Skip to main content

As all the latest polls show (even amongst soldiers), this country now stands increasingly opposed to the war on Iraq.  This is a testament to the work of the anti war-movement, as well as the real difficulties the Bush Administration is having in prosecuting the war, and the desire of the people of Iraq and the surrounding region to end the occupation.  In this context, World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime! is mobilizing for and joining others in making the correct demand to end the war now in protests around the third anniversary of the start of the war, and on April 29.

As all the latest polls show (even amongst soldiers), this country now stands increasingly opposed to the war on Iraq.  This is a testament to the work of the anti war-movement, as well as the real difficulties the Bush Administration is having in prosecuting the war, and the desire of the people of Iraq and the surrounding region to end the occupation.  In this context, World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime! is mobilizing for and joining others in making the correct demand to end the war now in protests around the third anniversary of the start of the war, and on April 29.

At the same time, in order to effectively oppose the war, it has to be understood and acted on as part of the whole direction the Bush Regime is taking society and the world.  We are calling on both ANSWER and UFPJ to bring their efforts to bear on not allowing this regime to determine the future for generations to come.

After 9/11, the Bush regime launched an endless war targeting first Afghanistan, and then Iraq (with Iran and other countries now in their sights), with a doctrine of "pre-emptive" attacks.  The conduct of this war says much about the character of this regime: systematic torture made legal, a brutal occupation of chemical warfare, bombing of innocent people, and blitzkrieg attacks on whole cities, all based on blatant lies.

While casting out on this "crusade on the world," US society is being radically remade.  Police state measures (like the Patriot Act or NSA spying) are made permanent and legal, and dissent is increasingly suppressed; immigrants are demonized, subject to round-ups and detention without due process, and even hunted down by right-wing vigilantes; a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism increasingly determines Government policy, with moves to ban abortion and birth control, legal and extra-legal attacks on homosexuals; and the suppression of science itself, with the outright denial of the very real threat of global warming, and "abstinence only" education policies while millions suffer and die from AIDS.

Taken as a whole, the Bush program constitutes a fascist remaking of society.  While each of its crimes must be resisted and stopped in their own right, there is an urgent need to confront the full scope of this trajectory and mobilize people to reverse this whole direction.  In order for this to happen, people must break out of the political confines being set by the Bush regime, and the non-opposition of the Democrats, and act based on what is true and right.

In UFPJ's call for April 29th, many of the essential concentrations of this fascist remaking of society are left off of its list of demands, and the nature and danger of this full program is absent.  To take one example: despite the fact that one of the rally's main organizers is the National Organization for Women, the call for April 29th fails to even mention the attacks on a woman's right to choose.  These attacks are in fact pushing closer each day to overturn Roe v. Wade entirely (with no intention of stopping there).  The point isn't simply to add the right to abortion (or other issues) to a list of demands, but that the whole program has to be resisted and stopped.

What's disturbing about the failure to include abortion in UFPJ's demands for this demonstration is not only that it is an urgent and necessary demand - which it is - but that the failure to include this seems already to indicate a direction of tailoring and shaping protest to the political terms being set by the Bush regime and the non-opposition of the Democratic Party leadership.  Or at least by the dubious and dangerous proposition that the politics of mobilization and protest should be determined by what's deemed "elect-able politics" under the current political order.

Instead, it's essential to base our opposition on the understanding that, as the World Can't Wait Call puts it, "That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn -- or be forced -- to accept."  If your aim is to really address the situation, and even if you see influencing the upcoming election as an important part of that, you are far better off not adopting the terms of these "official politics," but instead basing your protest on facing the full reality, bringing forward demands that reflect this, and getting all of society to respond to your demands and program. Otherwise, we risk turning demonstrations, no matter how large, not only into ritualized affairs, but still worse into mobilizations that end up channeling your main energies into an election that does not express the people's interests and desires. This leaves people, in the end, demoralized, demobilized, and even pacified by having adapted themselves to stifling political terms.

Haven't we seen this often enough already?  What happened in the 2004 election?  The massive opposition to Bush and the war, which we saw manifested in powerful demonstrations in 2003, was funneled to support for candidates like Kucinich and Dean (who claimed to be opposed to Bush and the war), to the more "elect-able" candidate, Kerry, who openly supported the war (and the Patriot Act, and most of Bush's program).  Not surprisingly, in a contest over who would be "tough on terror," Bush won (fairly or fraudulently).  This was a defeat in two ways: the Bush regime stayed in power to further their program, and the massive opposition (which manifested itself in hundreds of thousands protesting the Republican National Convention just two months before the election) accepted the political terms set by this regime and was left demoralized and demobilized.

What would be the consequences of seeing a protest movement hemmed into these politics now -- and this regime pushing even further down its truly extreme path?  This would only make people accommodate to new outrages and feel powerless in the face of a vicious onslaught.

The stage is already being set for this to happen in 2006.  Candidates are being picked by the Democratic leadership who go along with the war, increasingly oppose abortion, and support new police state measures, all under the rubric of what they deem is "elect-able."  Meanwhile, when candidates emerge who oppose the war and don't hold back from a scathing critique of the Bush administration, they are labeled as "unpatriotic" and pressured to drop out of the race (just look at what happened to Paul Hackett).  And as for Iraq, what the Democratic leadership offers is not an end to the war, but "strategic redeployment".

If the movements opposing this war do not stick to principle, but instead end up supporting candidates who oppose their demands, this will only make things worse.  If the thousands mobilized out in the streets to demand an end to the war are hemmed back into an official politics in which such a demand is beyond the pale, this will in fact work against the efforts to stop the war.  As it says in World Can't Wait's Call, "This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into 'leaders' who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people."

We must also point out that channeling opposition toward candidates who support the war is not the only problem confronting the anti-war movement.  There is also a stubborn refusal to confront the full scope and scale of what the Bush regime is doing, and its implications for the not-so-distant future.

ANSWER's call for action on the 3rd anniversary of the war says that singling out the Bush administration for protest is an "exercise in misleadership".  While we would be the first to point out the complicity of the Democratic Party leadership in the war, at the same time a failure to recognize the fascist remaking of the world and bring this understanding to the people we are seeking to mobilize against the war will only consign people to ignore and be crushed by this onslaught.

In fact, those who believe that injustice and oppression are systemic to this country should grasp even more readily how a regime could emerge that would take all this to new extremes.  When you take a sober look at what the Bush regime is cementing into place, from a doctrine of pre-emptive war, open and legalized torture, new police state laws, and the moves towards theocracy, and the whole package all this is part of (as described above), this nightmare is not simply a continuation of previous injustices but marks a whole "new normalcy" with horrible consequences for the planet and its people.  And it is hard to conceive of making any progressive changes without stopping this deadly trajectory.

The fact is, even with the complicity of the Democratic leadership, the Bush regime is the driving force in and power presiding over all this.  Without driving the Bush regime from power and repudiating its whole program, we cannot meet the enormity of the challenge we face.  Such an approach does not imply an endorsement of the Democrats, but building a movement uniting and mobilizing the millions of people disgusted by the current direction of society to take independent political action outside of the killing confines of the "official politics" with the aim of driving out the Bush regime.  The success of such a movement will not only mean removal from power of the most pressing danger to the world, but would also usher in whole new possibilities for progressive social change with the emergence of a people that have driven out a monstrous clique and are newly energized and organized and ready to take society in a much, much better direction.

Within World Can't Wait, there are many different views about what should replace the Bush regime, from reforming the Democratic party, to building a 3rd party, to revolution.  What has brought this movement together is people from diverse perspectives and backgrounds seeing the urgent need to change the whole direction of society.  And it is our hope that major anti-war organizations like ANSWER and UFPJ will join this movement to drive out the Bush regime while continuing their efforts to end the war.

As we confront the 3rd anniversary of an unjust war, people around the world are looking to see if the people in this country are just going along, or if there is a growing resistance that will not allow this disastrous course to continue.  A movement that sticks to principle and mobilizes people based on what's true and what's right can "join with and give support and heart to people all over the globe who so urgently need and want this regime to be stopped" (World Can't Wait Call).

To close with the following from our Call:

The point is this: history is full of examples where people who had right on their side fought against tremendous odds and were victorious. And it is also full of examples of people passively hoping to wait it out, only to get swallowed up by a horror beyond what they ever imagined. The future is unwritten. WHICH ONE WE GET IS UP TO US.

End the War!
The World Can't Wait!
Drive Out the Bush Regime!

Originally posted to WorldCantWait on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 04:34 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Anti-war is the issue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    another American, kestrel9000

    I am vehemently against the Iraq war, always have been.  I have been to two anti-war potests, one I believe co-sponsored by Answer. I was dismayed both times that the protests seemed hijacked by people pushing other issues.  At one, there was a speech that kept railing on "Zionists."  I'm a Jew. Sorry, but I don't want to hear speeches about Israel; I want to hear anti-war speeches.  I haven't been to a rally in a while.  Can I expect that anything has changed?

    •  A couple points (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WorldCantWait

      First, anti-war demonstrations are not organized by liberals. They are organized by leftists. When liberals do the hard work of organizing big demonstrations they can choose who speaks and about what.

      Second, what is "the issue" is a matter of debate. Is it the war in Iraq? Or is it the social system that keeps on getting us into wars like that? If it is the latter (and I think it is) its perfectly appropriate to link the war in Iraq to other manifestations of that social system. The U.S.-financed Israeli occupation is very much linked to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. It has everything to do with why the U.S. is as hated as it is in the Arab world. Attempting to pretend that these are tidily unrelated issues is foolish.

      When I go to a rally I don't expect to agree with every speech I hear. Occasionally they infuriate me. (Listening to Hillary Clinton campaigning for herself at the immigration rights march is an example.) But I recognize two things: that the organizers have a right to use the opportunity to advance a broader social analysis AND that sometimes I learn something.

      So your a Jew. That gives you a veto? There are lots of Jews who disagree with you. Some of whom eagerly accept the label of "anti-Zionism."

      Liberals always argue for keeping the focus of demonstartions as narrow as possible and radicals favor broadening it because these moves reflect their understanding of the world. Liberalism, as a pro-capitalist middle class ideology, views the world as compartmentalized. It needs to do so to allow it to rule certain obvious injustices (like the continuing colonization of Palestinian lands) as outside the pale of discussion.

      Of course there is a practical matter of how many issues can be addressed at a single rally without it completely losing a sense of common purpose, and sometimes errors are committed in this respect. But talking about the U.S. sponsored military occupation of other Arab lands seems entirely appropriate at an anti-war rally.

      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:01:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Elephant in the Room (0+ / 0-)

      Israel is certainly the elephant in the room in some cases but there are two points.

      1.) WCW does not have the position on Israel that Answer or Walt and Mersheimer do. WCW certainly doesn't support Israel but it largely thinks that Israel is a puppet of the USA, not the other way around.

      2.) Is it the make or break issue with you. There are actually people in WCW who are personally opposed to abortion even though WCW is staunchly pro choice. Is it possible for you to keep your support for Israel but still admit to yourself that Bush is so dangerous he needs to be driven out of office? I don't know. But I think you should be honest about it. It's not possible to say that "Israel has nothing to do with the war in Iraq" and then turn around and say "I can't support the anti-war movement because I support Israel". This is fundamentally dishonest.

      Make your plans now to participate in drowning out Bush's lies.

      http://worldcantwait.org

      by WorldCantWait on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 08:21:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or to be even simpler. (0+ / 0-)

      One of WCW's main points is that Bush is trying to turn the USA into a Christian theocracy.

      If it's possible (and I certainly think it is) then isn't it in your interests as a Jew to support a group like WCW that opposes it.

      And if Bush is using the war in the Middle East to pushes Christian theocratic values (and he is) isn't part of opposing him supporting the right to an abortion?

      Make your plans now to participate in drowning out Bush's lies.

      http://worldcantwait.org

      by WorldCantWait on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 08:37:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I will not attend a protest (0+ / 0-)

        that is unfocused.  I will not attend a protest that is anti-Zionist.  If portests are organized by "leftists, not liberals" as you say, then something is wrong with the movement.  No chance for a broad base, sorry.  Good luck to you.

        "How am I not myself?" -- I (Heart) Huckabees

        by Joelarama on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 02:31:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But interestingly enough (0+ / 0-)

          Nothing in this letter mentions "zionism" or asks for a statement on the palestinians.

          It asks for a statement on abortion (ie a statement opposing Christian theocracy).

          I guess we make our choices. If you are going to throw in with the Christian theocrats because they support Israel that's your choice.

          But it is a choice.

          There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing."

          http://worldcantwait.org

          by WorldCantWait on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 03:49:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is not about 'us versus them' (0+ / 0-)

            It is us against the war.

            And, many people in addition to "theocrats", whatever that means, believe Israel has a right to exist. I do not attend anti-war rallies to hear speeches calling for the U.S. to withdraw all support for Israel; I attend anti-war rallies to change peoples' minds about the war.

            And, you will find many, many pro-life people, many Catholics for example, who are anti-war.

            I support Israel, but I have no intention of "throwing in with the Christian theocrats."  You are also going to have to realize that many Democrats, liberals, and anti-war people are people of faith.  You might try reaching out to them rather than labelling them as "theocrats."

            "How am I not myself?" -- I (Heart) Huckabees

            by Joelarama on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 04:25:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  People of Faith vs. Theocrats (0+ / 0-)

              You are also going to have to realize that many Democrats, liberals, and anti-war people are people of faith.  You might try reaching out to them rather than labelling them as "theocrats."

              There's a distinction between "people of faith" and "theocrats".

              William Sloan Coffin, for example, is a "person of faith." Tony Perkins is a theocrat.

              I'm going to develope this argument further in a later diary, but there's no question that Bush's Christian messianic worldview, the division of the world into "us" vs. "them", "good" vs. "evil" and the USA vs. the "terrorists" has its source in the Christian right.

              So I guess you'd have to ask yourself two questions:

              1.) Do you see the Christian theocrats as having any chance to take real power here?

              (actually that was a trick question. They already have. Look at their attempts to convert Jews in the Air Force Academy).

              2.) Do you see the Democrats and the mainstream "liberal" organizations raising the alarm about them. Quite frankly, I don't.

              There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing."

              http://worldcantwait.org

              by WorldCantWait on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 05:35:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It appears to me (0+ / 0-)

                that you also have an "us versus them" view of the world.  I may be wrong; I await this dairy that will explain your distinctions.  If the "world can't wait," I will.

                "How am I not myself?" -- I (Heart) Huckabees

                by Joelarama on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 05:53:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  'Christian Facism' is a Reality (0+ / 0-)

                  Us vs. Them? Hmm.

                  Well to a certain extent everybody divides people into sides.

                  Am I against people who would deny women the right to an abortion? You bet I am.

                  But I don't think it's a matter of slogans, us vs. them or zionism vs. anti-zionism or single issue movements vs. broad movements.

                  I think you have to look at the historical circumstances where you find yourself and identify the various forces you're dealing with. There's no question that there's a huge "Christian Fascist" movement in the United States and that they have deep ties to the Bush administration.

                  Two books to check out would be "With God on Their Side" by Esther Kaplan and the new book by Kevin Phillips called "American Theocracy".

                  You can say "only talk about the war" but the right even to question the war over the past few years has been under attack. Against the war? Then you're a traitor.

                  I'd argue that this line of attack has its roots in the Christian right, in a movement called "dominionism", in the idea that Bush was appointed by God to remake the Middle East and that to question him is to put yourself on the side of "evil".

                  Putting a demand to keep abortion legal on an anti-war platform gets at the root of this.

                  There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing."

                  http://worldcantwait.org

                  by WorldCantWait on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:04:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't You See That That Dilutes The Message.... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joelarama

                    Of not only the anti-war movement, along with the pro-choice movement as well?  While there may be some crossover between the two, I'm willing to bet that there are many people who only subscribe to one notion, or the other.  Ron Paul, for instance.  The man considers himself "Pro-Life", but not in the evangelical sense that everyone is accustomed to.  He believes that war, the death penalty, AND abortion are all equal abominations, and should be avoided at all cost.  While I don't agree with him on the abortion issue personally, I sure as hell want him in our corner on the anti war issue, simply because his is one of the most well spoken, well researched, and omigod, geniune, politicians actually involved in politics today.  On the flip side, my mother is vehemently pro-choice, but a hard core Republican on the remainder of the issues, but she'll be at every pro-choice rally there is.  Mix the two issues, and you've lost two supporters on either side.  Do we want to be dogmatic, like the other side is?  I think not.

                    •  Yes and No (0+ / 0-)

                      I think you do have to be careful about "diluting the message" but I don't think putting a demand for a statement supporting the right to an abortion is the same as an International Answer laundry list.

                      First of all, the letter is directly addressed to United for Peace and Justice. I sat in on their organizers meeting last week, where Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton spoke.

                      They were making links between the immigration protests, Katrina and the anti-war movement.

                      But they very explicitly left out the issue of abortion

                      Why? Why are links to the immigrants and to Katrina part of UFPJ's platform but not a statement demanding the right to an abortion or a statement against the Christian right?

                      Personally I think the issue of Christian fascism can't be linked to the war in Iraq. It's central to the war in Iraq. What did Bush call the war originally?

                      A crusade.

                      There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing."

                      http://worldcantwait.org

                      by WorldCantWait on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:21:49 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Correction (0+ / 0-)

                        Bush referred to his new war on terrorism as a "Crusade" in the days after 9/11 and quickly retracted that remark.  He has not referred to the war in Iraq as a crusade.  He's stupid, but thankfully he has not been that stupid.  

                        "How am I not myself?" -- I (Heart) Huckabees

                        by Joelarama on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:39:32 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Was Quickly Forced to Retract the Remark (0+ / 0-)

                          And that was revealing.

                          I think to understand the real extent of the support of the evangelical Christian right you have to get on their mailing lists, go to their meetings and Bible study groups, read their books.

                          You have to read between the lines of Bush's words, the messianic talk of good and evil, us vs. them, the idea of remaking the middle east.

                          Here's an interesting article.

                          http://www.dailyhowler.com/...

                          Why have Boykin’s oddest statements been airbrushed from the mainstream press? We’ll discuss that point by the end of the week. But meanwhile, in the conservative press, the standard Grievance Tales have been brewing. Standard spinners brew standard complaints about how Boykin is being mistreated. You know the drill: The talk-show right just loves playing victim, and its pseudo-cons are especially good are weeping and wailing and crying big tears. And they’re very good at something else, too—at faking, spinning, dissembling, reinventing. In the past week, they have once again showcased their brilliant skills, reinventing the things Boykin said.

                          There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing."

                          http://worldcantwait.org

                          by WorldCantWait on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:45:50 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  This Goes Toward Elevating Bush.... (0+ / 0-)

                            While Bush's actions may result in evil, the man, however incompetent, however misguided, however sociapathic, and however cynical he is, the man himself has lied himself into believing what he is doing is right.  To elevate his actions and persona to "evil", gives him more credit than he deserves, and plays into their meme that we are on the wrong side of their issue.  We have to remove the framework they are placing on the issue and turn it into an issue of common freaking sense, not using the moralistic terms that they speak in.

                          •  Where did I call Bush 'evil'? (0+ / 0-)

                            To elevate his actions and persona to "evil", gives him more credit than he deserves, and plays into their meme that we are on the wrong side of their issue.  

                            The word really isn't in my vocabulary.

                            On the other had, I think the words "fascism" and "theocracy" should be part of everybody's.

                            There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing."

                            http://worldcantwait.org

                            by WorldCantWait on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 07:08:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fascism Is An Excellent Descriptor.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ....as that is the result of his policies is in their purest form.  However, the majority's understanding of Fascism, is always accompanied by "Evil Fascist Dictator", a la Stalin, that is if they even know what Fascism is in the first place.  Theocracy?  While many of us understand what religious led implications this administration has, again the majority of folks will just look at you and go, "huh?".  If you want those messages to be understood, you get to get some smaller change for those 50 cent words, because those will get you nowhere with the intellectually challenged American public as a whole.  Against war?  I get it.  Against listening to my phone calls?  I get it.  Against reading my email?  I get it.  Against American Imperialism?  Say what?  Against American Fascism?  Them are fighting words, pal.  For The First Amendment?  Now you're talking.

                          •  I agree with you but... (0+ / 0-)

                            I agree with you on how some words have been stripped of their meaning by misusing them.

                            The guy who bans me from a website isn't a "fascist".

                            But I don't know if it's a matter of just dropping the words or giving them substance, showing why they apply.

                            If I've failed to do that I have to work harder at it.

                            There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing."

                            http://worldcantwait.org

                            by WorldCantWait on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 08:48:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The Failure Is Not Yours, But Ours. (0+ / 0-)

                            I think the biggest mistake we make as a movement/political leaning as a whole is the assumption of a certain elevated level of discourse in this country, not to mention assuming empathy on the part of those we disagree with.  We are violating the first and most important rule of public communications - the KISS rule, as in "Keep It Simple, Stupid".  We have to realize in the framing and presentation of our argument that while many of us have read Chomsky, most of them have not, and unless you can frame the same thing like a Jim Hightower truism, it's better left as a discussion amongst ourselves for the time being.

                          •  I agree but... (0+ / 0-)

                            the famous but.

                            I think the anti-war movement in the United States is addressing not only Americans but also people in the Middle East and people all over the world.

                            To ban any signs about the Palestinians, for example, from the impromptu public square that any protest becomes may win you a few votes in the Democratic Party but it also looks very, very bad to the rest of the world. In fact, you might even look at it as the final victory of the right. They've not only limited the way the discussion is framed in the mainstream media and the two major parties, they're now reaching down into the anti-war movement and framing it there.

                            Tactical judgements are fine. The Mexicans made a tactical deicision to fly the American flag and (in some ways) it worked. But you'd have to ask what you're getting in return.

                            Would International Answer and UFPJ, for example, agree to better police their demos for signs of the ultra left if John Kerry showed up to speak at an anti-war rally? Maybe but we'll never know until the same "mainstream left" that wants to frame the terms of the anti-war movement starts participating in it.

                            There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing."

                            http://worldcantwait.org

                            by WorldCantWait on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 05:36:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  John Kerry Is The Perfect Example Of Violating... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...the KISS rule.  As Jim Hightower describes him, and us in turn, "We didn't lose.  John Kerry lost.  And truth be told, the man was heavy lifting.  The man couldn't connect with the common man if you put him down at 5th & Congress (in Austin, Texas) handing out free Slim Jims & Budweisers."  Triangulation makes politicians look confused, leaves those who might support a more refined message confused, just as collusion of message does for movements.

                            Policing demos wouldn't be necessary (nor would it be an ideal way of functioning) if consistency of message was merely suggested and practiced by those who are organizing, eventually becoming the common modus operandi and expectation of demonstators.  The notion would be something like, "Please try to keep it on message, folks.  If your personal topic is too far removed from "cause x", please be patient because we will be having a protest regarding that issue a month and a half from now."

                            As far as our protests having to address the needs of the world, I'm not sure, but I'll go with my gut on this, that being the voice of the world is almost akin to being the policemen of the world - something that while perhaps good intentioned requires a faulty logic on our part that somehow the rest of the world cannot police, nor speak for themselves.  I lived in Iran as a youth, and while an argument can be made that intervention and support may be needed, just because it doesn't look like our method of dispute settlement it doesn't mean that they are incapable of voicing their own needs, even if said methods and results are inherently far more dangerous.  At any rate, a protest in regard to Palestinian issues should try to seperate itself from protests regarding our own country's direct involvement in direct military action, simply because those Palestinian issues will be lost at a protest aimed for ending our military presense in Iraq, and eventually Iran.  Indirect involvement is a far more subtle issue, and needs longer, more involved, and careful explanation for any part of the message to be diluted.

                          •  Last sentence should read.... (0+ / 0-)
                            • Indirect involvement is a far more subtle issue, and needs longer, more involved, and careful explanation for any part of the message to NOT be diluted.  (Meaning:  It needs it's OWN protest)
                          •  Agreed. 100%. (0+ / 0-)

                            Al Franken, or perhaps even better, Ed Shultz, may be better suited to lead a more broad based anti-war movement than ANSWER or UFPJ, not to say that these groups should be forbidden from contributing, as they most certainly should not, they just need to learn how to focus their message so that said message doesn't get lost.  The one message at a time thing needs to become common practice.  Our current methods are killing our effectiveness.  

                          •  I agree with you. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't think an Answer laundry list is the, um, answer. I've often found myself dying of boredom as speaker after speaker drones on about the Cuban 5 or the Philippines or whatever cause Answer is pushing.

                            But I don't think the answer is policing demos, censorship, or putting on suits and ties. I think the answer is quite simply for more "mainstream" people to get off their asses and get involved. The reason the anti-war movement tends to be more radical is simply that the radicals are the ones doing the heavy lifting.

                            If more mainstream people got involved, the radicals would simply be voted down in the planning stages or fade into the crowd. Take a look at Michelle Malkin's blog where she whines about the fact that the Washington Post isn't publishing badly framed shots by freepers carrying point and shoots of International Answer signs at the immigrant protests.

                            Let Franken and Paul Krugman use their big megaphones to call people into the streets exactly the way the ethnic radio stations did around the immigrant protests. See what happens.

                            There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing."

                            http://worldcantwait.org

                            by WorldCantWait on Fri Apr 14, 2006 at 06:26:02 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Here are two earlier articles about the subject. (0+ / 0-)

                  There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing."

                  http://worldcantwait.org

                  by WorldCantWait on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 06:07:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Having Attended Multiple Protests To Film.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000, Joelarama

    ....for a documentary I'm making, I was shocked at how disparate, splintered, and somewhat compartmentalized, the movement was, so many issues tackled when just one might have been better.  This was especially true at the RNC protests in NYC, as it seemed everyone had their own pet issue, even if the theme as a whole was anti-war.  Thing is, there IS so much to be mad at THIS administration about, but in my opinion, the strength of the movement will be determined by it's ability to narrow it's focus to a single issue at a time, and keep banging that issue home until it becomes the common vernacular.  In my honest opinion, the one issue needs to be ending the war, and it's direct manifestation at home, ie stopping the tide of fascism in this country.  Not to say that labor rights, bicyclist rights, gay rights, etc., aren't important.  They are.  However, they need their own methods that are 100% percent removed from the anti-war discussion.  The intermingling of topics dilutes the message and weight of each cause.

  •  Recommend This Diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WorldCantWait

    Thank you.

  •  Ending the war versus ending the Bush Regime. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joelarama

    It's quite appropriate for a movement dedicated to withdrawing U.S. military forces from Iraq to focus on that issue alone.  The (fairly obvious) idea is to try to create the broadest possible front among people who agree on that issue while very possibly disagreeing on many other issues.

    From this perspective, bringing in or permitting "extraneous" issues to be raised runs the risk of turning off people who could buy in to an anti-Iraq War coalition but who are put off by the menagerie of issues sometimes seen at "antiwar" rallies.

    From an anti-Iraq War perspective, it would seem that a focus on ending the Bush Regime depends upon assessing how necessary ending the regime is to achieving the anti-Iraq War goal.  If it is desirable, but not necessary, then the decision as to what, if any, anti-Bush issues to allow into an anti-Iraq War event again must be viewed in terms of whether it helps or hurts build the anti-Iraq War coalition.

    On the other hand, if no progress to ending the Iraq War reasonably may be expected while the Bush Regime remains in power, then the question has to be turned around:  to what extent do "antiwar" activities strengthen or weaken efforts to elect a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic President and Congress in 2008?  My own impression is that this perspective ought to lead to even greater self-discipline.

    In all events, the identity politics apparently beloeved of the diarist seems better designed to provide an emotional high to its practitioners than any positive impact on the real world.



    "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." George Orwell

    by another American on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:31:51 AM PDT

    •  Better stated than I could (0+ / 0-)

      The best protests are those focused like a lazer on the particular injustice being challenged.  This pulls in people of many different walks of life.

      That's a big reason the immigration protests have been so vast and inspirational.

      "How am I not myself?" -- I (Heart) Huckabees

      by Joelarama on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 04:53:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is even better. (0+ / 0-)

        There were certainly people in the 1960s who criticized Martin Luther King for linking Vietnam and the Civil Rights Movement.

        They were wrong. And this is really worth reading again.

        http://www.hartford-hwp.com/...

        Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. Aren't you hurting the cause of your people, they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

        There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing."

        http://worldcantwait.org

        by WorldCantWait on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 05:50:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Comment (0+ / 0-)

    On the other hand, if no progress to ending the Iraq War reasonably may be expected while the Bush Regime remains in power, then the question has to be turned around:  to what extent do "antiwar" activities strengthen or weaken efforts to elect a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic President and Congress in 2008?

    If by supporting the war the Democrats could retake the White House, would you support them?

    Make your plans now to participate in drowning out Bush's lies.

    http://worldcantwait.org

    by WorldCantWait on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 08:12:26 AM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site