Senator Eugene McCarthy gives a "V" for victory sign as results of Wisconsin's primary election showed his winning margin in the 1968 Democratic Presidential Primary.
Where Is the Anti-War Democrat?
It is not disloyal to either party or to the country to question a dangerous situation no one in America would have wanted a year ago.
Are America’s national interests best served by our stance on the Ukraine-Russia war? It is striking that within the Democratic Party, with its long tradition of anti-war activism, there are no prominent voices raising this question.
President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the influence of the military industrial complex on war policy. But he would likely fear speaking out today, even though the doomsday clock now says America’s stance on the Ukraine-Russian war has helped put all of us in the greatest peril ever. All the NATO countries disagree. As do the major newspaper editorial boards. Polls say about 90 percent of Democrats back continuing to give aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia.
As a consequence, no potential Democratic presidential contender dares to oppose the policy. Such public opposition would be labeled disloyal, even pro-Russian.
Yet history says the American people are being ill served by this chloroform of conformity. This is true based on an unimpeachable source: the American people.
In 1952, Eisenhower won the presidency by promising to change Democratic President Harry Truman’s Korean War policy. Even after Truman’s disastrous showing in the New Hampshire primary, Democrats stuck with the status quo. Ike won in a landslide.
In 1968, when little known Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-Minn.) announced his intention to challenge Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam War policy, he met universal derision from the party establishment. They declared him a certain loser, indeed a flake.
A few weeks after a disastrous showing in the New Hampshire primary, LBJ quit the race. Democrats nominated Johnson war apologist Vice President Hubert Humphrey to the loud opposition of antiwar activists. Humphrey seemed a certain loser until Johnson suddenly agreed with his critics. LBJ said his emissaries would attend formal peace negotiations. Polls soon had the race statistically tied. But Humphrey lost a close election to Richard Nixon.
In 1992, polls suggested support from usually loyal Democratic voters for Republican President George H.W. Bush’s Gulf war policy made him unbeatable for reelection. All the big-name Democratic hopefuls declined to run. But little-known Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton rejected the poll results. He won the 1992 contest by the biggest electoral margin of any Democratic challenger since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932.
As has been famously observed, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) originally backed Republican President George W. Bush’s Iraq War stance. But little-known former Gov. Howard Dean (D-Vt.) launched the longest long shot antiwar presidential candidacy in four decades. He seemed poised to win until Kerry cleverly morphed from hawk to dove. Kerry won the nomination but lost to Bush in the closest reelection bid since 1916.
In 2008 Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) seemed on a fool’s mission challenging Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the Democratic nomination. But the underdog Illinoisian had opposed the Iraq War while Clinton supported Bush’s war resolution. Had she been willing to admit a mistake, she almost certainly would have stopped Obama’s campaign in its tracks. But she refused. He won.
Obama’s general election opponent had won the GOP nomination in part due to his support for Bush’s Iraq war policy. Obama won with the biggest Democratic margin of any challenger since FDR.
In 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces had been assumed an easy winner. The West therefore gave Ukraine the obligatory lip service. Russia had nuclear weapons, and the U.S. had no interest in poking the Russian bear. But the Russian army proved grossly overrated. Ukraine forces, led by formerly derided ex-comedian President Volodymyr Zelensky, demonstrated unexpected prowess.
However, without the West’s money and arms, Ukraine would have eventually lost. For nearly a year, America and its allies have funded the war against Russia. This put Putin in an increasingly difficult position both on the battlefield and at home.
Russia uses increasingly more powerful weapons in turn requiring the West to send ever more powerful weaponry to the Ukrainians. The end game is unclear. Peace must eventually come. But it will likely require the United States to make a commitment of hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild Ukraine.
The 2024 election cycle has only just begun. But the prospects are not good that we will have a serious presidential candidate who dares to disagree with current war policy. Never before has the chloroform of conformity been inhaled so deeply.
As has been famously observed, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
We can assume that any treaty will include America agreeing to foot the biggest part of the reconstruction costs. This amount may far exceed the funds needed to rebuild the schools for all the poor children in America. It may exceed the funds required to provide training for all the workers who will be put out of jobs by artificial intelligence.
We have a $31.5 trillion national debt, in good measure due to our military spending and forgiving trillions in debt as an incentive for other countries to forgo military solutions to problems.
It is not disloyal to either party or to the country to question a dangerous situation no one in America would have wanted a year ago. Asking the necessary questions is the opposite of disloyalty; it is the height of patriotism.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Are America’s national interests best served by our stance on the Ukraine-Russia war? It is striking that within the Democratic Party, with its long tradition of anti-war activism, there are no prominent voices raising this question.
President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the influence of the military industrial complex on war policy. But he would likely fear speaking out today, even though the doomsday clock now says America’s stance on the Ukraine-Russian war has helped put all of us in the greatest peril ever. All the NATO countries disagree. As do the major newspaper editorial boards. Polls say about 90 percent of Democrats back continuing to give aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia.
As a consequence, no potential Democratic presidential contender dares to oppose the policy. Such public opposition would be labeled disloyal, even pro-Russian.
Yet history says the American people are being ill served by this chloroform of conformity. This is true based on an unimpeachable source: the American people.
In 1952, Eisenhower won the presidency by promising to change Democratic President Harry Truman’s Korean War policy. Even after Truman’s disastrous showing in the New Hampshire primary, Democrats stuck with the status quo. Ike won in a landslide.
In 1968, when little known Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-Minn.) announced his intention to challenge Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam War policy, he met universal derision from the party establishment. They declared him a certain loser, indeed a flake.
A few weeks after a disastrous showing in the New Hampshire primary, LBJ quit the race. Democrats nominated Johnson war apologist Vice President Hubert Humphrey to the loud opposition of antiwar activists. Humphrey seemed a certain loser until Johnson suddenly agreed with his critics. LBJ said his emissaries would attend formal peace negotiations. Polls soon had the race statistically tied. But Humphrey lost a close election to Richard Nixon.
In 1992, polls suggested support from usually loyal Democratic voters for Republican President George H.W. Bush’s Gulf war policy made him unbeatable for reelection. All the big-name Democratic hopefuls declined to run. But little-known Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton rejected the poll results. He won the 1992 contest by the biggest electoral margin of any Democratic challenger since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932.
As has been famously observed, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) originally backed Republican President George W. Bush’s Iraq War stance. But little-known former Gov. Howard Dean (D-Vt.) launched the longest long shot antiwar presidential candidacy in four decades. He seemed poised to win until Kerry cleverly morphed from hawk to dove. Kerry won the nomination but lost to Bush in the closest reelection bid since 1916.
In 2008 Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) seemed on a fool’s mission challenging Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the Democratic nomination. But the underdog Illinoisian had opposed the Iraq War while Clinton supported Bush’s war resolution. Had she been willing to admit a mistake, she almost certainly would have stopped Obama’s campaign in its tracks. But she refused. He won.
Obama’s general election opponent had won the GOP nomination in part due to his support for Bush’s Iraq war policy. Obama won with the biggest Democratic margin of any challenger since FDR.
In 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces had been assumed an easy winner. The West therefore gave Ukraine the obligatory lip service. Russia had nuclear weapons, and the U.S. had no interest in poking the Russian bear. But the Russian army proved grossly overrated. Ukraine forces, led by formerly derided ex-comedian President Volodymyr Zelensky, demonstrated unexpected prowess.
However, without the West’s money and arms, Ukraine would have eventually lost. For nearly a year, America and its allies have funded the war against Russia. This put Putin in an increasingly difficult position both on the battlefield and at home.
Russia uses increasingly more powerful weapons in turn requiring the West to send ever more powerful weaponry to the Ukrainians. The end game is unclear. Peace must eventually come. But it will likely require the United States to make a commitment of hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild Ukraine.
The 2024 election cycle has only just begun. But the prospects are not good that we will have a serious presidential candidate who dares to disagree with current war policy. Never before has the chloroform of conformity been inhaled so deeply.
As has been famously observed, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
We can assume that any treaty will include America agreeing to foot the biggest part of the reconstruction costs. This amount may far exceed the funds needed to rebuild the schools for all the poor children in America. It may exceed the funds required to provide training for all the workers who will be put out of jobs by artificial intelligence.
We have a $31.5 trillion national debt, in good measure due to our military spending and forgiving trillions in debt as an incentive for other countries to forgo military solutions to problems.
It is not disloyal to either party or to the country to question a dangerous situation no one in America would have wanted a year ago. Asking the necessary questions is the opposite of disloyalty; it is the height of patriotism.
- Progressives Must Demand Peace in Ukraine ›
- Progressive Democrats Break Rank With Call for Urgent Diplomacy in Ukraine ›
- Protesters Demanding Gaza Cease-Fire Shut Down California Democratic Convention ›
- Opinion | The Democratic Party Deserves Its Image as a Party of War | Common Dreams ›
Are America’s national interests best served by our stance on the Ukraine-Russia war? It is striking that within the Democratic Party, with its long tradition of anti-war activism, there are no prominent voices raising this question.
President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the influence of the military industrial complex on war policy. But he would likely fear speaking out today, even though the doomsday clock now says America’s stance on the Ukraine-Russian war has helped put all of us in the greatest peril ever. All the NATO countries disagree. As do the major newspaper editorial boards. Polls say about 90 percent of Democrats back continuing to give aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia.
As a consequence, no potential Democratic presidential contender dares to oppose the policy. Such public opposition would be labeled disloyal, even pro-Russian.
Yet history says the American people are being ill served by this chloroform of conformity. This is true based on an unimpeachable source: the American people.
In 1952, Eisenhower won the presidency by promising to change Democratic President Harry Truman’s Korean War policy. Even after Truman’s disastrous showing in the New Hampshire primary, Democrats stuck with the status quo. Ike won in a landslide.
In 1968, when little known Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-Minn.) announced his intention to challenge Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam War policy, he met universal derision from the party establishment. They declared him a certain loser, indeed a flake.
A few weeks after a disastrous showing in the New Hampshire primary, LBJ quit the race. Democrats nominated Johnson war apologist Vice President Hubert Humphrey to the loud opposition of antiwar activists. Humphrey seemed a certain loser until Johnson suddenly agreed with his critics. LBJ said his emissaries would attend formal peace negotiations. Polls soon had the race statistically tied. But Humphrey lost a close election to Richard Nixon.
In 1992, polls suggested support from usually loyal Democratic voters for Republican President George H.W. Bush’s Gulf war policy made him unbeatable for reelection. All the big-name Democratic hopefuls declined to run. But little-known Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton rejected the poll results. He won the 1992 contest by the biggest electoral margin of any Democratic challenger since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932.
As has been famously observed, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) originally backed Republican President George W. Bush’s Iraq War stance. But little-known former Gov. Howard Dean (D-Vt.) launched the longest long shot antiwar presidential candidacy in four decades. He seemed poised to win until Kerry cleverly morphed from hawk to dove. Kerry won the nomination but lost to Bush in the closest reelection bid since 1916.
In 2008 Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) seemed on a fool’s mission challenging Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the Democratic nomination. But the underdog Illinoisian had opposed the Iraq War while Clinton supported Bush’s war resolution. Had she been willing to admit a mistake, she almost certainly would have stopped Obama’s campaign in its tracks. But she refused. He won.
Obama’s general election opponent had won the GOP nomination in part due to his support for Bush’s Iraq war policy. Obama won with the biggest Democratic margin of any challenger since FDR.
In 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s forces had been assumed an easy winner. The West therefore gave Ukraine the obligatory lip service. Russia had nuclear weapons, and the U.S. had no interest in poking the Russian bear. But the Russian army proved grossly overrated. Ukraine forces, led by formerly derided ex-comedian President Volodymyr Zelensky, demonstrated unexpected prowess.
However, without the West’s money and arms, Ukraine would have eventually lost. For nearly a year, America and its allies have funded the war against Russia. This put Putin in an increasingly difficult position both on the battlefield and at home.
Russia uses increasingly more powerful weapons in turn requiring the West to send ever more powerful weaponry to the Ukrainians. The end game is unclear. Peace must eventually come. But it will likely require the United States to make a commitment of hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild Ukraine.
The 2024 election cycle has only just begun. But the prospects are not good that we will have a serious presidential candidate who dares to disagree with current war policy. Never before has the chloroform of conformity been inhaled so deeply.
As has been famously observed, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
We can assume that any treaty will include America agreeing to foot the biggest part of the reconstruction costs. This amount may far exceed the funds needed to rebuild the schools for all the poor children in America. It may exceed the funds required to provide training for all the workers who will be put out of jobs by artificial intelligence.
We have a $31.5 trillion national debt, in good measure due to our military spending and forgiving trillions in debt as an incentive for other countries to forgo military solutions to problems.
It is not disloyal to either party or to the country to question a dangerous situation no one in America would have wanted a year ago. Asking the necessary questions is the opposite of disloyalty; it is the height of patriotism.
- Progressives Must Demand Peace in Ukraine ›
- Progressive Democrats Break Rank With Call for Urgent Diplomacy in Ukraine ›
- Protesters Demanding Gaza Cease-Fire Shut Down California Democratic Convention ›
- Opinion | The Democratic Party Deserves Its Image as a Party of War | Common Dreams ›