In the aftermath of yesterday's anti-war demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and around the country, Marc Cooper has a penetrating analysis of the limits of the anti-war movement. He addresses the significance of the fact that no leading Democratic official publicly supported Saturday's protests (as Cooper notes, "Reps. Conyers and McKinney don't qualify as 'top' officials.")
The problem is the nature of the the leadership that runs the protests. "There ought to be one single issue that admits someone to this movement," Cooper argues, "you simply oppose Bush policy in Iraq. Period." And nothing should be done to preclude participation by everyone willing to rally 'round that flag. We want a movement dedicated to the largest, not the smallest, common denominator.
continued
Instead, valuable podium time is given to causes that, whatever their justice, shrink the anti-war movement. "Only an electoral death-wish," Cooper writes, could have inspired national Democratic Party leaders to associate themselves with all the sectarian causes given time on the podiums:
George Galloway wearing a Palestinian kefiyah . . . the kefiyah-draped leaders of ANSWER shouting out how they stand for the Cuban Revolution . . . Indeed, the kefiyah was the de rigueur accessory worn by countless speakers - speakers from little-known and tiny solidarity groups loudly condemning U.S. policy not only in Iraq and Cuba, but also in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Haiti etc. etc. And a plethora of speakers condemning Israel (without finding a way to equaly condemn the suicide-bombers).
Cooper argues, and I agree, that
there are only two ways the anti-war movement can achieve its goals. Either through what the Europeans calls "extra-parliamentary" methods i.e. the disruption of business-as-usual and rendering the country ungovernable. Or through a political strategy by which there is a strategic shift in The Establishment. (Cooper's emphasis.)
Most members of Daily Kos will agree with Cooper, I trust, that
the collapse of the American government via street demonstrations--is rather a long-shot. Which means that the peace movement will achieve its goals primarily and only by building a political coalition broad enough and forceful enough and credible enough to provoke a sea-change in policy.
It follows that "at least a significant, if not a majority, slice of the Democratic Party has to be on board."
This means that the movement must include "not only those who sign on to the 'Out Now' mantra of the current movement, but also those who have a less drastic view -- but still oppose the current course.." The objective would be to make the 2006 Congressional elections a sort of national referendum on Bush's war policy. "A Democratic upset in the mid-terms could force the Bush administration to change course and/or could lead to a Democratic victory and a change in war policy in '08."
Cooper accordingly finds significance in the fact, noted above, that "not a single top Democratic official publicly associated him or herself with Saturday's street protests."
Not just Mister Kerry and Madame Clinton were missing. But equally AWOL were outspoken critics of the war like Howard Dean and Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy - just to mention the better-known.
Although "[m]uch can be said about the timidity of the Democrats when it comes to staking out a position - any position--on the war," Cooper also identifies a basic problem in the current anti-war movement: the nature of the activist groups -- such as ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice -- that fill the void created by, and that contribute to, the absence of moderate Democratic leadership.
There's an odd and defeating dynamic that pervades these activist groups -- a dynamic that often leads young critical thinkers to abandon them after a short infatuation. The inner circle, the feverish full-timer activists are often members of tiny, Marxist groups, "vanguard parties" or their "mass organizations." These devoted militants dedicate all of their time, all of their energy and all of their lives to "building" these miniscule sects. Some of the more entrepreneurial among them even figure out a way to make a living out of their politics.
Their relentless, round-the-clock energy allows them to easily dominate the tedious, mind-numbing meetings and planning sessions that go into organizing large-scale protests. Who else but a humourless party-builder could survive those marathon "consensus" sessions. But God Forbid anyone should actually criticize any of them or the 'line' they impose on the demos. Anyone who dares to challenge them is immediately called out as a McCarthyite -- as if joining one of these sects offers some implied warranty of immunity from criticism. When confronted with this cheap blackmail of being branded as "red-baiters," the more reasonable liberals and "progressives" almost inevitably fold and the cycle repeats itself. And then people actually wonder why the peace movement can't attract more mainstream political support? (Cooper's emphasis.)
Only an "electoral death-wish," Cooper observes, could have inspired a national Democratic Party leader to appear at one of the Saturday rallies:
Show up to be joined on the stage by George Galloway wearing a Palestinian kefiyah? Or by the kefiyah-draped leaders of ANSWER shouting out how they stand for the Cuban Revolution? Indeed, the kefiyah was the de rigueur accessory worn by countless speakers - speakers from little-known and tiny solidarity groups loudly condemning U.S. policy not only in Iraq and Cuba, but also in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Haiti etc. etc. And a plethora of speakers condemning Israel (without finding a way to equaly condemn the suicide-bombers). (Cooper's emphasis.)
It's not a matter of the justice of any one of these various causes: "with each of the above-named planks you shrink, not widen the anti-war platform. There ought to be one single issue that admits someone to this movement: you simply oppose Bush policy in Iraq. Period."
Given that its leadership comes from the political margin, the peace movement needs to be built from the sidelines inward, not the reverse. This works wonderfully for the marginal. Their political isolation only reconfirms their self-righteous purity. Hell, if a Democrat actually showed up on the dais, the organizers would no doubt claim they were being "co-opted." But it sucks for everyone else.
Cooper anticipates that some may respond by asking, "Who cares what the idiots on the stage said?"
My answer: Of course not. There aren't five hundred people in America, let alone a hundred thousand, who could sit or stand through more than five minutes of that drivel.
But wouldn't it be nice if there were antiwar speakers on that platform - just two or three instead of 45 or 50--whose words could inspire not only the protestors, but also move other millions into some deeper sort of reflection and action?
Wasn't that the case in the great 1963 civil rights march on Washington? Have you ever in your life met a single person stupid enough to say that the only important thing that day 42 years ago was merely showing up in D.C. because it really didn't matter what Martin Luther King actually said? That no one was really listening?
Why do we accept such a miserably lower standard for the anti-war movement? (Cooper's emphasis.)