Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Anti-War Campaigners Have to Change Electoral Tactics
Neither Clinton nor Obama has a real plan to end the occupation of Iraq, but they could be forced to change position
'So?" So said Dick Cheney when asked last week about public opinion being overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq. "You can't be blown off course by polls." A few days later, his attitude, about the fact that the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq has reached 4,000, displayed similar levels of sympathy. They "voluntarily put on the uniform," the vice-president told ABC news.
This brick wall of indifference helps explain the paradox in which we in the US anti-war camp find ourselves five years into the occupation of Iraq: anti-war sentiment is as strong as ever, but our movement seems to be dwindling. Sixty-four per cent of Americans tell pollsters they oppose the war, but you'd never know it from the thin turnout at recent rallies and vigils.
When asked why they aren't expressing their anti-war opinions through the anti-war movement, many say they have simply lost faith in the power of protest. They marched against the war before it began, marched on the first, second and third anniversaries. And yet, five years on, US leaders are still shrugging: "So?"
That's why it's time for the anti-war movement to change tactics. We should direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic contenders.
Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, we should simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: we'll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Some of the most prominent anti-war voices - from MoveOn.org to the Nation, the magazine we both write for - have gone down this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign.
This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway US policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.
And when it comes to Iraq, there is little to cheer. Look past the rhetoric and it becomes clear that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a real plan to end the occupation. They could, however, be forced to change their positions, thanks to the unique dynamics of the prolonged primary battle.
Despite the calls for Clinton to withdraw in the name of "unity", it is the very fact that Clinton and Obama are still fighting it out, fiercely vying for votes, that presents the anti-war movement with its best pressure point. And our pressure is badly needed.
For the first time in 14 years, weapons manufacturers are donating more to Democrats than to Republicans. The Democrats have received 52% of the defence industry's political donations in this election cycle - up from a low of 32% in 1996. That money is about shaping foreign policy and, so far, it appears to be well spent.
While Clinton and Obama denounce the war with great passion, they both have detailed plans to continue it. Both say they intend to maintain the massive green zone, including the monstrous US embassy, and to retain US control of Baghdad airport.
They will have a "strike force" to engage in counter-terrorism, as well as trainers for the Iraqi military. Beyond these US forces, the army of green zone diplomats will require heavily armed security details, which are currently provided by Blackwater and other private security companies. At present there are as many private contractors supporting the occupation as there are soldiers, so these plans could mean tens of thousands of US personnel entrenched for the future.
In sharp contrast to this downsized occupation is the unequivocal message coming from hundreds of soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq Veterans Against the War which, earlier this month, held the Winter Soldier hearings in Silver Spring, Maryland - modelled on the 1971 Winter Soldier investigation, in which veterans testified about US atrocities in Vietnam - are not supporting any candidate or party. Instead they are calling for immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all US soldiers and contractors. Coming from peace activists, the "out now" position has been dismissed as naive. It is harder to ignore coming from the hundreds who have served - and continue to serve - on the frontlines.
The candidates know that much of the passion fuelling their campaigns flows from the desire among so many rank-and-file Democrats to end this disastrous war. Crucially, the candidates have already shown that they are vulnerable to pressure from the peace camp. When the Nation revealed that neither candidate was supporting legislation that would ban the use of Blackwater and other private security companies in Iraq, Clinton changed course. She became the most important US political leader to endorse the ban - scoring a point on Obama, who opposed the invasion from the start.
This is exactly where we want the candidates: outdoing each other to prove how serious they are about ending the war. That kind of battle has the power to energise voters and break the cynicism that is threatening both campaigns.
Let's remember, unlike the outgoing Bush administration, these candidates need the support of the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq. If opinion transforms into action, they won't be able to afford to say, "So?"
Naomi Klein is the author of many books, including her most recent, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, which will be published in September.Visit Naomi's website at www.naomiklein.org, or to learn more about her new book, visit www.shockdoctrine.com . Jeremy Scahill is the author of the New York Times bestseller Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. He is currently a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute.
Copyright New York Times syndication
Comments
The Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines.
93 Comments so far
Show AllGWoT is far from over and there's more than one way to accomplish more, than only using military might; it's not the sole powerful method.
"Day of Infamy: The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran
by John McGlynn
Global Research, March 24, 2008
japanfocus.org "
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8429
Quoting the bio. for him at the end of the GR copy:
"John McGlynn is an independent Tokyo-based economic and financial analyst. His three reports on the US use of financial sanctions against North Korea in the Banco Delta case are available at 1, 2, 3. ..."
I believe his bio. at JF says that he works with both JF and FPIF; the same FPIF that regularly has articles posted here at CD. This above article is the first time I've come across a piece by him, and it's impressively excellent; bad news, very, but excellent is his explanation.
The GR copy doesn't have links, while the original copy does; and it has the same title, minus 'Day of Infamy:', while also being dated March 22nd.
STRONG, very exhaustive explanation is presented, and frightening is the fast pace at which this may actually come. One reason is because military power won't be needed, not immediately anyway, and if it's not used, then it'll be, relatively speaking, extremely inexpensive to the US; while majorly destructive for Iran.
The US already has plenty of strength building up, and too much already established, for this war on Iran. And war it is; and, as usual, extremely and fully criminal, including based on law established by humans, besides being fully criminal in only moral or ethical terms.
Now I'll add a comment on the person who posted early on in this page a rant with respect to people not paying attention to 9-11, some such related rant anyway. I'm fully for the need to re-open the 9-11 investigations, and in a manner independent of US govt politicians, etc.; it must not be run by the US govt, though I'll definitely let the top people of the 9-11 Truth Movement explain the details of how this inquiry needs to be done, for they're far more expertised on this than I am.
However, to rant about people not paying attention to 9-11 being an 'inside job' in a page like this one strikes me as odd, not quite fitting, for 9-11 was NOT the commencement, which was actually much further back; minimally in the 1990s, but while some strong analysts have well argued that the commencement really stretches back as far as WWII, others arguing not that far back, but at least 1980s.
9-11 wasn't the commencement; it's was just a step in a long process.
And Elaine Brown's article on Winter Soldiers event testimonies posted here a day or two ago provides an overview that's fitting with what I'm saying.
It IS ALL ABOUT US imperialism and warring for it.
Recently registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. Guess what, he is the only candidate on either side who has called for an immediate withdrawal of the troops.
I have found while participating in the electoral process on the Republican side of things, that it is time we look beyond party lines for leadership. It has been an illuminating experience to realize that a very large "minority" of the Republican party is absolutely anti-war...perhaps a change in tactics should include a revolution within the Republican party. I think that is happening.
On another note, the ILWU (International Longshore and Warehouse Union) is planning to shut down ports on the west coast on May 1st in protest of the war. See their website for more info. Let's rally around the unions and show our support for their courage.
No One has a crystal ball and all assertions are made on what has and is happening. The Republicans believe the people will string along no matter how unwillingly; the Democrats think that if they assume an anti-war look without saying anything until they gain power they will be able to ignore and BS the people like the current mob has.
But that is when public spending on the war will have caught up with you and the longer the Iraq occupation lasts the angrier the world will get. If the USA are basing their expectations of a long occupation on Germany and Japan, the peoples of both these nations after the war felt a deep cultural shame and understood the occupation - they accepted it. The Middle-east will not. Sabotage, terrorism and guerilla attacks will increase and they will all target the source of their woes - the oil, gas and pipelines. Support any other candidate, even Mike Gravel.
Anti-war campaigners, what crap! America is built upon war. It would go bankrupt if there wasn't war to feed its industries.
The claims of those vying for Presidential Office are a tissue of lies. How many of them are saying they'll close down the armament industries? Zero!
Your penchant for war is leading us ever closer to WW3, the war that will end our world. You even put military units on merchant ships now (see my blog) further increasing the chance of an incident, one that will have horrific implications for the world.
Pollie-speak means nothing. They'll say and do anything to get elected. If you don't get your house in order soon, you'll pay dearly and so will the rest of the world!
The nuclear-dawn is coming!
www.dangerouscreation.com
bottle (above)---- it isn't possible for me to agree with you more!!
If most people in the United States controlled their government the common man and woman would not be drowning with so many problems which should allow common solution. In my opinion this is due to control by privileged persons who make your laws and their rich profit or love special powers gained from their selfish way of thinking.
I am ethnic and with geographic parts both Icelandic and American-Irish and now live in Reykjavik one half year and formerly one half year at Maryland Baltimore area at Sparks Maryland, as an engineer with legal dual citizen status in Iceland and the United States.
Mostly in culture and language from my childhood I am Icelandic.
Maybe your Common Dreams arguments will be surpised that Icelanders by wide feeling and history love the United States as a friend and as a commons sense of life society. But now we do not know what anymore is happening or who is controlling . For myself I can not understand what now happens in my dual citizen nation. In Reykjavik I am asked usually to explain if the United States has finally drowned and with no answer from me because I do not understand with enough truth or knowledge..
My fear would be to say the people of the United States have gone into sleeping for regards of their government. The United States government is no longer the good American Icelanders have known in the past.
Has this happened for truth I can not say because I do not understand on my own.
Life is too short to keep voting for Democrats. Congress has failed to impeach and to stop funding the imperialist war. The Green Party gives me something to vote FOR, not a fearful "alternative" AGAINST the greater evil.
undercover .....
the problem is that Ron Paul won't get the Republican nomination any more than Kucinich could have gotten the Dem nod. In one way you are correct, he is the only anti-war candidate left in the race, but only if you restrict your gaze to the two corporate parties. You are wrong though when you look beyond that and realize that there will be anti-war candidates on the November ballot.
What I am very glad to see is someone noticing that there's a sizeable anti-war force on the Republican side. That's been there and growing. But its generally ignored by the left.
What's needed of course in a winner-take-all election system is for all anti-war forces to unite behind one candidate. To split our votes amongst several anti-war candidates is self-defeating. We will have a hard enough task to win this election without shooting ourselves in the foot by splitting our vote.
What this means of course is that many people are going to have to lose their narrow blinders. That means people on the left might have to accept a candidate more from the right, or that people on the right might have to accept a candidate more on the left. Its the only way we can possibly win.
This would have to be a deal. We all unite behind one candidate, but that candidate acknowledges that they only have a limited mandate. I'd say its this ....1) end the wad. and 2) clean up our corporate bought government and return us to a government of, by and for the people with free and fair elections.
In that case, if you don't like Ron Paul's health care plan, it doesn't matter. He pledges not to go that way in his first term. Instead he ends the war and cleans up our elections and our government. Then, when we truly are back to having free and fair elections that aren't dominated by money, we can have a debate over stuff like how to fix the health care system.
But, step 1 is that we have to unify to win elections. And we have to win elections to fix the problem.
PS ... I know the first thing the Democratic sycophants will say is ...'why not unify behind the Democrats in order to win?' The reason why not is that the Democrats will not fix the problem. They are a part of the problem.
Ask yourself this, what serious bills to clean up election financing and go to something like the Clean Election laws have you seen pass in this Democratic Congress? What such bills have you seen that have been heavily pushed by Dem leaders like Reid, Pelosi and Dean?
The answer is none. That's the difference. A Democrat win means just that they gain control of the corrupt system. They get rich from it and use it for their own ends. If a Democratic win would fix the system, then I'd consider voting Democrat. But the Democrats consistently refuse to even make anything more than a symbolic attempt to fix the system. Back in 1993 when the Dems had control of both houses of Congress and the White House, they still didn't try to fix the system.
So, we must unite. And the key criteria is that whomever we unite behind must commit to fixing the system. And to me, ending the war is also as important because that would at least mean that until we get our own house in order we stop the death, mayhem and destruction.
But, we must unite. That's the key.
One thing I haven't understood is why the anti-war forces tried to win both party nominations this year?
If you aren't serious about winning, and ending the war since we have to win to do that, then it made some sort of sense. As long as all you care about is nonsense like 'getting our message out' or 'making our voices heard', then having campaigns in both parties might make some sort of sense.
But, if people were serious about ending the war, then the thing for the primaries would have been to run one opposition candidate in one party. Anyone against the war would switch to that party and we'd make a serious attempt to win that party's nomination.
The only way having Paul in the Republican party and Kucinich and Gravel in the Democratic party makes sense is if this was just a preliminary to a big, unified fall campaign. Then it would make sense to do work developing a base in both parties during their primaries, then unifying that behind an opposition candidate in the fall.
Unfortunately, I don't see where we'll be that smart. I see many electoral strategies that seemed to be designed to fail. Having McKinney, Nader, a Libertarian and others all running on antiwar platforms in the fall elections seems guaranteed to fail. And failure means the war continues. And probably the war in Iran and the one we are starting in Pakistan and the one that's still going on in Afghanistan and maybe one between Colombia and its neighbors too. Losing is very costly.
Ps ... repeat the above strategy in every House and Senate race also. Unify behind one candidate. If we elected a President but left the crooks in control of Congress, the best we'd accomplish might be to slow things down. And we'd probably see the true colors of the Dems and Rethugs as they united to override our anti-war President's vetoes.
So, if we are serious we need to run unity campaigns for President, every Senate race and every House race.
It's sad to say that we can "force" them into positions -- we cannot. We can force them to pretend to take positions, and then reverse those as soon as necessary from their corporate handlers. So the belief is not actually based in anything meaningful -- when Hillary takes a position against Blackwater, she is likely giving them a position behind her back, someplace else, making promises, deals, etc.
You can't take a person like that and shape them. Same with Obama who voted to keep the PATRIOT ACT going, but highlights only his tinkering as some kind of big sign.
The conversation here will not amount to change.
Real change will, ultimately, require real sacrifice. Almost all historic change does require it. And that likely won't happen until it is forced on us (since Americans are basically drones) -- from the economic meltdown, the evvironmental meltdown, etc. and all the while the rich will be finding ways to prey on us until the last second.
So what the conversation should be about are ideals, not stale breadcrumbs.
Who would our ideal candidate be? What is the ultimate voting system imaginable? What is the best political and governmental system in the world, and why?
Then, let's get there.
Not as ants pushing on the elephants of Obama and Hillary, who will move a 1/2 inch and then move back as soon as we step away, but as farmers planting seeds, preparing so there is something to move us when everything falls apart . . . positive to inspire us, until it is necessary.
No. Pressuring Obama will be a waste of time, because he will say whatever seems politic to say to get the most votes. What he will do will be dictated by the military once he's in office. The only force the grass roots can bring to bear to stop the war is of the tidal sort. There are ways to make the elites hurt. And to effect a change of policy requires that we apply sustained pressure, and demonstrate that we can and will return to apply pressure whenever they fail to comply with our demands. And the only sort of pressure they understand -- being the sort of characters they are -- is boycott pressure. Economic pressure. If sixty percent of the people unite in boycott of some significant commodity (say gasoline), that should work if anything will. But it will entail sacrifice to do so. If the people are unwilling to sacrifice in an effective way, then the elites will have demonstrated that there is no bite to the bark. The occupation will continue. They will start other wars.
we got into this situatio0n by being under the thumb of a president and vice president (president in charge of vice) who declared that they would not be influenced by polls. and indeed, they have led us over the cliff and declared that victory was straight ahead (at the bottom of the cliff).
let us not confuse democrats with bush and cheney. you can influence a democrat. now let's elect one of them president and use our influence to get out of iraq.
I like Naomi Klein's work a lot, but this seems weak to me. When she says candidates are vulnerable to pressure from the peace camp, she may be correct, but presidential political campaigns are closed systems, games, kind of a florid designs on the political landscape bearing little relation to the business as usual work of the empire.
Naomi correctly points out that a large percentage of voters are opposed to the war, but polls show that, nevertheless, they trust McCain over the other candidates to carry out the "war on terror" and keep the nation "secure", even though...need I continue?
We need massive boycotts, shutdowns and so on, but we won't get them. A small ray of hope, in my opinion, is the work of the IVAW and similar organizations if they continue to rachet up the force and variety of their actions. The character of antiwar work in the early '70's changed character and was made more stark, focused, and useful when the vets got into it seriously.
Sorry, Jeremy. I mean Naomi and Jeremy's piece is weak. ...and "Naomi and Jeremy say..."
I only saw Naomi's name because I only have eyes for her... :-(
Klein and Scahill write: "Sixty-four per cent of Americans tell pollsters they oppose the war, but you'd never know it from the thin turnout at recent rallies and vigils."
It's true. Only a small fraction turn out, and it doesn't seem to matter when you tell your neighbors and colleagues about upcoming protests. You even pass out flyers, but attendance at antiwar rallies doesn't grow.
I think it's clear: The antiwar movement and the left progressives are only really about 10 percent of the voting population (let me pull that estimate out of thin air).
The Clinton and Obama campaign cabinets are packed with warmongers. McCain himself is an actual neocon - scary thought. Clearly, no candidate feels it worthwhile to appeal to the antiwar movement - except in the alternative parties (Green, Peace and Freedom, and even Libertarian).
This essay was great, but the campaigners have already chosen, and budged very little. They are counting on hardcore Democrats to once again select a pro-war candidate (after all, the Democratic Party came up with pro-war John Kerry the last time).
It's clear that citizen pressure isn't working. You must refuse to vote for the current leading pro-war candidates. Make your vote count by not figuring it into the tallies of Clinton or Obama. Who cares if it's winner take all. Less support for pro-war candidates is less support for their agendas.
If Dems lose again like Kerry did, maybe then will the Democratic Party not diss candidates like Dennis Kucinich. Losing will mean long-term suffering for us, but then I see no hope with Obama or Clinton being in power. People are just fooling themselves if they think that the Dem candidates have some secret plans to end the wars. That's not what they are saying.
@herbert r chersonsky March 26th, 2008 11:41 am
What you have posted is absolutely fascinating. A real eye opener.
But in places in one paragraph, I am not sure who you were talking about.
Who believed that the Soviets were having too much success with their
economic efforts in Afghanistan?
The Americans were truly successful in ruining that success.
Also, I am left wanting to know if what you said is really true.
If it really is true, then it strongly supports the view that
American interference is responsible for most of the woes in
the middle east.
Where can I find out more?
The feeling of powerlessness will not be ended by electing a democrat or republican, both are equally guilty. There may not be an answer to ending this war. It may just have to play itself out. The arrogance of "so" pretty much says it all. The new paradigm of American living is being built from the ground up. It is still fluid and cannot yet be clearly defined. Experimental lifeways are being tested in thousands of ways. As the successful pilot models begin to come into focus and can be more widely applied, only then will the people successfully advance their beliefs. The old system will have to go and will fall under the weight of it's irrelevance in people's lives. It's going to take some time and the road for some will be rough. Societal transformations takes time even in a fast paced world. Do not look to the old methods, they no longer work.
So when does The Guardian publish humor/satire pieces?
This is really from The Onion, right?
braithwa842...u can find more about brzezinski if u go to voltaire.net and go thru their "focus" section. there's a profile on him....another "strategic" "thinker" to whom life is cheap
Why do you think that your vote will be counted?
America is not a democracy.
Why should protest only manifest itself as street demonstration?
I dare say many street protests, collectivizing conferences, and any other form of public rally are frequently more aimlessly festive and self-congratulatory than demonstratively effective.
A new thought of protest, a design that fits today's currency, the rhythm of media technics, public habit and inclination (which changes, very quickly), needs consideration by these protesters.
Klein or whoever penned the article should quit expecting everyone to nostalgically take it to the street; for many, including me, there could not be such motivating reminiscence unless it be for and of a dream. (well---maybe that would be more potent a passion.) Nonetheless, one shouldn't for a second except others to conform to a homogeneous, unequivocal activism. Isn't that what always ends up being so very problematic, even before an oil-spill of a man (Cheny) crudely recalls to us how a petrol bomb reacts to the atrocity that it all too bluntly is.
The problem here is that despite the wishes of the public, MoveOn.org and others who oppose the war, is that none of them CAN pressure the candidates into addressing common concerns. This is because a corporate media carefully crafts the questions, responses and attention given to these issues to ensure a pliant public when it comes to extending the illegal occupation. For example why is it that no candidate is ever posed such basic questions such as ...
"If you support democracy, then why doesn't the American government support the vast majority of Iraqis who demand an immediate and total withdrawal of all American troops?"
Or... "With U.S. defence spending greater that the rest of the world combined, would you increase or decrease spending under your watch?"
If the MSM were at all serious about having a serious debate about the War, then Ralph Nader would be invited to participate in each and every debate. Instead the public is subjected to stale rhetoric as the MSM congratulates itself on "stimulating" such "impressive" and "controversial" dog and pony shows. The absence of relevant and tough questions ranging from the war to health care is symbolic of just how far the MSM is willing to go to reinforce the corporate status quo.
We must aim to replace a corrupt and totally out of touch government, that currently acquiesces only to their corporate sponsors, with a more effective grass roots movement. This movement will never get the MSM to play along. Instead we must expose the general public to alternative sources of information. We must convince them not to accept Faux News and other corporate media outlets as 'fair and balanced' networks. We must enlighten the public to the vast and sophisticated propaganda machine that they're exposed to everyday. Place ads in local papers directing them to read alternative websites, radio programs and publications. Arrange venues in your own locality to host open debates about the issues and perhaps even invite well-known and articulate progressives to speak at such events. Keep it simple too. Respect that people will differ on issues such as abortion or gun control and therefore avoid or postpone such peripheral concerns so that we can concentrate on ending the war ASAP.
To expect that the Mainstream Media will suddenly allow pertinent questions to be asked of the candidates is both naïve and unrealistic. Therefore a more direct and localized approach is essential if we ever hope to achieve real change in America.
Why did that comment vanish?
I'm sure the significance of petroleum was not lost on Uzi Arad who concentrated on the subject of global petroleum reserves in graduate school. That is, of course, the same Uzi Arad, former head of Mossad, who is the Founding Director of the Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) of the Ronald S. Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy, named after the same Ronald S. Lauder who was Chairman of the New York State Research Council on Privatization responsible for the July 24, 2001, World Trade Center Privatization Agreement.
Hint: FRONTLINE isn't going to tell you this!
More on Uzi Arad.
When someone tries to take away 5 minutes of break time from workers in France or Italy, they immediately call a strike. Here we expect mama and papa politician to take care of us. Like adolescents, we criticize and fuss, but do not pay our own way. That is why we have few unions, no viable third parties, a declining life for most of us. We are passive and simplistic. That is why we are in this position. Democracy depends on active citizens who can see openings and take advantage.
Naomi and Jeremy are asking us to grow up politically. I totally agree that the only sensible course is to pressure the politicians to do what we want them to do. That is true of local as well as presidential candidates. True, the politicians are much too influenced by money, but they still have to get elected and there is a limit (I hope) to how much the reactionaries can manipulate when there are wide margins.
One example: Get your PTA to petition local candidates and presidential candidates to end the war so after school programs will not be cut. Let them know the PTA members vote and have influence in the community.
There are thousands of issues that require the war in Iraq and military spending be stopped. One is the health of the earth, which should concern everyone.
Don't mourn, Organize.
When everyone's truly fed up there'll be a nationwide strike.
Apparently we're not yet ready too throw our bodies into the gears of the status quo's machine.
Until then, activism will remain verbal and ineffective.
Switch tactics? Yes, but why not go where the people are most likely to re-engage...around the economic issues that are screaming at us. The bail outs and the scathing rhetoric from the fed, the banks, wall street, talk TV, Bush, all directed at the victims so as to blind us and cower us as they fleece our pockets. The tried and true bait and switch that Government is so duplicitous along with corporate America.
Start talking truth to power here. . . link it to how the war, the tax breaks, deficit spending etc. and you can tap into a perfect storm of public outrage. I think this would create a growing solidarity movement between many factions that will challenge the elite far better then just an anti-war protest. Until there is a draft in this country, War, as a stand alone issue, will fail to capture the full attention of the people. Link the economic woes with war, and we can (will) make a difference. . . or start a revolution.
Klein and Scahill do not suggest supporting one of the main candidates -- just the opposite. They suggest using the hyper-visible setting of presidential campaigning to demand an end to the war. What if the candidates could never get a word in at a town hall or rally without being forced to substantively address the war? This CAN be done. With creativity. With handfuls of people willing to show up with some audacity. Not necessarily even spectacle, just ernest persistence. Get the candidates into a prolonged scat over time to see who can outdo the other with specific antiwar proposals. Let THEM charge each other with this or that proposal not having any teeth legislatively. Let THEM up the ante on each other as sitting senators to actually act on their words and accuse each other publicly about empty words. This kind of dynamic actually is possible. If they start pulling old ladies out of events by their hair, well, then you've made another point.
Klein/Scahill, as well as Tom Hayden, are putting forward a strong, positive message that needs to be heeded. Hayden certainly has the time in the trenches, the experience in the fights, to speak from real life experience. What these three strong voices are saying is that it is long past time that what passes for a peace movement in the US should have some form of electoral strategy.
I've been very active in the people's movement for four decades now, starting with the anti-Vietnam War and civil rights movements, and working as a steel union activist and leader for decades. We NEVER had anything near, even appoaching, the huge majority opposing the Vietnam War that now oppose this misadventure in Iraq. While the vets movement got media attention and was very positive during Vietnam, the oppostition to the war, even the level of organization, is much, much greater now among soldiers, vets and military families. During Vietnam, the labor stayed on the sidelines. Now, the entire labor movement opposes the war. However, in no way has the old peace movement even made real efforts to recognize and relate to the new, positive realities.
Further, at this time Americans are more politically active than they have been in their lifetimes, the vast majhority pushing for changes, including an end to the war and monies/resources and people brought home to help people here. However, again the old peace movement takes a self-rightous stand "above the fray," never allowing themselves to be dirtied by touching the real politics of our nation.
Certainly it is true that those polititcs are a stacked deck in favor of two corporate parties. But those two parties, while corporate, are NOT the same, they most assuredly CAN be influenced. We, as progressives, clearly are to the left of where the main candidates are, but we have one candidate (McCain) who's postion is support for the war, even stating he could see the US in Iraq "for 100 years." The two fighting for the Democratic nomination have clearly moved, becoming more and more anti-war, strengthening their positions against the war. However, the peace movement, without any electoral strategy, only whines on the sidelines about how their important issue is sidelined. To make it otherwise, we need to develop a real approach to influence the electoral arena.
No, "voting Green" or "voting Nader" is not a real electoral strategy in today's political atmosphere. It's just another form of ignoring the politics that the American people are part of.
The labor movement is in the process of training thousands of activists, organizing wide coalititons to fight for their issues (which include ending the war), in preparation for the elections. African American, women and Latino organizations are doing similiar things, all looking to influence the electoral outcome. However, the old peace movement, which could (and should), represent upwards of 70-80% of our people, is ignoring the elections. To say this is wrong-headed, short-sighted and stupid is to say that the Iraq War is a minor faux pax.
What peace activists need to underestand is that elections in the winneer-take-all type system we now have is not about trying to find your dream candidate, who stands for everything you do, and voting for him/her, it is (because it MUST be, until we are able to introduce some form of propotional representation) about attempting to develop wide coalitions that can move the nation in your direction. Those who wrote (above) that it is worthless to attempt to push the candidates, that Hilliary or Obama are not influeneced by people's pressure, are as close-minded and ideologically blind to reality as the Bush regime is. Both candidates are moving in a positive direction, clearly responding to the pressures of the election. Both have developped much better programs in relation to the war.
It is, I believe, worthwhile to look at our nation's history. FDR, viewed by many, myself included, as one of our greatest presidents. That is because he responded to the organized proeesure of the people and introduced social security, the right of workers to organize unions, public eduacation, integrated the armed forces, jobs programs (WPA/CCC), unemployment comp and defeated fascism. However, when he ran for that office he did not run as a "New Deal Democrat." He ran a fairly conservative campaign. Some, such as the old Socialist Party, stood aside stating that he was "just another capitalist." Others, including the CPUSA and the much wider left, embraced and pushed him. The result was that the entire nation moved sharply to the left, helping poor and working people. The old SP was pushing into obscurity.
The analogy for the existing peace movement today is close to that of the abolishtionist movement in the 1800's. That movement only became a really powerful force when it broke out of its self-imposed isolation from the mainstream and developed a strong electoral position and took part in militant political actions. Prior to that, that movement, similiar to today's peace movement, was a movement of "moral swaysion," attempting only to take the high moral position and hope others followed. The abolishtionist movement had to become mainstream to change our nation. The peace movement will have to do the same, or fail!
The thesis that we should force the candidates to compete for the anti-war vote in order to remain as an influence in the "debate" is a sound one. However, the remaining choices have already severely limited the possibilities of desirable foreign policy changes no matter who takes office next year. I don't think American troops will be withdrawn from any theatre of operations as a matter of principle. Disastrous events, either military or economic in character, may force the Commander-in-Chief to redeploy them in whatever configuration tactical experts advocate. My intuition tells me Obama may be the most committed to working in conjunction with other governments to minimize warfare.
The peace movement needs to tell the whole truth, and it is not. We are in Iraq because of oil, war profiteering AND Israel. They are forgetting the last one to maybe not offend liberal jews who though in the forefront of the peace movement, become reactionary Zionists whenever Israel is criticized.
Another lost inconvenient truth that must be talked about in the media is that this war is a result of resource depletion due to the overpopulation that is also causing pollution and global warming. The overpopulation that underlies our problems is being totally ignored. Many republicans agree. But you will never see or hear it discussed in the media. Killing people for population control is simply cruel and stupid when birth control could achieve it humanely.
One more intrinsic cause of war that is totally ignored is resource distribution. A fraction of 1% owns over 60% of the world and controls the rest. This oligarchy profits from war and chaos. It's time these things are brought to light.
Best tactic?
Register Green.
That is a "End this Occupation Now" label that shows up on voter registration lists.
They READ those things. Next to $$$, it's their favorite resource.
Better believe they'll see it. They'll GET it. Espectially when people do it in the thousands.
See Switch2Green.org.
When politicians are no longer bought/owned by corporate interests....then and only then will they be responsive to the voters.
This cannot and will not happen without Campaign finance reform, instant runoff elections, regulation of corporate industry...again ...and... most vital: a return of the Fairness Doctrine and demonopolization of our media. If the media is not voicing ALL the truth loudly and clearly the voters will never know it, never hear it. If the media is spouting corporate viewpoints constantly the American Public will vote the way they are told.
"I'm completely flummoxed by the anti-war voters who can support Barack Obama - he's a warmongerer! He is an advocate of our using the military in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, and has no clear plan for exiting Iraq - why support him?? It's time to start thinking outside of the box!!"
The REAL warmonger here is Clinton, she voted for the war and approved every dollar being spent in Iraq. She's owned by AIPAC. When are Americans going to learn how to vote in their own best interests?
Again, exactly why the peace movement is isolated, even though peace sentiment is higher than anytime in modern history. "Register Green," and what? "Obama and Hilliary are Warmongers," and McCain is what?
Many progressives have the same type of ideoplogical blindness that kept the Bushies from seeing reality. These progressives, much like the Bushies, dislike the real world so they make one up to match their ideological prejudice, rather than doing the difficult work of analizing the real world and developing real solutions than can help real people win real gains.
"Register Green," and, in reality, you merely remove yourself from the electoral process. While the entire labor movement and all major movements of the people, minorities, women, environmentalists, etc. are working at mobilizing their bases, reaching out and developing wide coalitions to expand that base, all with the goal of defeat Bus/McCain and the ultra-right corporate forces with them, and winning real gains. The Greens, regardless of what you'd LIKE for them to be, are generally, in fact, a divisivetiny, little sect that has isolated themselves from the mainstream labor-led people's movement. Furthermore, in the winner-take-all system we have to work in the our nation, they can ONLY play the role of spoiler, helping give the election to Bush.
As far as the Obama/Hilliary are "warmongers," you clearly are not looking at the reality of the campaigns now taking place. While I also have many misgivings about Hilliary, both Democratic candidates have been rushing to present better and better plans to exit Iraq. This shows, far from those who keep stating on here that 'all is lost and we should just throw in the towel,' that we can, in fact, influence the process. Obama's position has shifted dramaically in a positive direction. If the peace movement would break out of its self imposed isolation and have a real electoral policy, we could do so much more.
I must ask a question based in reality; would those two writters rather have McCain, who has stated that he could see US troops in Iraq "for another 100 years?" That, in reality, is our choice.
I say, the peace movement should join with the labor moevement and the other people's movements and help defeat the GOP. Put yourselves in position to help us win after November.
PEACE, PEACE, PEACE...
" WHY ARE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS NOT FOR PEACE? LUXURY HAS PRECEDED THE DOWNFALL OF EVERY OTHER ARROGANT NATION SINCE HUMANS BEGAN EXPLOITING THIS PLANET, FOR THEIR OWN EVIL GAINS.
BUT AS OUR DOCTOR EARNESTLY SAID, "I can't understand why EVERYONE isn't for PEACE..."
Jeevee---the majority of Americans ARE for peace! The peace movement must now catch up with the people.
blueapples26, any connection to Rennes le Chateau and Abby Sauniere?
War is the preferred method of the power elite to both concentrate wealth and power, cut civil liberties, maintain the status quo, etc. This war is being used by global corporations to bring the world's last super power to a level of irrelevancy as a check on corprorate hegemony. The US is being helped off center stage to make way for a more uniformly consumerist globe. Sooooo, the more appropriate area to apply resistance is not on the politicians, who are followers/puppets, but on corporations. And why not pick the biggest, nastiest one to boycott world-wide---Exxon/Mobile. It's simple, legal and effective. It would get their attention. And be fun to boot.
Cheers.
And as far as out-of-the-box ideas go:
The political spectrum is not a straight line with two ends--it's a broken circle with the ends closer to each other than to the middle. The % of voters who would vote for a Kucinich/Paul/Nader ticket is, I think, well over 50%. No war, empire or trick economic system, but people over profit, with sustainability and ecology.
Sweet!