I admit being hesitant, as a veteran of the Vietnam era anti-war movement, to offer advice to current war protestors. Happily, a new generation has come to the fore and old-timers like myself can recede to the background. But "sixties’ people" were never known for inhibition, so here goes....

First and obviously this is not the 1960s redeux. It’s important to briefly say why. Abbie Hoffman, tongue-in-cheek, used to say that there wouldn’t have been the 1960s if there hadn’t have been the 1950s. By this he meant that the anti-war movement took shape in reaction to the repressive culture of the 1950s. Then, people were afraid to speak-out for fear of being tarnished as "communists." Thus public demonstrations in the 1960s, first for civil rights and then against the Vietnam war, were startling and headline news – people breaking the barrier of political silence. The sixties made protest possible and also popular. Alas, now, when 100,000 people rally in Washington against the war, it’s not big news. You can get 100,000 people to assemble for any cause.

As the conformist and intolerant culture of the 1950s shattered, the anti-war movement was overwhelmed by pent-up needs for freedom and expression. Many of the issues exuberantly fought for, especially those of gender and lifestyle, are now mainstream. Because of the 1960s, the country is more open and tolerant. The new anti-war movement should express these gains. Its focus, then, should not be on lifestyle issues and culture, but on the Bush administration’s dangerous unilateral and first-strike policy’s that point, beyond Iraq, to future wars.

The draft was the defining issue of the Vietnam era. The government ended the draft because a significant portion of the Vietnam era military turned against the war. Indeed, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) was the most influential anti-war organization in the late 1960s and early 70s. The Bush administration and its supporters will try to destroy the current anti-war movement by rewriting this history and asserting that protestors are inherently against the men and women in service.

During the Persian Gulf War, the first Bush administration promoted the image of anti-war activists spitting at Vietnam era servicemen. Jerry Lembcke, a Vietnam veteran and a sociologist at Holy Cross College, examined this accusation in The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam (NYU Press, 2000). Though he acknowledges that such incidents may have occurred, he could find no actual evidence. On the contrary, the anti-war movement, with its GI coffeehouses, underground papers, and shared youth culture, was determined to bond with the troops, not attack them. The image of protestors spitting at soldiers is, Lembcke concluded, an "urban myth," propounded by hawkish politicians (not veterans) to discredit the anti-war movement and distract public opinion from the sordid facts of the Vietnam disaster.

With an all-volunteer army, we are unlikely to see soldiers with peace symbols scrawled on their helmets. Still, it’s essential that the anti-war movement continue to reach out to and publicly support the men and women in service. If a war is wrong and contrary to the best interest of the nation (as this one most certainly is), then it is patriotic and necessary to support our troops by insisting that they be brought home to safety.

Demonstrations are important to show a movement’s power. But they have to be aimed at bringing people into the movement, not, as happened in the late 1960s, when demonstrations turned violent and angry, driving them away. Recently, I saw TV pictures of demonstrators banging on cars and obstructing traffic, something we in the 1960s called "trashing." The demonstrators were few in number and unrepresentative of the great mass of people who were peacefully protesting. It’s futile to criticize the media for emphasizing this violence. Those who commit it want to attract television cameras. Nor does it help to assert that police provocateurs instigate violence, although they sometimes do. (One of the protestors most opposed to nonviolent tactics in New York City during the 1960s, turned out to be an undercover cop). There have always been political protestors who equate seriousness with violence. My rule of thumb is that anyone who publicly espouses violent demonstrations should be considered a cop, whether or not he or she is one.

Given this administration’s determination to destroy all political opposition, reckless action by the anti-war movement is as dangerous as it is futile. The sixties movement learned that change doesn’t come as a result of confrontation, unless the protestors are perceived as being on the moral high ground. Running through the streets may be emotionally empowering, but its affect on the people who are watching is the only thing that matters. Whether or not "the street belongs to the people" (in the words of a sixties’ era chant) is not the issue of the moment. Nonviolent civil disobedience works, as it did in the civil rights movement, because it positively affects the way people perceive the demonstrators and, thus, encourages them to consider their arguments.

It all comes down to organizing, I suppose. Traditionally, organizing meant talking to people, empowering them to vote, as in the South, or to join a labor union. In the sixties the concept of organizing changed to mean organizing a demonstration, mobilizing a mass. What I’m suggesting is that anti-war activists have to go back to the older organizing tradition of talking to and persuading individuals who might not necessarily agree with them. It’s easier to demonstrate or march (in the streets or otherwise) than it is to talk politics to one’s neighbors, co-workers, and members of one’s family. That takes social skills and personal courage. The anti-war movement has all the arguments behind it. It also has the overwhelming support of people and governments throughout the world. It’s all about hearts and minds and translating public opinion into activism and votes.

The anti-war movement of the 1960s shortened the war and thus saved many lives. But the choice of tactics by a reckless minority fostered a backlash that contributed to the right-wing’s ascendancy and many of the political problems that we now face. As the new anti-war movement grows, it takes on responsibility. This is an historic moment. How the anti-war movement conducts itself and how it is perceived will shape the future.

Marty Jezer writes from Brattleboro, VT. He co-edited WIN, an anti-war magazine, during the Vietnam era and is author of Abbie Hoffman: American Rebel. Visit his web site http://www.sover.net/~mjez

###