LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE Archives

PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE@LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE  August 2010, Week 2

PORTSIDE August 2010, Week 2

Subject:

The Stalled Peace Movement(??) - More Reader Responses

From:

[log in to unmask]

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Sun, 8 Aug 2010 17:49:22 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (753 lines)

The Stalled Peace Movement(??) - More Reader Responses

[additional comments from seven more readers. Comments
from: Paul Joseph, Noyma Appelbaum, Gordon Fitch, Gary
Kohls, Dan Shubin, David Mitchell, Kevin Zeese.

Some of these were sent directly to previous posters,
with copies to portside. The post by Kevin Zeese, was
posted directly to the web, sparked by the original
posting of Justin Raimondo.]

==========

Why is the antiwar movement stalled: Another look

In a recent post to antiwar.com that was also relayed to
Portside subscribers, Justin Raimondo asked a
provocative question: why is the antiwar movement
stalled? On the following day, Portside readers offered
a series of critical and largely appropriate comments
yet Raimondo's basic question remains. The war in Iraq
appears to be winding down, at least to Americans, but
in Afghanistan casualties and dollar costs are mounting,
and there is no shortage of well-publicized scandal or
of information that undermines claims that Washington is
making military progress. Indeed, few knowledgeable
observers, both inside and outside the Beltway, no
matter their political stripe, believe that the U.S. is
winning. These circumstances seem to invoke the multiple
failures of Vietnam and the legacy of large, direct
opposition to the war. Yet the public seems to be
complacent and the size of current antiwar mobilizations
embarrassingly small. Why?

Raimondo's explanation is a political left that is
ideologically sectarian, politically immature, and
devoted to counter-productive internal squabbling. This
argument is short-sighted. It fails to grasp how the
world has changed since the Vietnam era - where, in any
case, there was also a political left that was
ideologically sectarian, politically immature, and
devoted to counter-productive internal squabbling. Over
the last generation, the opportunities for movement
mobilization have been transformed. The antiwar movement
- and the left - must recognize and adapt to these
differences or it will remain consigned to marginal
influence.

As Raimondo points out, opinion polls do indicate
growing disenchantment with the Afghan War. The public
has become more sensitive to war costs and indeed,
turned against the Iraq War even more quickly than it
did the War in Vietnam. There would seem to be plenty of
opportunity. But a social buffer, a set of disempowering
elements that collectively rob the public of the sense
that they can actually end the conflict, is now in play.
During Vietnam, people were aware of war costs, at least
to Americans, and as the war went on more actively
opposed the war effort. In Iraq, and now Afghanistan,
people are also aware of war costs and are even more
likely to include Iraqis and Afghans lives in their
social accounting. But there is less sense of urgency
than in the past. For the most part, disagreement with
policy has not lead to outrage and anger. Many do not
like what they see and read about the war(s). But this
buffer weighs against a strong and necessary sense of
public agency, and is a better way of explaining why the
antiwar movement is stalled than blaming difficulties
within the left itself. What makes up this buffer and
can it be countered?

In contrast to the Vietnam era, a new set of
circumstances tend to weaken public resolve to
participate in direct opposition - even though a
majority have lost faith in the war. The first key
difference is of course the absence of a draft. Since
1973, the U.S. has depended on an all-volunteer military
and the fear on the part of young people - and their
families - that they will be brought into an unpopular
war no longer exists. While conscription remains a legal
and political possibility, most of the public no longer
expects to serve. After September 11, 2001, a poll of
students at the University of Houston found 90 percent
favoring intervention in Afghanistan to overthrow the
Taliban. Two years later, 79 percent of college students
supported the forced removal of Saddam Hussein from
power. Yet only 20 percent of the students at Houston
favored the reinstitution of the draft, even as the
national leadership was arguing that terrorism
threatened the very core of U.S. society. The public has
remained strongly opposed to conscription with a recent
New York Times poll finding 87 percent against and only
9 percent in favor. On the question of deploying
overseas and serving in combat, arguably the most
central issue confronting a democracy, we rely on
volunteers. The antiwar movement would look very
different if every 18 year- old man (and woman?) was in
danger of being drafted.

Second, during the Vietnam era the peace movement could
argue that the people the U.S. were fighting deserved
support - or at least that they deserved to be left
alone. The antiwar movement could meet with the
Vietnamese in Paris, in Hanoi, and maintain contacts
elsewhere, all in good faith. The same cannot be said
about the people that the U.S. is currently fighting.
The military may not be contributing much in the way of
progress and freedom. But the public, and virtually all
on the left and the antiwar movement, would not like to
see the forces opposing that military to succeed. What
is the best way to advance justice in Afghanistan? War
may not be the answer to virulent fundamentalism, but
the antiwar movement does not have much of a voice on
how to counter reactionary and repressive tendencies
other than expedited withdrawal. Unlike Vietnam, that
may not be the best approach.

A third difference is the "yellow ribbon" effect, or
strong desire to support soldiers that became especially
important during the post-Vietnam years. Few in the
current peace movement blame the soldiers themselves for
the misguided policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the
consensus that has been built around support for those
deployed overseas has contributed to the buffer and has
made it more difficult to oppose directly the policies
that put them there in the first place.

The media is also different from the Vietnam era. People
read newspapers less and watch television more. Within
television, they are more likely to watch the newer
cable stations than the more traditional networks. Fox
News does not really practice journalism at all.
Audiences are much less likely to see the explicit
battle scenes that predominated during Vietnam and
formed part of the "living room" war. By the end of
2004, many journalists and some editors became more
critical of Washington's policies, but despite their
private views the presentation of war has become more
sanitized. The media is also more timid than in the
past; it asks fewer questions.

The media has also changed regarding its coverage of the
movement itself. The leading papers and papers no longer
regard the mobilization, even of hundreds of thousands
as on the eve of the war in Iraq, as "news". Movement
activities, national and local, that were covered during
the Vietnam era are largely ignored. There was always a
double edge to media coverage, winning attention that
contributed to movement growth on the one side, the
effort to retain that attention contributing to
distorted and sometimes bizarre tactics on the other.
There is no simple answer to the dilemma of how anti-
establishment movements can gain favorable coverage from
an establishment media. But to grapple with the problem
is a better situation than the silence that has been
declared by media executives.

The emergence of the virtual world provides yet another
significant difference from the Vietnam era. The digital
revolution has created a richer "information
environment" and facilitated the communication among
social movement networks, both within the United States
and abroad. Both could be seen as increasing the
potential for movement mobilization. In many other
respects, web blogs, independent reporters, and
photographers have formed an alternative media to the
mainstream media. There are new opportunities to express
dissent and opposition.

Unfortunately, there is another side to the virtual
world, namely that it can substitute for more visible
forms of demonstrating resistance and in this sense can
contribute to the buffer standing between the war and
public activism. MoveOn.org is the tip of a large silent
movement that encourages members to sign petitions and
contribute money. But does virtual mobilization create
the same "push" as the more traditional forms of
mobilization? Is a new website a substitute for more
tangible forms of protest? Movements depend on the
commitment of dedicated activists. Is there a trade-off
between commitment to active forms of struggle and
managing an e-mail distribution list? Does "personalized
networking" among activists encourage more fluid but
less coherent forms of organizing? There is no turning
back from the remarkable changes in how we communicate
but has this come at the expense of friendship ties and
the workplace or church social connections that were so
important for other periods of movement mobilization? I
am not sure of the answers to these questions but the
virtual movement world certainly presents a different
set of challenges.

Other differences exist, such as the positive synergy
among the civil rights, student, and nascent women's and
environmental movements, all of which contributed to the
outlook that things could be changed for the better. The
sense of hope and effectiveness that is so crucial for
the development of movement opposition is weaker now
with the possible exception of opposition to market-
driven forms of globalization. A related point
concerning the culture of activism contrasts the high
social expectations that many individuals held during
the1960s and the cultivation of more private pursuits
now. Thankfully, public attitudes are less inclined to
support war than in the past, even during the Vietnam
era. But we are more busy, distracted, and participate
in a broad range of pleasures. Unless one has a family
member or loved one serving, a felt connection to war,
either in support or in opposition, are harder to hold
close to the heart.

* * * * *

What are the implications of these changes? I do not
wish to denigrate the activities of the many who have
thrown themselves against the war and there are many
good features of traditional antiwar activity. It would
be wonderful to see a half a million or more descend on
Washington DC in opposition to the war in Afghanistan.
And movement lobbying of sympathetic members of Congress
is making progress. But I think we need to think of
measures that go beyond "protest".

For example, public service remains a powerful value in
the U.S. despite the features of our culture that often
pull in the opposite direction. That is why so many
respect those in uniform. Is it possible to recast
antiwar activity so that it appears in the form of
service in the common good? Between one-sixth and one-
third of returning soldiers and marines will or are
already suffering from psychological trauma including
post-traumatic stress disorder. Can we gain respect by
systematically playing a role in the necessary social
repair? Draft resistance has been an important part of
opposition to war and I would not like to see an end of
conscientious objection. But the call to have everyone
potentially serve, woman as well as men, will go far to
puncture the buffer surrounding felt connections to war,
and produce necessary democratic urgent debate before
and during the commitment of troops to combat.

Opposition within the military was an important aspect
of the struggle against the Vietnam War. In 1971, a
military officer could write in the Armed Forces
Journal: "Our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a
state approaching collapse, with individual units
avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their
officers and noncommissioned officers, drug-ridden and
dispirited, where not near- mutinous... " Opposition
still exists within the military, such as the case of
Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to
refuse deployment to Iraq, but is generally is of a very
different type. Despite internal doubts and multiple
tours of duty, most troops continue to behave orders.
Yet the military is not happy with the war and,
especially that it is being asked to interact with
civilian populations and engage in peacemaking
operations, is asking different questions and looking
for new answers. Top generals such as recently fired
commander Stanley McChrystal may not have changed much.
But a significant number of mid-level officers recognize
that lethal force is not producing results. I am not
suggesting that the military's internal rethinking is
the best arena to secure a just peace but many in
uniform are looking for a different way. Antiwar
activists should not close the door on this process.

Antiwar activity is fueled by a strong dose of moral
outrage and this should not be denied. Yet these
feelings must be expressed in venues that are
politically effective. The White House and Pentagon have
provided much to be outraged about. But so too have al
Qaeda and the various groups lumped together under the
term, "Taliban". Do we have ideas of how to reduce their
influence while at the same time minimizing if not
eliminating reliance on the use of military force. As
citizens of the world as well as this country, we cannot
afford to restrict our critical gaze to the U.S. alone.
In asking how to promote justice in Afghanistan, helping
to ameliorate war wounds, and participating in important
debates even where there are unlikely participants
across the table, we can help transform a stalled
antiwar movement to a peace movement with a powerful
engine.

Paul Joseph, Professor of Sociology Tufts University

==========

I think it is acurate to say that at present there is no
visible and effective anti-war movement in the U.S.
There are several reasons for this:

1-The most important reason is that the left and general
progressive movement eased up on the war issue because
it was felt that once elected Obama would take care of
things and get us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Previously, war activities were associated with the
reactionary Bush-Cheney administration, and to be
against Bush meant among other things being against his
war policies. The election of a "progressive" president
seemed to herald a generally progressive line on war,
Guantanamo, torture, secret renditions, etc. Things
haven't worked out that way. Obama is better than Bush,
but he cannot be relied on. Partly this is because he is
beholden to powerful forces that want to maintain a
perpetual war policy within the U.S. government. Partly,
this is because of Obama's personal style. He is not
going to assert active leadership of messy movements
which threaten to get out of control. Mass social
movements, especially around issues like war,
unemployment, etc., cannot depend on the good will,
cleverness, or negotiating skill of a leading figure
like Obama. The movements must make him do what he tends
not to want to do, or is afraid to do. Notice that even
in that last comment there is an unexpressed assumption
that Obama is really a good guy, who only needs to be
forced to do the right thing.

2. The absence of a draft has meant that a core of
"professional" soldiers is carrying the burden of
fighting our wars. During the Vietnam war, the chances
of getting drafted and being forced to fight and die in
a very questionable cause made the war a pressing
personal issue for many young men and their families.
The general population is not aroused at present about
our wars because the wars are remote and affect only a
narrow segment of our people. At the height of the
fighting in Iraq, I encountered many young men of
draftable age who wanted no part of the situation in
Iraq. Think of how they would feel if they were facing a
draft.

3. While the Iraq war easily could be shown to have been
concocted deliberately to foster an oil agenda, the
Afghanistan war is linked to people, Moslem
fundamentalists, who seem to constitute a threat to us.
Rightly or wrongly, many Americans feel threatened by a
vague apprehension that this threat is being combatted
in Afghanistan. The possibility that the threatening
forces might gain access to nuclear weapons or nuclear
devices that might be smuggled into the U.S. only
heightens the fear.

Any peace movement that wants to be effective must deal
with the above issues.

Noyma Appelbaum

==========

I thought it was an excellent idea to print Raimondo's
views.  But I see you have offended the choir, who would
prefer to continue preaching to one another.

Gordon Fitch

==========

I think that the antiwar movement is stalled for a
multitude of reasons, including the fact that

1) America is totally controlled by the Single Party
political system in America, the War Party, which has
two major factions, pro-war hard right-wing GOP and the
pro-war right of center Democrats with

2) media complicity in this tyranny and

3) the whole mess is controlled by the unelected
national security state/NSA/CIA/Pentagon/FBI and by the

4) war profiteering corporate elite who have

5) control over virtually every lapdog elected official
in Congress and the White House - both institutions
securely bought by the financial bribery known as
campaign contributions (a system that, ever since the 5)
corporate shills in the Supreme Court, whose decision
establishing corporate personhood will make the war
machine now virtually impossible to overcome).

(This list of 5 factors is not complete, of course, and
needs to include the

6) pro-war theocrats in the Christian Fundamentalist
movement.)

So the antiwar movement hasn't just failed, it has been
"made to fail" by many converging factors, including the
above-memntioned protofascist powers that be and

7) the apathetic couch potato public who vegetating as
often as they can in their darkened home entertainment
centers. Their oxes haven't been gored quite yet and
they seem to be quite contented to allow 8) the bread
and circuses strategy keep their bellies full and their
brains turning to mush in front of 9) the tube,
obediently ingesting their 10) brain- disabling psych
drugs, 11) eating their malnourishing and obesity-
inducing junk food and 12) allowing their brains to be
irradiated to a slow death by their excessive cell phone
usage and their WiFi high tech playthings.

When the jack-booted thugs knock at their doors in the
middle of the night to take them away, they will have no
idea what was happening, but I suppose that it is our
duty to keep warning them anyway.

When the knock comes to our doors in the middle of the
night, at least we won't be perplexed. Hopefully by
being forewarned we will also be fore-armed.

But prevention through consciousness-raising and
education is still the most effective strategy. Not
allowing the full expression of Friendly American
Fascism to occur and nonviolently dismantling the
already well-established American Empire should be the
main motivating factors for the antiwar movement. Enough
said.

Gary Kohls

==========

Gary:

During Vietman, during which I was a fervent anti-war
activist as well as being a conscientious objector and
refusing induction, many churches and religious groups
were against the war and people were willing to put
their life on the life in activism. We do not have that
any more. The anti-war movement is at our leisure, when
we have the time.

Religious leadership do not want to be labeled as
terrorist- sympathizers if they tell their congregation
not to enlist. They will quickly lose their position if
they preach against the war. The evangelical movement
within the military has corrupted Jesus' gospel and
anybody that mentions war as un- christian becomes the
heretic.

Conscription especially fueled the anti-war fire,
because young men were being forced into war against
their will. This is not occuring right now so it is not
affecting very many people.

Too many people are making too much money from the wars
and enlistments bonuses lure unsuspecting young men.

Another important facet is media censure or suppression
of war coverage. During Vietman we watched it on TV: the
atrocities, burning huts and villages, dropping bombs,
effects of napalm, throwing a hand gurnade into a house
and closing the door on the people inside. It was all
visible. Right now we have censure to the point that
either nothing is related or it is American propaganda,
meaning, events that are staged to indicate sucess. We
need to go to You- Tube to see what occurs. Here in Red-
Neck Bakersfield California, the local newspaper has
nothing about the war at all in the past 8 years. If
anything, it is the politics, but no genuine war
coverage like during Vietnam.

Corporations run America and are running the war. It is
a lost cause to oppose the government becuase the power
is not there any more. The power is in the hands of the
industrialists who build the war machines and the
corporations that control the media. When we hear of 300
or 500 or 700 billion dollers that is war funding, this
is actually the money expended to the military
industrial complex. It is Big Daddy Warbucks that is
protecting Little Orphan Annie, the working American, by
providing them jobs.

Still the effort of anti-war can not be curbed, becuase
even one person opposing recruitment or deployment or
exposing the atrocities can cause a tremendous amount of
influence in a lot of others and get them to thinking.
The state does not have the monopoly over free thought
and should not think it has. The few that have a
conscience will refuse to be part of the war machine,
and this is a victory in itself.

Dan Shubin www.christianpacifism.com
www.peacehost.net/peacechurch

==========

More on Albany (my comments to David McReynolds)

I noticed your comments on Portside in relation to the
Justin Raimondo article, which I actually found
interesting on some points.  I often check out his web
site at www.antiwar.com for information. It gives broad
coverage to many anti-war perspectives. I also think we
should be interested in some of the views of those
apparent "conservative libertarians" with anti-war and
anti- interventionist views. There are points of
agreement.

Anyway, I wasn't at the Albany anti-war gathering
although a couple members of our Rockland County peace
and justice group were ---- as were many others from
local weekly anti- war vigil groups, etc. We also
attended the initial Cleveland National Assembly
gathering in 2008 and the Pittsburgh gathering in 2009.
I think a primary motivation for the attendance by our
group the last three years (and the stated motivation of
many others) was to try to build a more unified focused
anti-war movement that would seek to mobilize for local
and national actions. The movement was split as
reflected by ANSWER on the one hand that attempted to
throw in every issue under the sun and a particular
political perspective and UFP&J that seemed to be too
wedded to the perceived needs of the Democratic Party
and election cycles causing it to stay off the streets
at crucial periods, etc. Every election cycle led to
demoralization and often paralysis and the need to have
to rebuild

At least in the past two years the alternative National
Assembly gatherings reportedly seemed to really reflect
the grass roots with many local and regional as well as
national groups present in a democratic atmosphere where
everyone had a voice. I think many of the local groups
from places like Rhode Island  or wherever, etc. kept
things "honest" by expecting the promised democratic
participation and thereby getting it.

While I was not in Albany last month, I am somewhat
concerned by the apparent turn towards multi-issue
politics to "reach people where they are at" that
appears to be the initial message coming out of the
gathering. That could be a morass that dilutes the hoped
for focused and strong anti- war stand for which many of
us hoped to build a sustainable "united front" of people
with various politics and philosophies.Hopefully, we are
not now headed for sectarian bickering over everyone's
pet issue where this once promising assemblage becomes
every body's recruiting ground for their own particular
issues and "churches" instead of mobilizing together on
the anti-war areas of agreement.

Nonetheless, I initially was motivated to respond to to
you because of your lament that the traditional peace
groups were not present to aid in shaping the agenda and
the movement that may result. It is true that many
groups (such as War Resisters League) apparently were
not present. However, it needs to be pointed out that
there were non- violent activists there, for example
Voices for Creative Nonviolence (Kathy Kelly), Mark
Johnson and others from FOR, Media Benjamin and Ann
Wright from Code Pink, etc. Yes, it would have been
better to have WRL, the Green Party, more PDA chapters
and many more fully participating; but the gathering was
not completely barren of those you think should be
participating to help mobilize united action. Let's hope
that better than we expect will come out of all this.

In Solidarity,

David Mitchell

==========

Can Americans Who Oppose War and Empire Work Together?

Or will both sides generalize about the worst of the
other and allow militarists to win?

By Kevin Zeese Executive Director, Voters for Peace

August 6, 2010

http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=4591

Senator Lindsay Graham, a war supporting senator from
South Carolina, said what he fears most is a left-right
alliance against the Afghanistan War. He recognizes that
such an alliance could stop war funding and force
American troops to return home. But, the masters of war
may not have to use divide and rule tactics because many
war opponents on both sides of the political spectrum
seem too willing to divide themselves.

The recent war funding vote in Congress, while showing
some progress in legislators voting against war, also
showed that a left-only anti-war movement will never
succeed in achieving its ends. The Democrats were
divided but that was not enough. Despite broad
opposition among Americans to the Afghan War, widespread
evidence of its failure and leaks of tens of thousands
of military documents showing that as bad as the war has
been reported, it is worse; the Congress voted by a
landslide to pour tens of billions into the failed war.

Anti-war activists should have learned from the build-up
to the Iraq War that a left coalition is insufficient to
stop a war. Record size demonstrations opposing the Iraq
War were held throughout the country. And, even though
it is easier to prevent a war than stop one, we failed.
What lessons do we learn from the experience? Do we
rebuild the same failed strategy or find another way?

What can Americans who oppose war, militarism and Empire
do to change the course of the country? This is no easy
task. The U.S. military is the strongest in world
history and deeply embedded in the American psyche from
its roots in Manifest Destiny, the Mexican War and war
in the Philippines. The hubris of American
Exceptionalism seems to block rationality. Today, the
government keeps investing more and more borrowed
dollars into making the world's strongest military even
stronger - something for which the leaders of both
parties do not mind borrowing hundreds of billions. The
U.S. keeps building its military despite spending as
much as the whole world combined on weapons and war,
even if it is at the expense of the rest of the U.S.
economy.

And, the U.S. Empire is far reaching, with more than a
thousand military bases and outposts on all corners of
the Earth. Yet, most Americans do not think of the
United States as an empire. Euphemisms are used like -
the U.S. is the policemen of the world - which falsely
describe the U.S. role as a benevolent rather then self-
serving one. The corporate media rarely mentions the
word `empire' when describing U.S. foreign policy
thereby keeping most Americans unaware of this reality.
Education across the political spectrum is needed.

Thus, the task of those who oppose the weapons and war
policy of the United States is a great challenge. It is
easy to get frustrated by the challenges of undoing
America's militarist foreign policy. But, there are
unique opportunities right now to confront the American
war machine. The economy is in the worst shape it has
been in decades and more see the direct connection of
how military spending undermines the civilian economy.
The public debt and deficit are at record highs in large
part due to trillion dollar wars and record military
budgets. The Iraq and Afghan wars, the opening rounds of
what some describe as the multi-generational "long war,"
are going poorly. And, the already stretched to the
breaking point military is seeing the potential of new
wars in Iran, Pakistan, North Korea as well as Latin
America and Africa. Thanks to Wikileaks and other
sources more and more Americans see the ugly reality of
U.S. war. This is an opportune time for peace activists
to have an impact.

But so far we have been unable to take advantage of the
opportunity. There are many obstacles for the peace
movement, not of our own making, but some are own fault.
Too often those who oppose war and empire argue with
each other rather than work together for peace. It is
time to find areas where we can unite so that a strong
American peace movement can develop, get the truth out
about U.S. militarism and create a political environment
where a paradigm shift away from weapons and war is
possible.

It can be challenging for some anti-war activists on the
left and the right to put aside prejudices even though
none of us are the cardboard cutout stereotype that the
other side sometimes imagines.

Recently I had the chance to participate in what I hoped
would be a reasoned discussion of how to build a broad-
based anti-war, pro-peace movement at a left leaning
national peace conference. I participated in a panel
entitled: "The Rise of Right Wing Populism and the Tea
Party: Do we need a right-left antiwar coalition?" The
panel was inspired in large part by my writing and
organizing on the issue, see www.ComeHomeAmerica.US.
But, I should have known from the title that it would
not be as useful a discussion as was needed.

The area of potential for a right-left alliance is with
traditional conservatives whose opposition to war and
empire goes back decades. These conservatives do not
feel an alignment with the militarist neocons who
dominate the Republican Party and most are curious
observers of the Tea Party. They see neocons as
destroyers of real conservatism and worry the Tea Party
being co-opted by them. From the left perspective, if
you do not want to reach out beyond those who already
agree with you, it is much easier to create a straw man
like the most extreme elements of the Tea Party as the
focus of debate than to wrestle with the real question
of forming a broad-based anti-war movement not limited
to the "left."

From the conservative side, labeling those on the left
as socialists, Trotskyites, Maoists or whatever other
red-bait label they want is the easy way to marginalize
the "left wing" peace movement. Red baiting has been a
decades long attack approach by the right. Rather than
talking about specific issues and whether they are
better handled by government or private industry, or
whether employee ownership or co-operatives are more
effective than capitalist ownership, just putting a red
label on it is a way to avoid discussion.

My hope is that we are at the beginning of opening lines
of respectful communication between those who oppose war
and Empire, who want to see the military budget cut and
re- investment in the U.S. economy. Unless we find a way
to get anti-war advocates from all across the political
spectrum working together we will never challenge
American Empire.

While the American Empire is an empire in its own
special American way, empires are not new, nor are
ending them. E.P. Thompson an influential British
historian who was editor of the New Left Review wrote
about the downfall of Rome and the importance of slave
and peasant revolts: "Empires only fall because a
sufficient number of people are sufficiently determined
to make them fall, whether those people live inside or
outside the frontier."

It is time for those inside the American Empire to join
together and demand its end: empire undermines the
economy, weakens security, increases racial divisions,
destroys the rule of law and creates failed democracies.
Isn't that enough to unite around?

Video of Debate at National Peace Conference on a right-
left anti-war coalition <
http://vodpod.com/watch/4126313-kevin-zeese-should-
there-be-a-rightleft-coalition-1-or-2.>

[Kevin Zeese is executive director of Voters For
Peacewhose right-left project is www.ComeHomeAmerica.US
]

_____________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]
Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
Account assistance: portside.org/contact
Search the archives: portside.org/archive

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019, Week 3
August 2019, Week 2
August 2019, Week 1
July 2019, Week 5
July 2019, Week 4
July 2019, Week 3
July 2019, Week 2
July 2019, Week 1
June 2019, Week 5
June 2019, Week 4
June 2019, Week 3
June 2019, Week 2
June 2019, Week 1
May 2019, Week 5
May 2019, Week 4
May 2019, Week 3
May 2019, Week 2
May 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 5
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 3
April 2019, Week 2
April 2019, Week 1
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 4
March 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 5
December 2018, Week 4
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 5
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 3
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 5
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 5
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager