, only aas a statement of fact! When you've been involved in these fights, you know that the war won't end now just because we're pissed and want it to. Their frustration shows! However, what Hayden is doing is trying to figure out a way for the peace movement to use the elections to create a stronger case and better conditions for ending the war/occupation of Iraq.
Think about it, please, friends. Over 70% of the American people, in polls, oppose the occupation of Iraq. Similar numbers support the crying need for health care for all. The American people strongly agree with the positions the peace movement takes. This war, unlike Vietnam, (which was truely a bipartisan war), is Bush's war! It is the ultra-right that planned and executed this war, based on lies. The absolute strongest opposition to the war I see personally is among trade unionists.
Meanwhile, there is a massive, growing, well-organized movement, led by organized labor, to defeat the ultra-right. The AFL-CIO, as well as all other unions, have taken strong positions against the war. This strong and well-organized movement is looking for allies in the fight against Bush and the Republicans.
The electoral process, especially in an election year, especially when it is a presidential year, and especially, especially, especially THIS YEAR, the American people will be more involved in politics than at any other point in their entire lives. Elected president WILL BE a Democrat or a Republican. This vast, strong movement, that agrees with the peace movement on the war, will be strongly, with every resource at their disposal, fighting to defeat the Republican and elect the Democrat.
While this movement is maturing, widening and getting stronger, the old peace movement has found ways to isolate themselves, almost completely from the electoral process. Doesn't it make sense that we come up with ways to put the question of the war/occupation into the middle of that process. The vast movement against Bush would welcome the help, and being there will help us put an organized strategy into place to end the war, with the people that want to do just that.
There are ways to do this. Cities for Peace and others have charts to show how much each city, state, county, etc. have lost due to the war. With the economy worsening, the peace movement needs to be within the movements of the people, who are being hurt by foreclosures, loss of pensions and helath care, ultimately hurt by the war both in terms of lives and money needed for social needs lost.
In the past few elections, the peace movement has pretty much done what some of those above who are critisizing Tom Hayden want it to. They've stood aside from the main forces, yelling 'Out Now,' or just isolating themselves (so sure they are that they are right in all things). If we are to win, this must change! I would most strongly suggest that the peace movement, like Tom Hayden discusses, can become the real, key factor in winning the upcoming elections, defeating the ultra-right and putting a people's movement in position to end the war! However, they MUST break out of their isolation and be part of the movement to defeat the ultra-right to do so.
Or, we can sit it out! "How's that working for you?," a TV personality likes to ask.
We need to study a little history. Abe Lincoln was actually opposed by some in the Abolislisionist Movement as being not strong enough on slavery. Some wanted to run John C Fremont as a "True Opponent of Slavery." Had they done so, slavery probably would've continued for many years afterwards.
Lets hope that we make the right choice now!
Agree with many poster's
Tom Hayden seems to have joined the empire and fallen for its most riduculous institution - the facade of democratic elections. Let's face it the empire needs us to legitimize its power by buying into its electoral process. A pile of BS. Hayden seems to have become enamored of the stink.
While the empire needs us we don't need it! Forget it, without a viable third party and neither the empire or its MSM seem to be willing to allow that, the two faced monster has already secured its 2008 elections. So what can we do?
Mock the empire! Basically the empire is already dead. The infrastructure in this country has been sacrificed for Department of WAR funding as has education (or indoctrination if you will) civil rights, human rights, the middle class and virtually everything that makes societies strong. The only thing propping up this shadow of an empire is its military might.
The peace movement as well as all those who dream of a better life for their children and a vision of the future that places more emphasis on the welfare of people over profits and the welfare of the war profiters need to defeat the empire by a million pin pricks. demonstrating is fine but without serious acts of civil disobedience, non-violent sabotage, and purposeful disdain of the laws of empire that prevent us from attaining the power to throw off the illegitimate government that coporate personhood has ushered in, their will be no success.
The military is the problem and the military, military recruiters, military contractors, military bases, channels of military transport etc. are the essential "targets" of NON-VIOLENT civil disobedience. Other targets should be universities that perform military research, and all business that refuse to withdraw from doing business with the U.S. military.
This does not mean demonizing or turning our backs on veterans, the V.A. or men and women who have been duped into buying into the military propoganda, but those who support the killing, torture and racist military agendas and have volunteered to make this their careers will feel the pinch and righly so.
The action plan is to demonstrate, sit-in, "sabotage", organize, cajole, boycott, get in the way, challenge, and generally mess up all areas of support for the military. Making it so difficult for them to operate they must capitulate to the people. The WAR department must cease to exist and a new Department of Peace must take its place. While "soldiers" in the Department of Peace will learn essential skills to defend against serious threats, they will learn far greater lessens in compassion, peace keeping negotiation, engineering, problem solving and restraint with a vision not bent on murdering but on creating relationships within communities and between peoples of different cultures and beliefs.
Yeah, its diffucult and 50% of the sheeple in this country would not agree with this strategy but 35% of those wouldn't get off the couch to do anything about it and can easily be brought along by their noses just as they have been brought along with the present situation. The other 15% of hardcore nationalists, pro-war racists and right-wing extremists still generally want a better world for their children as well and when they see the results, they too will submit to the majority.
I think perhaps Tom Hayden once believed in this vision. Pity what time has done to him. He once went to Hanoi with Howard Zinn and others to bring back American Airmen that had been in prison there during the Viet Nam war and saw with his own eyes the destruction the empire was capable of and yet he, unlike Howard Zinn, seems to be playing along with their shell game of electoral politics rather than standing up for a greater vision.
Tom come back, join the real movement for change and focus on life beyond the empire.
Yay!!! Go pro-war democrats!
"Asked for exact timelines, however, the top contenders indicate that they would put off the withdrawal of all troops until sometime in their second term."
If you are anti-war, and the nominee is Hillary Clinton, you will have two choices:
1. Waste your vote on pro-war Hillary, or the pro-war republican candidate
2. Vote for the anti-war, rapid-withdrawal from Iraq, Green Party candidate.
Time to grow a pair and stop supporting pro-war demopublicans. And before you say "but, but, but, Kucinich!" Yeah- whatever, he's a minority in his own party.
Wouldn't you feel better supporting an anti-war candidate from an anti-war party? It's ok, you can secretly admit to yourself that you would. Just remember, when you parrot the "no chance of winning" line, you are just another sheep supporting the death of our troops, and the occupation of Iraq.
Mr. Hayden must somehow get in touch with his previous self(the self that saw himself and Abbie Hoffman as kindred spirits) and find the courage to leave our non-functioning, hopeless, greedy, always militaristic, never-changing 2-party system.
What happened? Is this the same person who was part of the courageous protest of the Democratic Convention in 1968 which revealed the true face of our political system and the forces that protect it? Is this the guy who was on trial for conspiracy?
Any chance of Mr. Hayden dropping out of the corrupt Democratic party and joining the protests that will take place when the Democrats, once again, anoint a pro-war candidate to protect our country from everything but itself?
No way.
There is nothing worse than an old radical who has sold out. It is a betrayal that everything that was accomplished in the 1960's.
Militantliberal, your arguments sound exactly like the neoconservatives, Just War conservatives, and every other war hawk that has ever lived. President Bush is well on his way to making "a global government with a monopoly of force, meaning armies, air forces and navies large enough to keep (everybody) in line." All we have to do is get out of the way and let him take our civil liberties away.
I totally agree that the peace and antiwar movements need to focus pressure upon the Democratic Party to end the occupation of Iraq, rewarding the office holders and candidates who take solid moral positions and with holding support or actively opposing those Dems who are the enablers of empire. I like Hayden's approach, as far as it goes.
There's only a little over a year left of the Bush regime. If the high crimes and misdemeanors that turned America into a torture state, that unloosed warrantless NSA electronic surveillance on our domestic telecommunications, and that lied and fear mongered the nation into launching a war of aggression against Iraq are ever to be addressed, the time to start is right now.
Hyperbole to the contrary, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are both fully capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. They can run their domestic legislative agendas, continue to tie war funding to withdrawal in hopes of some day finding 60 or 66 Senate votes, and play all the tactical partisan games they want on the campaign trail, while simultaneously putting impeachment on the table and simply letting John Conyers start hearings.
I don't care what the whip count is. I don't care whether 2/3 of the Senate would ever vote to convict. Sometimes good public prosecutors have to proceed despite big roadblocks because you can't just let the perps walk away laughing.
The House hearings will provide a fantastic forum that will produce a parade of whistle blowers. It will enable honest public officials to speak out about the history of how Bush and Cheney promulgated their torture, wiretapping, and invasion policies from 2001 up to the present. John Conyers has literally written a whole book outlining their potential impeachable offenses.
It's time for the impeachment hearings to start, creating a forum for voter education for the 2008 election cycle. Impeachment is the remedy written into our Constitution to deal with shameless public malfeasance such as that of Bush and Cheney.
Harry and Nancy should acknowledge they tried to work with Bush and the GOP, but it's clear now that the Republicans are ideologically blind to compromise. Therefore, impeachment should move right to the center of the table.
Both the antiwar movement, and the Democratic Party as an institution, have everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose by doing this, even if Bush does slip off to Crawford and Cheney to his hunting lodge in 2009, one step ahead of a Senate trial.
Bill from Saginaw
As usual, Tom Hayden makes cogent arguments and provides some strategic direction for grassroots activists to take NOW, without waiting for the whole truth of 9/11 to come out, or the overthrow of the power elite, or the election of freaking Dennis Kucinich. I admire Kucinich and would back him if he were seriously running for President. Unfortunately, he isn't, as we found out in Oregon where he was offered a free, on- the ground nucleus of a grassroots campaign, and refused this GIFT, opting -instead for a one-time guest appearance. Kucinich could be actively trying to create an anti-war bloc of delegates from all the most liberal states, in order to take the fight to the convention floor. Instead he's play-acting , settling for bit parts in the so-called debates.
Basing an anti-war strategy on voter outreach through house-parties is cheap, doable, and something we are already considering here in Oregon. Political power is based on voter identification. The more anti-war voters we i.d., and build relations with through face-to-face house parties, the more clout the anti-war movement builds. The important thing here is NOT to do this work for the Democratic Party, or unaccountable 527's. We need a vehicle to build our own voter files, subject to democratic control at the grassroots. Then we need the will and guts to wield this power to squeeze Democratic candidates. We have seen indications that this is possible here. It might also be useful to designate some Democratic sell-outs for object lessons in pay-back.
Thanks Newageartist.
I disagree with those who offer criticisms and attacks against Hayden as a person. I think he is a true progressive and I'd vote for him as such for nearly any position if I had a chance. He is one of us. I agree with him on most things. We need to balance our acceptance of the realities of the facts of change in a two-party political system with our progressive ideals. So my differences with Hayden are not his credentials (he has good ones dating to 1961), nor his commitment to work within the actual two-party political system for change (evolution is a good model for change), nor his faith in people pressure through movements (It has mattered at times in the past. Nixon admitted it. And the slave trade ended in the UK in 1808 due to a massive movement. A movement helped women get the vote. Our US protest on 3-15-03 told the world SOME Americans opposed the looming crime of the invasion and occupation.) But I do differ with Hayden regarding tactics as I stated above (12-2 11:22 a.m.). And I also admire and respect Tom Hayden as a person, leader and progressive activist nevertheless.
militantliberal in the posting above:
"The most damning point: ending the current war does nothing to prevent the next one. Without overthrowing the national power elites that plan and launch wars, you're merely kicking the can down the road."
Point well taken!
Case in point: Millions marched against invading Iraq before it ever happened and what happened? Sore feet and hoarse throats.
Peace movements are a dud, except for the fun of mobilizing crowds of like-minded people. Why?
1. Many voters hate peace movements even if they also hate the war. Nationalist herd hysteria always trumps reason and sympathy. It doesn't help when protesters burn American flags. Twenty years after the fall of Saigon the Republicans were still getting mileage out of the peace movement's "stab in the back". Think of Jane Fonda at the anti-aircraft guns in North Vietnam.
2. Peace movements always fail. Can you name one war that any peace movement has stopped? Vietnam is the best case, yet even there the essential factors were Vietnamese armed resistance and America's other strategic commitments, not protestors in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
3. Wars are election winners for the warmongers, or at least not losers. The Federalists opposed the War of 1812 (1812 and 1816), the Democrats opposed the Civil War (1864) and the Philippine War (1900). They all lost. The Whigs won the election of 1848 only because they had the victorious general Zachary Taylor heading the ticket. The Democrats won 1992 because, "It's the Economy Stupid," not because voters objected to the invasion of Panama (1989) or the liberation of Kuwait (1991).
4. Peaceniks are sometimes wrong. Antiwar Democrats of 1862 and 1864 not only wanted to let the South secede but also to uphold white supremacy and keep slaves in chains. When Jeanette Rankin voted against war in 1941, she was not only "turning the other cheek" after the Japanese sank our boats, she was also approving their reign of terror in western China. For that matter, Progressive Upton Sinclair and anti-Semite Charles Lindbergh wanted to keep the U.S. out of the war in Europe, letting Hitler have the whole Continent.
5. Protesting a war is a negative goal, draining energy and money away from positive goals, like getting national health care. It concedes the initiative to our power elite.
6. The most damning point: ending the current war does nothing to prevent the next one. Without overthrowing the national power elites that plan and launch wars, you're merely kicking the can down the road. The only permanent solution is a global government with a monopoly of force, meaning armies, air forces and navies large enough to keep the U.S., China, India and Russia in line. Darned if I know how we'd get one, and even I am not sure it would be worth the danger to our liberty and culture.
To Linda Sutton:
Take note of the fact that in the hearing chaired by Jane Harman she had her buddies from The Simon Wiesenthal Center and The Rand Corporation generally saying that "The 9/11 Truth Movement" is a threat to national security! Watch the hearing!
You notice Tom Hayden's group make no mention of a new investigation for 9/11 or anything supporting impeachment. Because Pelosi has them on a short and very tight leash.
And his suggestion of sending in ideas for the Democratic Party Platform is a total joke. That platform is already set in stone and he knows it.
Tell the truth Tom. The whole truth and nothing but the truth.
And as much as I like Kucinich's message I have to wonder if he isn't just a shill to take the steam off the Progressive pot. I don't trust any Democrats because they're all cowards and liars.
And what ever you do, do NOT mention AIPAC or Israel to Tom Hayden or anyone else at his "Progressive" Democrat group. B.S.
Going along to get along. Scratch a liberal and you'll find a fascist. Sorry, but it's the truth.
The NY 9/11 Truth Group is having an emergency meeting in NYC this afternoon regarding Jane Harman's attempt to stifle dissent among those who dare to question: Did WTC 1,2 and 7 come down due to controlled demolition??? Watch the CNN tapes and think about it. Read David Ray Griffin's book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking".
Hey Tom! What is your answer to that question?
Tom,
Your article would we great if any of the actions would change the inevitable outcome. But that is not going to happen until some painful event or events wake up the American people.
It has been proven now over and over again that corporate media, big money and ethically challenged politicians are running things and the grassroots is nothing much more than a minor distraction for them to secretly laugh about and pretend has some power.
Unfortunately it is going to take a major political movement powered by massive amounts of pissed off people before the existing power structure sits up and pays any attention whatsoever. And a massive amount of pissed off people are nowhere to be found.
Good luck on your plan. I doubt most will know it ever existed.
Earthian, wishiwasinagreenstate, and ezeflyer....
THANK YOU. All good insightful posts even if they step on corporatist Democrats' toes. The truth speaks volumes.
It seems some Democrats on CD are still in denial about what their party is all about and who really contols it (and them). Wake up.
If We the People own public resources and treasury, why are we not receiving dividends from their lease and accrued interest? Where are these trillions going when if distributed equally, they could lift every American out of poverty, give us universal healthcare, free college education, a healthy environment and economy and free time to enjoy them?
Incorporate We the People.
Haven't we already twice tried the "get out the vote" approach? I think putting all our activist energy into this is mistake since it has thus far failed to produce any tangible results.
We got out there and campaigned for Kerry even though he refused to take a firm stance against the war and merely pledged to "fight it better". He lost.
Then in 2006 we tried again and actually succeeded in getting Democratic majorities in Congress only to have them cave to Bush again and again. The Democratic party uses its antiwar base when appropriate and promptly ditches them after the election results are in. We need to re-think our strategies; we can't keep using the same tired ones again and again.
Rather than get out the vote for some war hawk Democrat, we need to keep pressure on the candidates, bird-dogging them as Hayden mentions, and on our current members of Congress. We also somehow need to get the word out about what is really going on in Iraq. I never hear about Iraqi refugees except on this site. Also, I go nuts whenever I turn on the TV and there is some Dem on there saying we need to get out of Iraq because the Iraqis aren't taking advantage of the opportunities we've given them and aren't living up to their half of the bargain or some such nonsense. From the frame the media puts things in, you'd hardly know that there is a conflict because we are there!
I'd like to see committed activists take it up a notch and move from marches (which, let's face it, are largely ignored) and move to some kind of civil disobedience. I'm up for it!
This is short-term thinking. The article manages to suggest not voting for Kucinich or Gravel, the only two true progressives in the Democratic Party race. (Including Richardson as a symbolic progressive candidate is absurd. Richardson told Amy Goodman that the sanctions by Clinton that killed over a half-million children in Iraq were a good policy.) The single best bridge issue between progressive Democrats and the Green Party is true electoral reform: popular initiatives for removal from office; for passing laws; for proposing amendments; for constitutional conventions (like Montana has in their state constitution)—and true proportional representation in our state and national legislatures to join the civilized world and have a true multi-party democracy. If progressives follow Hayden's advice and "win" it would be a hollow "victory" with conservative, corporate Democrats and the two-party system (district based, winner-take-all-FPTP voting) firmly in place as far as the eye can see. I'd rather force the corporate Democrats to lose and lay a long-term foundation for progressive reforms than compromise and be complicit in more war crimes and status quo corporate conservative politics with corporate candidates like Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, (each of whom has threatened to attack Iran). And remember, in a recent debate, Kucinich said that he would only support an eventual nominee who would not use war as an instrument of policy. Supporting him (and Gravel) all the way to the convention would be a good way to promote our progressive causes, not dismissing them as unelectable as Hayden does, before a single vote has even been cast. (And he fails to even mention Cindy's race and her initiative for unity.) Let's think progressive unity. Let's think of supporting the bridge issues. Let's think long term.
ticonderioga said:
"C'mon, Tom! It's not the Democrats versus the Republicans."
It's liberals against conservative Dems and Reps. 'Twas ever thus.
It is so amusing seeing someone who had his moment 40+ years ago only to become subsequently irrelevent, becomming the radical left's version of George W. Bush--someone who knows what to say but still doesn't matter because nobody much takes him seriously.
Hillary Clinton is the most promising (likely to win) candidate running on the Republican hawk platform.
Unionguy:
"The absolute worst thing that can occur for the peace forces is a repeat of the last election cycle, where most peace forces took a 'holier than thou' position, standing above the fray, (and above the masses of real working people), just yelling that 'all are equally bad,' 'a plague on both houses,'….."
ezeflyer and nader2000 also made very good points.
These remarks by unionguy are very true.
If progressive liberals do not stand together as a cohesive force against war and the unraveling of our constitution we are doomed to face another devastating defeat.
These third party advocates seem to be very idealistic and also very "holier than thou" in their political demands.
Unless the candidate is absolutely perfect in every way and agrees with me on all the issues, I will throw my vote away on another party, someone who has no chance of winning. So there. I refuse to form a coalition for peace.
I find it almost impossible to believe that these dem haters cannot discern any difference between the two mainstream parties?
Do you guys really think that Kucinich, Obama, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson, Gravel or Clinton would take us to war faster than Rudy, Huck, Thompson, McCain, Romney or Hunter?
This is mindlessness at its most insidious distortion of the facts and the truth.
The preacher man who refused to go thru the mainstream like Kucinich and other liberals, went around the country like Elmer Gantry with his duopoly rhetoric convincing the naive among the electorate that there really was no appreciable difference between Gore and Bush.
For those who continually harp that the dems are not stopping the war fast enough since we gave them control in 2006, the fact of the matter is, we still have only a slim tenuous 51 vote majority in the senate.
If Independent warmonger Lieberman decides to caucus with the republicans he will put the senate in a 50/50 tie giving control back to the republicans because the VP will cast a deciding vote in a tie.
Warmonger Lieberman is not going to allow the dems to push very hard to end the war before he threatens to switch parties.
We do not need more Greens in congress or more Republicans, what we need are more democrats in congress and a democrat in the white house.
The Greens and their pie in the sky delusional dreams of being a powerful force in the next generation is just misguided.
I am not sure the country can withstand these pervasive assaults on our moral principles for another generation; a president Rudy or Huck will follow in the footsteps of Bush.
"Until we solve the situation in Iraq, we're going to continue to have problems. This is why I was against the war from the start and continue so,"
Barack Obama
"Thank God George Bush is our President."
Rudy Giuliani
Please tell me what the hell good is the stripping of delegates from certain states? Why can't every state have it's own primary? Is this just another way to reline Dems voting power? I can't find anything to show precedent for this type of primary rigging. PS we need to impeach the dictator and his henchmen, recall Pelosi as she has lied and misrepresented herself, and impound the war profiteers money before they move it to Quatar with Halliburton.
There's two heads of the war party -- Democrat and Republican. Anyone who voted for the attack on Iraq shouldn't even be considered for president in 2008. Anyone who says "all options are on the table" in regard to attacking Iran shouldn't be considered either.
How the peace movement can win: a field guide.
First find the peace within that an extremist Republican or DLC Democrat does not give and can not take away. Live in that peace and bring it to the world.
As ticonderoga points out the moment is not about Republican vs. Democrat it's about insanity vs. sanity - the moment is as willybill says, "to create a new dream…..a dream based on truth, honor, integrity and real equality." - it is the moment of reconfirming the Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness and the US Constitution; this time with all the people gathered from around the globe: this time with no one excluded, no one at 3/5 a person - this time in equality - this is the organizing principle of the field guide to peace.
At the least Haydon presents a time line and some of the mental energies that must be dealt with. He also touches on, though separates himself from, the fact that this movement is human based - humanity based in the streets, homes and gardens of America!
A poignant and telling remark of Haydon's is the fact that the Watergate impeachment crises was a major factor in ending the Vietnam war. Thus, the time is ripe for the various factions calling for peace, justice, health care, and decent access to water, food, and housing to join together in the great democratic process of impeachment.
Thus, we must continue to dream but we do not need to totally recreate the dream - most of all what we need to do is follow Martin Luther King's lead presented in his Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam.
The best why to make this declaration is presented by Haydon: "applying people pressure"(culturing human relation) door to door(within our precincts), house meetings; with voter registration, education, and get out to vote: for all of The People - not just Democratic, Republican or Green - this is a humanitarian call to impeach, this is a humanitarian movement for peace - look at the unbridled catastrophic, if not survival threatening, results of "depleted" uranium toxicity in conjunction with climate change - it can be no other way.
As we do this educating and relating perhaps the number one discussion to be had was presented by Dr. Wu: are we willing to up hold the Carter Doctrine with sacrifices of blood and treasury for the oil of the middle east? But of course most CD readers know that the catastrophic sacrifices have not been just for oil for America, but sacrifices for the oil, water and privatization profits of transnational corporations - this injustice will not stand!
And the surest way to cut down this injustice is engaging in the great American process of impeachment. By going door to door we will mitigate the fear holding so many people from raising their voices and expressing what is in their human heart. By meeting face to face and hand shake to hand shake we will not only overcome that fear but overcome the vary basis of this humanly contrived and deplorable mental construct called "terrorism"!
And the guiding light is not just a moral duty to overcome terror, but to unleash our greatest glory; a glory that you my not see in your minds eye, but a glory you surely feel in your heart.
Yes, in our hearts. Every where I go, and whom ever I talk with, they make their statement about what they are campaigning for in tepid and logical statements, then, as spacecase44 does above, they state their outrage, then they always say, "I would love to impeach!"
It is time to transform our outrage to a functional process, it is time to pick up our love and organize for peace through impeachment; it is time to rage not for vengence but to rage for what can be, it is time not for the love of a political party or and ideology, but for the love of ourselves and the love of humanity.
Thus, how can the peace movement win? What is the field guide? Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!
Thank you seriousprofessor for a very insightful, and might I add, correct view of how the Democratic Party apparatus views the anti-war/peace movement.
Hayden peels back the ugly veneer of the Democratic Party when it comes to supposedly being champions of peace.
As seriousprofessor reminds us, the anti-war faction was silenced at their Boston convention in '04 to make way for their Skull and Bones candidate. They had no intention whatsoever to confront Bush and his neocon agenda head on with a strong peace platform. Kucinich and his platform was reduced to ashes. Would it be any different this time?
And, he also reminds us how ignorant the party is towards all of us who fight for peace and justice by projecting the image that only the Democratic Party is the political vehicle to achieve our ends. Let me remind Mr. Hayden that Democrats are actually just a part of the vast organizations and individuals involved in the peace movement. How pompous you are.
And to echo my earlier post and in support of seriousprofessor, it should be noted by everyone on this thread how arrogant Hayden and his corporate owned party is towards the "selection" process of presidential candidates...suggesting openly to us that we are silly to consider Kucinich, Richardson or Gravel when the party knows who's right for us.
Hayden, you actually show us what the Democratic party really stands for with your articles. Keep doing it so more and more progressives will see beneath the deceptive veneer of party BS.
I'm sorry, but Tom Hayden is simply wrong. Three representative whoppers from one opinion piece should be sufficient to support my claim.
1. "The Democrats defaulted on their opportunity to use these independent committees for a peace message in 2004, when they muted and muddled their antiwar position."
The Democrats had no antiwar position in 2004. John Kerry, "reporting for duty," ensured that Kucinich's antiwar voice was muzzled at the convention. Kucinich meekly complied. Actual antiwar voices were either down the street in a free speech cage or, like Medea Benjamin, dragged off the convention floor. This describes active hostility to the peace movement, not a muted stance.
2. "The challenge will be to draft an antiwar formula that unites the peace forces and progressive Democrats rather than one that depresses vast numbers of antiwar voters.
Incorrect. The peace movement, with no help from the Democratic Party, already has public opinion on its side. The challenge is for political representatives to represent. It is not for a party to give the movement some marketing homework.
3. "Voting for Kucinich, Richardson or Gravel is a legitimate choice to support an important voice–but not a nominee."
In a direct rejection of democracy, Tom Hayden pronounces, a priori, what political choices are allowable and what are not. Please, someone remind him that representative democracy is a farce when one votes for candidates whose interests are diametrically opposed to the voter.
Mr. Hayden is welcome to get in touch with me for a personal reminder of what millions of people around the world knew years ago: this war is immoral, illegal, stupid, and can be stopped right now by an opposition party in the U.S.. If his primary concern is Democratic victory rather than saving lives, he can take heart in the latter achieving the former.
It's that simple.
Sorry dude, but the only good choice for president in '08 is Dennis Kucinich. He will recieve my vote regardless of party nominations.
Coming soon in a headline near you:
Osama Calls MoveOn.Org His Best Friend!
"We terrorists would just give up and go home if anti-war Americans weren't helping us so much!"
So Huckabee wins big in 2008 and bombs Iran and Pakistan for Jesus, jihadis take control of Saudi Arabia, gas goes to $10 per gallon, and the United States turns into one big Rust Belt.
Tom Hayden runs for mayor of Oakland in 2010, and is eaten by radioactive rats at a fund-raiser.
END OF STORY!
I agree. We MUST place TOP PRIORITY to changing the Congress and putting those committed to peace in charge.
The westside in LA was just given another wake-up call by their pro-war hawk, Jane Harman, with her new police state bill.
HARMAN SHOULD BE ON THE TOP OF THE LIST FOR REPLACEMENT.
Last election cycle, Harman was challenged by anti-war activist Marcy Winograd, the president of Progressive Democrats of America's LA chapter (pdla.org). With a FRACTION of the money and only 3 months, this first-time candidate garnered over 38% of the vote against this entrenched incumbent who had allowed Bush to wiretap Americans without a warrant.
WHO WILL STEP FORWARD AND CHALLENGE AND BEAT HER THIS TIME???
The full text of Harman's police state bill is at
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959
An analysis of it from Progressive Dems of LA VP Brad Parker ...
"STOP the JANE HARMAN POLICE STATE BILLS
H.R. 1955 and
S. 1959 (this one authored by Collins of Maine)
If you believe that America is a democracy and should not be turned
into a police state like Russia , Pakistan , Burma , Zimbabwe , China and so many other totalitarian nations then you must rise up and STOP:
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of
2007 (H.R. 1955)--NOTE: THIS HAS ALREADY PASSED
and its companion bill in the Senate – S. 1959
These bills will be the final triumph of fear over reason as the
Federal government takes away any rights of free speech and association we may have left under the guise of preemptive National Security.
SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS. (from S. 1995)
(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission
on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
established under section 899C.
(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means
the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance
political, religious, or social change.
(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the
use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based
violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or
violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs."
The House has already passed this bill. Congressmen like Henry Waxman, my rep, Howard Berman, Adam Schiff, and oh so many others did not see fit to preserve our constitutional rights once again.
Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich was there to vote against it as were ONLY TWO other Dems, Neil Abercrombie of HI and Jerry Costello of IL. Surprisingly,THREE Reps joined them-- CA Rep Dana Rohrabacher, TN Rep, John Duncan, and AZ Rep, Jeff Flake.
Here's the roll call for you to check if yours even voted. Many did a "no vote" rather than aye/nay. Cowards.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-993
CALL YOUR SENATOR IMMEDIATELY TO REGISTER YOUR OPINION ON THIS BILL. WE KEEP HOPING THAT EVENTUALLY SOME OF THEM WILL START LISTENING.
###
I'm voting DK all the way. And I will NOT cast a ballot for Hillary. I wouldn't even if Attila the Hun were running against her.
I will vote Kucinich in the primary. I will settle for Obama, Edwards or Clinton, in that order of preference, as a nominee, and surely support that nominee against any of the Republicans running.
Someone wrote above that MoveOn is "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the DNC." No, it isn't. Such a comment goes to show how completely some people misunderstand politics in this country, and the possibilities for changing it.
MoveOn was founded by a small group of silicon valley entrepreneurs who decided they had more passion for social change than for making money. They own it and control it. Unfortunately, that means it isn't terribly democratic, it's a top-down org. But MoveOn has become a major player in Democratic Party politics.
This goes to show that anyone, left, right, center, can get in and play the game, and achieve influence if they are smart and can mobilize resources, i.e. money, ads, votes. The last is the most important. Votes are what count, votes delivered on election day; money, ads, and everything else is just paraphernalia to deliver votes.
PDA is another group, unfortunately also still fairly top-down, but more oriented toward a true bottom-up democratic expression of the progressive Left.
What the folks behind MoveOn and PDA have realized is that the two-party system is here to stay, given our electoral structure, and that the Democratic Party is the vehicle through which the Left and the peace movement can exercise influence and access power.
A friend of mine gave a better explanation of why we have an unbeatable two-party system than I have been able to give up to now. First-past-the-post voting makes it so, because if there were three parties, two of them would immediately form a coalition to win.
In other words, a three-party system would be unstable and revert to two parties.
Tom Hayden's analysis goes well beyond this recognition. Notice he does not even discuss the Green Party or Ralph Nader or such other silly notion. Now, go back and read what he does say, because it's a very good analysis, though I don't think we can be so certain we know how things are going to unfold in such detail so far into the future.
One more thing:
Moveon? Tom Mattzie? $100 million fund. George Soros? Steve Bing? Best-funded anti-war message in history?
Okay, so you're ready to rock and roll. Lots of bucks and lots of volunteers to get the message out. So why can't you use that money and those volunteers to get out the message that Kucinich IS a viable candidate? Why?
What's going on here? We don't have to convince Kucinich of anything. Everything he wants to do will benefit those who want peace, as well as the poor and middle class. We don't have to change him. Everybody else we have to change, to pressure into doing what we want. All we have to do re Kucinich is vote for him. What's easier, voting for someone who wants to help you or trying to make someone who doesn't want to help you want to help you? Seems to me it's the former.
C'mon, Tom! It's not the Democrats versus the Republicans. It's not about getting ANY Democrat in office. It's Peace versus War and Corporate Control, and Kucinich is the only one who's always been against the Iraq War and who's always refused to take Corporate Bucks. You know this is true.
We are ending the war; with our troops.
Our biggest problem isn't the war; our biggest problem, as it was with Vietnam, is the bullshit artists in Washington; stop pushing your brand and start helping your country.
Hayden says:
"Voting for Kucinich, Richardson or Gravel is a legitimate choice to support an important voice–but not a nominee."
So, this is what working with the corporatists in your party does to an old 60's radical? Dissing the ONLY Democratic candidate NOT supported financially by the corporatists and clearly the ONLY TRUE Democratic Party candidate with vision and integrity is what it comes down to? Shame on Hayden and the rest of the Democratic elites. You should ALL be backing the only progressive voice left in the field of candidates...Kucinich.
So voting for Kucinich is valid in order to make a point, but not in order to choose a candidate?
Criminy! This isn't the first article I've seen on Common Dreams that was written by Hayden that has the same negativism re Kucinich as a candidate. This is exactly why we keep electing the same old liars and crooks, election after election: we're afraid to vote for who we really want, opting instead to vote for someone we can tolerate who is "electable," whatever in the heck that means. Even someone like Hayden.
Kucinich is the guy, and all the rest are just fooling us.
Mr. Hayden....Nothing counts unless we reclaim the VOTING APPARATUS prior to the 2008 election. Please check out this valiant effort and offer support. Schultz has a suit against ALL 50 STATES to return to paper ballots and public, visible counting....
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/NCEL/WashTimesAd-NCEL.pdf
"The Truth Will Set You Free."
We need to get this to the grassroots level, if we are going to make a difference. So many people I talk to say, it's hopeless, the elections are rigged, my vote won't make a difference! We have to start letting people know that if we can stop the funding to this war, we can stop it.
If the public has an honest source of news, then and only then, will they know the facts, and the truth. I don't believe, it will ever happen on these, corporate controlled, media outlets, we have today. Not one Television Station, or Major Newspaper, in the San Francisco bay area, said so much as a peep, about Scott Mc Clellan's statement that the top 5 people in the executive branch, lied to him, and the American People. Doesn't that make them Liars, and destroyers of Democracy, like the Liar's, he named in his new book?
I think, all these networks should be charged, with Perjury, and be given a bill, for the damage, spreading these malicious lies, has caused to the families of brave soldiers, who have lost their lives, and the damages,to our countries economy, and the fabric of American Society, that they helped cause.
They have gravely injured, our once proud nation,and our Constitution. Just like the corrupt one's, who have aided in turning our once Democratic form of government, into a dictatorship. They are responsible for this, and they should be held accountable. How long do we have to put up with some Idiot, who says things like "I got ta keep catapulting the propaganda?" We should make them print that on the front page of every newpaper in America, Full Page, With his face right next too it, until the election is over. Maybe the people will get it, when they hear it again, and again, spin,, spin, spin, I don't know about you, but all this spinning carp, is making me dizzy!!
You see that true Journalism in America, is dead, or at best on life support. The good old Journalists, have had their tongue's trimmed off. Its time for some young journalists, with testosterone, to stand up and speak the truth. Nothing anywhere, scares the corrupt ones more, than a bright light shining on the Truth. If you get off CommonDreams, or a few other good sites, it looks like the lights get dim, or go out completely. There has to be a way to make the Truth Known.
It's time to call the liars, what they are, Liars, Traitors, and treasonous, corrupt war profiteers, in a time of war. What should be done, to correct this? What is the traditional solution for their crimes? Why don't you readers tell me. Please enlighten me.
"The Truth will always stand on it's own legs. If you tell it, you won't have to worry about what you said, because it won't ever change! The Truth is never anything that needs to be hidden!" Has this government hidden anything, from the eyes of it's citizens? If so, who has hidden what? Which of the 5 major news networks makes the most money off of their war coverage? Are they public corporations? Is this public record? Its a business to them, is it not? Which companies in America, make the most off of supplying the hardware needed to fight a war, that according to Mr. Decider, "Major Hostilities have Ended." How many Trillions dollars, and thousands of lives ago, was that little fib spoken? Is it true that major corporations who make the tools of war, pay the least, or no taxes, in our country? Have they too, been outsourced, and are now incorporated overseas? Like Halliburtons Headquarters in Dubai?
How about this, No pay USA Taxes, and Open Books in USA, no Contracts? How about that Senators, and Congressmen?, Pelosi, Boxer, Frankenstein, Which of you will stand up for what is right? if your not a Republican, what do you say to that? Answer the Question, Are you with us, American Taxpayers, or those who avoid them? Which one of you will have the heart to sponsor this bill, so the rest of us, tax paying Americans, will have to vote on it! Here is the Citizen orginated, and sponsered Bill, Senate and House Bill, " The War Profittering and Corporation Accountability Act # 2008, All corporations engaging in war supplies and services, must from this date forward:
1. Incorporate, and have their headquarters, in the United States of America
2. Pay US taxes, like the rest of us in America.
3. Have all books and contracts open for inspection of all three, branches of the Government.
4. Failure to do so, will immediately, null and void any and all existing contracts, and they must immediately, cease all activities, including receiving funds from the United States Government and Military.
How about that Mr. President?< Congressmen and Congresswomen? Senators? Are you all Americans?, or a Dubain's? Do you support Corporations Paying their fair share of Taxes in the United States?, or do you stand for them avoiding them? and oursourcing our jobs along with the money? How about answering these questions. Members of Congress, The Senate, and Yes you too Mr. Decider! Will you all please answer the questions now? Yes or no? A no vote by the way, means your with them, and not the American People! So we all await your answers, right here, On Commondreams.org! Unless of course your afraid too! I hope none of you are,now are you? If you don't stand up for open and free disclosure of the facts, and the truth, you don't belong in Government.
I am a proud American, who has put my life on the line for this country, it's constitution, and its people, I am ashamed to see what you have all done, to this Countries stature, in the nations of the world, and environmental havoc, you continue to reek, on this planet. You can hide the facts, all you want, Mr. President, and members of The Senate,and Congress, but you can't hide, from the Truth.
A liberal hawk is a conservative in disguise.
Haydens' diagnosis and prescription are solid, and I would argue that a vehicle for mobilization is already in place and the engine's humming. The Iraq Moratorium initiative is gaining ground in parts of the country, most notably in Seattle and Mineappolis where college and high school students staged a walk-out on November 16th that got the attention of local and regional press. The moratorium has aspects of accessibility, frequency and immediacy that have been lacking in previous efforts, and gives antiwar supporters an opportunity to demostrate opposition monthly within, or close to, their own communities. The challenge at this point is to convince the major antiwar coalitions leadership to mobilize their constituencies into the public sphere, rather than just giving the effort a paper endorsement. Call/email UFPJ and ANSWER and ask them to get their people behind local moratorium events NOW. Time's a wastin'.
Waste of time... Z-zzzzzzzzzzzzz
I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but it appears that Tom Hayden, who has more than paid his dues as a peace warrior over many decades, sounds either naive or even disingenuous:
1) The 527 committees were created by the major parties, lobbyists and status quo politicians to get around some accounting issues in the already-corrupt campaign finance laws. To pretend, or claim, that rank-and-file peace activists will ever have any influence on the party hacks and consultants who run these committees is hard to believe;
2) Moveon is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the DNC and seems to flirt with the DLC fairly often. It is not a place to look for real action to stop the damned war, withdraw troops, shut down the Green Zone palace, get US oil companies out of Iraq and develop a reparations regime to begin to pay some compensation for all that we have destroyed (and are) destroying;
3) While many SEIU locals took early firm stands against the the current insanity, especially through US Labor against the War (USLAW), the SEIU International has been all over the block until it was finally forced to put at least a tentative foot on the Peace Train. It is inaccurate to the SEIU a leadership kudo in the anti-war faction of the labor movement. It should be remembered that this is an organization that helped to fund a recent meeting of the national Republican Governors Assn. (now headed by Texas Gov Rick Perry). Also, SEIU was close to right-wing Gov George Pataki of New York and has regulary supported Republicans in a supposed effort to show that it isn't owned by the Dems.
Also, Hayden leaves out any mention of a DC leadership meeting of anti-war activists in January, promoted by Cindy Sheehan and others, to be followed by a number of mid-March demos in DC, not the least of which will be the Winter Soldier II testimonies, put on by Iraq Veterans Against the War.
C'mon, Tom. Get back to the streets where your experience, analytical abilities and leadership will be both appreciated and effective. We miss ya.
Again I rant that talk of 'war' in regard to Iraq is self-defeating (you like that?)
"pull out all the troops from a war", "the Iraq War will continue"
The war against Iraq ended 4 years ago. We met our war goals and the C-in-C declared victory. We are now engaged in occupying a country at the request of the occupied. Speak, therefore, of occupation not war.
We must speak accurately in order to dispel the miasma of confusion that our government has enveloped us in, a deliberate ploy to confuse the issue.
The only Constitutional war we are involved in is that against the guys who supported the guys who attacked us on 9/11. (Yes, it's written that badly - thanks for nothing, Congress).
Are we fighting this war at all? Who exactly are we after, who exactly was involved with 9/11? The government claims 'al-Qaeda' but they do so without any evidence of complicity with 9/11.
The 'war on terror' is unConstitutional and was announced by the President but never declared by Congress. The other military actions are morphing into this illegitimate war so that all arguments can be met by the standard response "but we're at war".
Don't mix 'Iraq' and 'war' together. It gives legitimacy where there should be none.
"the independent campaign" ... "get out the vote"
But in support for which candidate? If its truly 'anti-war', it can't be in support of the Democrat nominee (barring a miracle and Kucinich being the nominee of course)
Drwu and unionguy have a better grasp of the realities that are possible than I do. My outrage blinds me. Bush and Co. are all about oil. If our threats to Iran are about the nuclear weapons possibility then why didn't they get ballistic with North Korea?
Our economy is severely damaged, our trade debt with China alone is frightening, America's middle class finds itself slipping into debt, with bankruptcy rates higher than they have been in decades and the disadvantaged are finding less and less resources for survival. Public corporations are being bought up by Black Stone; taking them private by a covert elite. Black Water, a privately held army of mercenaries, is collecting a fortune consisting of our tax dollars to destroy just as our tax dollars are going toward rebuilding (by Halliburton among others) what we paid to destroy. Bush's cronies are amassing riches they could not have imagined when they gave funds to Bush to take charge.
In a short time we have become universally despised. Our populace is more concerned with the business hours of Walmart than they are with our government workings. Most people could not even name three governments we have overturned in the last five years. We are always working behind the scenes, and while I think it is a good policy to be aware of all factors, I thnk we are too ready to micromanage. Why are we still "excommunicating" Cuba?
If the general populace were able to grasp the manipulations that have been an ongoing part of the goverment's process, would they feel that it is in their own best interest and be just fine with it? We are dumbing down our populace with an aggression that is frightening. One needs only to look to TV and the level of entertainment to make a guess at the level of preferred consciousness.
The process of running for elective office doesn't produce the best leader, it produces a person who has to be micromanaged to the extent that they need to say what the perceived voter wants to hear. While we need to do whatever will get us a candidate who will begin the steps to restoring our country and our freedom, we really need to change the entire process of "electing" our government representatives. But thats another story.
Here is another good idea.
I just returned from a speaking tour and learned that college students are organizing a tent city protest this summer outside the White House. Tent city protests outside the the Ukrainian Parliament during the Orange Revolution caused the Prime Minister to step down. A 300 day tent city action at a protest to support farmers at Bosnia and Herzegovina Square in Sarajevo stopped anti-farming laws. In America Cindy Sheehan's Camp Casey outside Bush's Ranch in Crawford, Texas provided pressure to end the war. Students feel that if it was taken to Bush's door step like the Bonus Marchers after World War I that it might be powerful enough to build a national movement. I have participated in a number of tent city protests and found that beyond the political pressure we also built deep relationships. This tent city actio can be an example of the democratic peaceful world we knw is possible. One leader of Veterans For Peace called me to see if Food Not Bombs could provide meals at a tent city protest in the mid-west. He wasthe first to tell me about plans to set up a tent city in Washington D.C. I hope everyone will start getting the word out about this important action. We posted some information on the Food Not Bombs website. Feedig such an action wouldn't be a problem. www.foodnotbombs.net
This is a solid, reality based program that would actually move folks, placing the war at the center of the electoral debate, forcing candidates to move in our direction. The other part of the above program is that it needs to be tied to a full-blown education/mobilization campaign to help regular folks understand what this war debacle is costs each area, both in terms of monies lost that could & should be spent on real people's needs, as well as the horrible human cost.
I would take some issue with Tom's formulation of "anti-war unions, like SEIU." The entire labor movement has taken strong anti-war positions, including industrial unions like my own (USW--steelworkers), white-collar unions like AFSCME, teachers, and both the AFL-CIO and the Change/Win unions have adopted strong anti-war positions. The actual mobilzation of membership, even with strong official positions & very high anti-war sentiment amoung union members/families, has been uneven and inconsistent. The point now, is to find ways to turn these positions into more mobilization on the ground. That can ONLY be done if the active anti-war forces are working in coordination with labor and the main people's forces to build unity to defeat the ultra-right in the upcoming elections. Tom's formulation is a good, solid start.
The absolute worst thing that can occur for the peace forces is a repeat of the last election cycle, where most peace forces took a 'holier than thou' position, standing above the fray, (and above the masses of real working people), just yelling that 'all are equally bad,' 'a plague on both houses,' and only putting forth 'out now,' without any connection to the main people's forces, their needs or concerns. This position, while seeming like a 'good,' or so-called 'moral' position, would only isolate the anti-war/peace forces and strengthen the most ultra-right, pro-war forces. It would actually prolong, rather than helping end, the war.
If we can come together and discuss how to impliment a solid electoral program, we'll be in a much stronger position to end the war, fight for the real peace, this time next year!
Good work Tom.
The US occupation of Iraq is a fool's mission as US forces are caught in the middle of a violent civil war. Main stream media --the NYTimes, asks: "Is this country signing on to keep the peace in Iraq indefinitely?" Wrong question. Since we didn't invade to keep the peace indefinitely, or to get WMD's or to stop Al Qaeda working with Saddam or to avenge Saddam's attempt to assassinate George Bush's father we are finally left with the only sensible reason left: oil. So the proper question becomes: Is this country going to continue to secure and control middle eastern oil and gas routes as it is supposed to do under the Carter Doctrine no matter the cost?
This is where the rubber hits the road. The power elite are fearful of losing control over oil. China or India or ?? can take "our" oil. This is the battle that the anti-war group must meet head on.
Dr. Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers