Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Make the Afghanistan War Supporters Hear Us – At the Polls
Is it Polyanna-ish to look for hopeful signs in the congressional votes that overwhelmingly supported President Obama’s supplemental appropriations request for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Perhaps, nonetheless there were a couple. For one, with debate on the Iraq War largely frozen by the government’s theoretical commitment to complete troop withdraw by 2012, the growing war in Afghanistan has for the first time surfaced as the focal point of debate. And with the presence of a Democrat in the White House shrinking the opposition – from the 155 in the House and 26 in the Senate who voted “No” on the last Bush request to 60 and 3 respectively – opponents of these wars do at least know who their real friends are. But what would constitute a significant development would be for this latest vote to serve as a spur to confronting our pro-war congressional representatives where it matters most – at the polls on Election Day – with antiwar candidacies.
By now it’s clear that we can’t expect to find much by way of a parallel between the course of the anti-Vietnam War movement and the opposition to the current wars. The present movement has never lived up to the hopes engendered by the pre-war level of opposition to the Iraq invasion that was probably without precedent in world history. And, in hindsight, it may have been inevitable that the substantially lower troop levels involved and the absence of a draft would dash hopes of an opposition of Vietnam Era proportions. And yet there are a still a few things about that old antiwar movement that we might want to take a closer look at – for instance, its early electoral challenges.
In 1966, congressional opposition to the Vietnam War was quite weak. With President Lyndon Johnson arguing that maintenance of the war effort was vital to national security, congressional Democrats were reluctant to buck one of their own. So activists in the antiwar movement, then still quite small compared to what it would be just a few years later, opted to take on a number of pro-war Democrats in primaries in various spots around the country.
The candidates varied widely. Ted Weiss, for instance, was already a New York City Councilman when he challenged a pro-war incumbent, James Dinsmoor a University of Indiana professor, and Robert Scheer was editor of Ramparts Magazine. (The magazine’s publisher Ed Keating also ran in the Democratic primary in the then Republican district on the peninsula south of San Francisco.) The candidacies varied just as widely. Where Dinsmoor is generally remembered as a single issue candidate (who was even detained by the Indianapolis police for protesting President Johnson’s visit to the area during his campaign), Scheer took Berkeley/Oakland, California Representative Jeff Cohelan to task for his stands on environmental and labor issues as well, although the incumbent was generally deemed a solid liberal.
None of the candidates mentioned above won their races, but seems unlikely that too many of their campaign workers felt that their time was wasted. While Scheer would not seek office again despite netting 45 percent of the primary vote, opting instead for a career as a columnist and now editor of online publication Truthdig, four years later Ron Dellums would tip Cohelan from office. And the same year, Bella Abzug knocked off Weiss’ 1966 opponent, Leonard Farbstein. (Weiss himself was finally elected to Congress in 1976.) But of equal significance to the groundwork laid for these specific later electoral victories was the role these and other early antiwar candidacies played in opening public debate about the pro-war attitude then dominating Washington.
We still have a reasonable amount of time to consider the potential value of anti-Afghanistan War candidacies before the 2010 primaries are upon us. We have seen several successful anti-Iraq War campaigns mounted over the past couple of election cycles, but we’ve also seen candidacies muddied by opposition that was seemingly limited to war policies emanating from a Republican President. And as we now know, many of those candidates do not oppose the seemingly never-ending Afghanistan War and its expansion into Pakistan – at least not so long as a Democrat is President.
(While I am obviously taking the point of view that the structure of the American political system makes participation in the Democratic Party a sensible course of action, I hope that those who consider that foolish or even reprehensible will attempt to demonstrate the rightness of their point of view not in debate but in creating the types of third party or independent anti-Afghanistan War candidacies they think are called for.)
And of course, there’s nothing at all that dictates that antiwar candidacies limit themselves to the discussion of that war or that there be any one “look” to them. While Afghanistan may be and remain a remote concern for most Americans, the ongoing economic crisis is not. And while it and the simultaneously developing environmental crisis cry out that we’re in a world altering era, the American government seems set to lumber forward in its traditional rut unless we find a way to give voice to a world altering alternative.
The need for change all across the nation’s political and economic landscape is as obvious as it’s ever been, from finance to health care to transportation to the very way things are made. And yet there is a sense in which the Afghanistan War is central to all of this. Anyone who thinks the US can and should continue racking up half the military spending of the entire world and considers it reasonable to continue bombing countries half way across the planet in order to thwart Osama bin Laden will endorse the Afghanistan War. Anyone who recognizes that America must find a new way in the world will not. Our challenge is to make that clear in the next election cycle. We don’t have forever.
- Posted in




13 Comments so far
Show Allhttp:\\ni4d.us/ could help everyone have their say.
Good initiative. One caveat: Gallagher writes: "We still have a reasonable amount of time to consider the potential value of anti-Afghanistan War candidacies before the 2010 primaries are upon us." But note that in many districts, 2010 is too late to decide, because the filing deadline for spring primaries will be the end of 2009, and signatures have to be gathered before that. Decisions will need to be made in the fall - after, for example, Congress considers the FY2010 war appropriation.
Americans are too busy twittering and tweeping with their iPod earplugs stuck in their ears to see or hear or. worst of all, care, what a fascist empire the US has become!!!!!
“Let them hear us at the polls!” the rallying cry for the stupid.
We did that in 2006. Democrats won the house and the senate.
What changed? NOTHING.
In fact, we escalated the conflict by surging troops and passed 4000 war dead. We really showed them didn’t we? These same guys didn’t even support their own party platform and close down Guantanamo.
In November we showed them again. Now we have a democrat president and control the house and the senate.
What changed? NOTHING.
We set a timetable for ending this Iraq “war” well past the president’s term. (What a slick move). Now we’re about to escalate the conflict yet again, with yet another surge into Afghanistan. That’s intelligent. Maybe we can waste another trillion dollars there and kill another 4000 soldiers. Our great leader is also talking about military force against Somalia and North Korea. We’re still rattling sabers at Iran for God’s sake.
By now you should realize that “showing them at the polls” is about as effective as waving around your middle finger. Even the protests have failed to stop the hemorrhage of our troops, our money, and our integrity.
The only way to stop it now is to try to reach out to the soldiers. If they stop fighting the war, it will stop. Once you get past the brainwashing, I’ve found our young troops to be intelligent and reasonable. Once they see the “war” for the sham that it is, they won’t fight it and we’ll be able to start prosecuting war criminals appropriately.
The Lorax took the words right out of my mouth. It reminds me of the old (60's) saying. What if they had awar and no one showed up?" The problem is there will always be young uneducated men and women who will join the military and find out too late whatthey have done. The powers that be know this. There will never be a shortage of cannon fodder here in the Land of the Afraid. George Obama, I meen, Barack Bush.... I meen... you get the picture. The giant whore house known as Washington DC is not the answer and nothing will change at the corporate controlled ballot box. Amerikkka is doomed to continue down the path of Empire and perish like all the empires before it.
Silly, really, Mr. Gallagher. Elections and polls accomplish nothing. If the election of Obama, the Democratic takeover of congress in 2006 and their expansion in 2008 to a filibuster-proof majority can't convince you, then nothing will and you're part of the problem. How DARE you feed us this bullshit again, "the need for change all across the nation’s political and economic landscape is as obvious as it’s ever been"? Do you think elections will fulfill that need?
If the American people really want to stop the war, they have to stop funding it by stopping paying taxes and transferring all their assets to foreign banks.
camus13
Just how many lies can a man tell in 2 years.
I'm sure at this point Obama will make the Guiness World Book of Records.
Is there a better named group in Obama Country than
MOVEON.com. The Obama creed move on look ahead, never back because someday someone might look back at my reign.
Move on.com was started because of the Iraq war now the leader???? of that group meets with Obama and never a word was said about his $90 billion for Afg-Pak War.
But Power does what?
"(While I am obviously taking the point of view that the structure of the American political system makes participation in the Democratic Party a sensible course of action, I hope that those who consider that foolish or even reprehensible will attempt to demonstrate the rightness of their point of view not in debate but in creating the types of third party or independent anti-Afghanistan War candidacies they think are called for.)"
Translation: listen to my side of the debate and please don't offer the other side of the debate. How VERY democratic!
Support the Democrats! Let's help craft the Republicans agenda and defeat any third party challengers (even down to municipal elections)! Help end (most of) our wars by 2050! Support the troops/banks!
I really feel that if the Dems can gain control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency THEN change will come. Oh wait...
This is pitiful mr. gallagher. at the polls. let's have ourselves an election, see if that'll help.
Afghanistan cannot wait. 2010? i want those bombs to stop tonight. so do my sisters and brothers in Afghanistan.
even if we had that much time to wait, we would need first to replace our present corporate government with a real democracy. etc etc.
This is pitiful mr. gallagher. at the polls. let's have ourselves an election, see if that'll help.
Afghanistan cannot wait. 2010? i want those bombs to stop tonight. so do my sisters and brothers in Afghanistan.
even if we had that much time to wait, we would need first to replace our present corporate government with a real democracy. etc etc.
Vote someone new in office is the proposed solution?
The system you have elected is inoperable. As the next elected one will be.
Voting is irrelevant in a fascist government.
Tom Gallagher wrote, "Is it Polyanna-ish to look for hopeful signs in the congressional votes that overwhelmingly supported President Obama’s supplemental appropriations request for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Perhaps, nonetheless there were a couple. For one, with debate on the Iraq War largely frozen by the government’s theoretical commitment to complete troop withdraw by 2012, ...".
EMPHASIS on 'theoretical commitment to ... withdraw'; [theoretical], i.e., hypothetical, maybe, possibly, but, really, "we're just fooling you, don't really mean it when we say this", which of course they won't explicitly say to the public. They nonetheless say it "loud and clear" when we [read] enough from real analysts and good reporters, especially if we possess a good dose or amount of sound common sense and analytical abilities of our own. All we need is to read enough to acquire sufficient understanding or knowledge of what's going on, and some real analytical abilities; although some knowledge of keyly related U.S. history, covert and not, of U.S. actions internationally certainly is helpful, too. The latter helps to realise that 2001 didn't start the U.S. on a new path; Sept. 11, 2001, having only been a day of escalating what had started long before.
We we possess that kind of awareness, then we have plenty of pieces of the overall puzzle to piece together and get a really good view on what's actually happening.
Withdrawal in 2012, from Iraq? I doubt it. 2020? Maybe before, maybe later; we just need to press for the "empire" to fail and fall a.s.a.p.
Perhaps presently helping such hope to be of value is that NATO countries that are allied in the GWoT wars are said to be refusing to provide more troops or forces for the war in Afghanistan. And let's hope that they keep this up and come to decrease their contributions of fooled (and economically desperate) soldiers.
Otherwise, 2012? Forget that; think much longer term. After all, these wars of the GWoT are not for any honourable, supportable, justifiable, ... reasons; they are for [full spectrum dominance], with the ultimate objective being economic and the Big Econ. elites want control of the very profitable natural resources, certainly the energy ones, but while there are also profitable mineral resources. And I guess they also "just" have egos demanding power. That, or else they're only focused on the economic basis, but then we know that this requires military and geopolitical dominance, and that does amount to power anyway.
They [are] psychopaths, and psychopaths don't easily relent; if they ever do.
12 comments, so far, including my first post, for the topic of this article; while there are well over 100 comments for the article from the Telegraph, UK, on the crimes of torture photos, which has been a feverish focus of many articles at CD for some weeks now.
Evidently, most people seem to be feverishly focused on related crimes and not or little on the supreme crimes the others are only [related] to.
Can such voters be counted on at the next U.S. elections, to vote for [good] candidates? I don't know, but their kind of selective judgement worries me.