Monday, April 02, 2007
MoveOn.Org Defends Itself
Don Harzen at Alternet has an interesting interview with MoveOn. Org co-founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades. MoveOn.Org has come into more public focus recently for its lobbying effort helping to get the recent Iraq War bill-which calls for a withdrawal date of US troops by 2008- passed through Congress. While for many committed to ending the Iraq war this was an important step, for others it was a sell-out and many of those critics directed their fire right at MoveOn for providing public support to Speaker Peolsi. For example as anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan recently wrote:
Here's another MoveOn.org critic from the anti-war movement.
Its true that MoveOn.org was one of the few organizations that has been associated with the anti-war movement that not only fully backed Peolsi's bill but actively lobbied Democratic House members to get it passed. MoveOn.org worked very hard for a compromised bill that many other anti-war groups refused to have anything to with. Blades give an excellent justification for her strategy however:
While not perfect, MoveOn.org is an excellent example of a grassroots movement that is trying seriously to deal with an inside/out strategy that is trying to balance the idealism and activism of its members with the realities of building a political coalition among disparate political forces-including those in power-in order to make changes in the power. Maneuvering without a political goal or ideal (or an accountable grassroots) will lead to useless compromises, but idealism and program without any ability to show political flexibility or go beyond mere protest will lead to impotence. Its refreshing to hear two leading progressives openly express both the challenges and opportunities they face in trying to carry out such a strategy. For a long time the left-probably since the 70's- has been forced to accept the option of lesser-evilism and political capitulation or sticking with isolated protest politics. For the first time in a long time we are seeing the emergence of progressive coalition politics in this country. Read the interview and see how.
"One group closely allied to the Democratic leadership, MoveOn, has used antiwar sentiment to triple both its membership and fundraising, but has been AWOL from antiwar activity; its members are prohibited from demonstrations, and only vigils for the war dead are posted as events on their website. A month ago I wrote that MoveOn began efforts to support "slow bleed" while antiwar forces actively opposed it"
Here's another MoveOn.org critic from the anti-war movement.
Its true that MoveOn.org was one of the few organizations that has been associated with the anti-war movement that not only fully backed Peolsi's bill but actively lobbied Democratic House members to get it passed. MoveOn.org worked very hard for a compromised bill that many other anti-war groups refused to have anything to with. Blades give an excellent justification for her strategy however:
"In a movement working to move forward, everyone plays a different role. Some organizations and leaders will demand nothing less than an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops. And that's a crucial part of the movement. It keeps us grounded in the real goal of all this -- bringing an end to the horror in Iraq. Not only will we always respect and support our friends who do that, it's a crucial source of pressure.
Others will help mobilize to show a unified front defying the President. We need toconnect a movement stretching from Cindy Sheehan to Nancy Pelosi. This is a tough new challenge. And given that most of the folks on the MoveOn list basically want to support the Democratic majority in moving forward ... When Democrats do move forward, this connection role partly falls to us.
Most MoveOn members, like ourselves, will embrace both these roles, at different times. Push like mad for the occupation to end, and then pivot to support broad political unity, when it's justified."
While not perfect, MoveOn.org is an excellent example of a grassroots movement that is trying seriously to deal with an inside/out strategy that is trying to balance the idealism and activism of its members with the realities of building a political coalition among disparate political forces-including those in power-in order to make changes in the power. Maneuvering without a political goal or ideal (or an accountable grassroots) will lead to useless compromises, but idealism and program without any ability to show political flexibility or go beyond mere protest will lead to impotence. Its refreshing to hear two leading progressives openly express both the challenges and opportunities they face in trying to carry out such a strategy. For a long time the left-probably since the 70's- has been forced to accept the option of lesser-evilism and political capitulation or sticking with isolated protest politics. For the first time in a long time we are seeing the emergence of progressive coalition politics in this country. Read the interview and see how.
Labels: anti-war movement, moveon.org
More and More Troops Demand Congress End the Iraq War
Anti-War.com has a good piece talking about the growing number of active duty servicemen and women who are signing a confidential on-line Appeal of Redress calling on Congress to end the Iraq war.
"Last week, a convoy of approximately 20 veterans riding in converted school buses left Fayetteville, North Carolina. They were sponsored by Veterans for Peace, armed with literature and headed for New Orleans, where they are spending this week rebuilding houses in the Ninth Ward. On the way, the group stopped at military bases throughout the South. Their goal? They were passing out copies of the Appeal for Redress, GI rights information, and copies of the videos "Ground Truth" and "Sir! No Sir!"
Veterans for Peace members say they're not trying to pressure GIs to resist war. They want to educate soldiers about their rights. They know from experience that the military frowns on dissent and doesn't go out of its way to educate soldiers regarding constitutionally protected ways to express their opinions on issues like war and peace. Despite popular opinion to the contrary, soldiers do indeed have rights
to express political dissent."
A big factor in ending the Vietnam War was not so much the anti-war movement on the college campuses but the anti-war movement among the GI's in the field. When enough active servicemen and women in Iraq start saying enough of this, that is when Bush signs on to a withdrawal date too.
Labels: anti-war movement
Friday, March 23, 2007
Congress Take a First Step
So the House finally voted to set a deadline to end the occupation of Iraq by the summer of 2008.
Of course not everybody is happy about it and I don't blame them. It is very far from perfect. It continues to fund the occupation for the next two years which was enough for some anti-war Congressmen and most anti-war groups to oppose the bill all together.
Code Pink for example was upset that MoveOn.org lent its support to Pelosi's bill instead of backing an amendment by Reps. Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey, leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, that called for withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2007. In today's Salon a Code Pink leader is quoted as saying:
“They could have put out an alert to 3.2 million people across the country and said, ‘If you do anything tomorrow, get up and call your representatives and tell them to support the Lee Amendment,’” insists CodePink’s Gail Murphy. “They’ve got millions of dollars. If they put their money toward stopping this war, we’d have a lot more leadership in the Democratic Congress toward stopping this war.” But MoveOn didn’t stump for the Lee plan, and it died in committee."
Doubt it. MoveOn.org helped win over the hard-core anti-war Congressmen for Pelosi's plan. The problem was winning over the "Blue Dogs" for any kind of anti-war motion and they would probably be unimpressed by a MoveOn.org email alert.
I understand the frustration, but Pelosi barely got through today's bill. Anything coming from the Out of Iraq caucus would have shattered Democratic unity and died on the floor if not in Committee. Now with today's bill Bush will be forced to veto a deadline for withdrawal and force a public debate about bringing our military involvement in Iraq to an end sooner than latter, not to mention showing the Republicans that the Democrats can show the same kind of unity that made the Republicans so powerful when they were the majority. I'm not saying the anti-war movement should base its activity on Congressional maneuvering, but it should avoid reacting too harshly to Congressional Democrats who backed this bill. The movement is faced with the challenge of deciding between a resolution closer to our ideal which would certainly fail versus a compromised resolution that could win and puts Congress a little closer to ending the occupation. It's a step.
Of course not everybody is happy about it and I don't blame them. It is very far from perfect. It continues to fund the occupation for the next two years which was enough for some anti-war Congressmen and most anti-war groups to oppose the bill all together.
Code Pink for example was upset that MoveOn.org lent its support to Pelosi's bill instead of backing an amendment by Reps. Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey, leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, that called for withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2007. In today's Salon a Code Pink leader is quoted as saying:
“They could have put out an alert to 3.2 million people across the country and said, ‘If you do anything tomorrow, get up and call your representatives and tell them to support the Lee Amendment,’” insists CodePink’s Gail Murphy. “They’ve got millions of dollars. If they put their money toward stopping this war, we’d have a lot more leadership in the Democratic Congress toward stopping this war.” But MoveOn didn’t stump for the Lee plan, and it died in committee."
Doubt it. MoveOn.org helped win over the hard-core anti-war Congressmen for Pelosi's plan. The problem was winning over the "Blue Dogs" for any kind of anti-war motion and they would probably be unimpressed by a MoveOn.org email alert.
I understand the frustration, but Pelosi barely got through today's bill. Anything coming from the Out of Iraq caucus would have shattered Democratic unity and died on the floor if not in Committee. Now with today's bill Bush will be forced to veto a deadline for withdrawal and force a public debate about bringing our military involvement in Iraq to an end sooner than latter, not to mention showing the Republicans that the Democrats can show the same kind of unity that made the Republicans so powerful when they were the majority. I'm not saying the anti-war movement should base its activity on Congressional maneuvering, but it should avoid reacting too harshly to Congressional Democrats who backed this bill. The movement is faced with the challenge of deciding between a resolution closer to our ideal which would certainly fail versus a compromised resolution that could win and puts Congress a little closer to ending the occupation. It's a step.
Labels: anti-war movement
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
StandupCongress.Org
Can't make it to DC every couple months to protest. The Win Without War coalition has started a useful website to assist grassroots lobbying to get Congress to end US occupation in Iraq without ever having to leave your town.
They have summaries of all the debates and bills on the floor regarding the war, and a useful toolkit of on-line materials to make you better informed on the issues. Highly recommended.
"StandUpCongress.Org is a "one-stop-shop" for Americans seeking information and tools to move Congress to take a stand to end the war in Iraq and prevent an escalation of war into Iran. The website is organized by the Win Without War coalition and allied groups, and our mission is to help you sort through the political labyrinth on Capitol Hill and give you the information you need to make a difference and move Congress to re-deploy US troops from Iraq. We are non-partisan and non-electoral. We rely on our members and friends - Members of Congress, activist groups, and a wide range of other sources of information - to provide insight and information that will be useful to you. We will provide you with updated information and links to these sources whenever possible. We are committed to translating the mandate delivered by the American people on November 7 - change course in Iraq and hold the Bush administration accountable - into action."
They have summaries of all the debates and bills on the floor regarding the war, and a useful toolkit of on-line materials to make you better informed on the issues. Highly recommended.
Labels: anti-war movement, StandupCongress.org, Win Without War
Monday, March 19, 2007
Anti-war protest and Bush's Bikers
This Saturday demonstration against the Iraq war much smaller than expected and much smaller than the January 27 rally. It was hard to get a sense of the actual number but I would venture under 30,000; probably less. A lot of it had to do with the weather. The northeast was pounded by surprise flurries the evening before, causing dozens of buses to cancel. Most DC demos rely on northeast turnout, so the cancellation had a definite effect. In addition Saturday was brutally cold. Another factor was the split between the two main coalitions, United for Peace and Justice and International ANSWER with the latter organizers of Saturday's demonstration preferring "purer", more radical politics.If ANSWER was looking for a more radically rhetorically event, than they certainly got it. The majority of demonstrators were college students, many belonging to one or another radical faction. Anti-capitalist slogans and revolutionary banners were plentiful. Most of the speakers belonged to one another ANSWER aligned group and they peppered their speeches with anti-imperialist slogans and talk of various non-Iraq war causes like the Cuban Five or the Palestinian right of return.I don't want to make it seem that the whole event was dominated by the radical left. There were many good mainstream speakers, including Salt Lake City Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson and many veterans, trade unionists and religious activists were in the crowd. And the anti Iraq war movement continues to be much more than just rallies in DC.But all in all, the event had the tone of a revolutionary left gathering as opposed to an anti-war demonstration.For ANSWER and the various radical groups in attendance that was their intention. According to the New York Times: “It is about radicalizing people,” Mr. Becker (Brian Becker, leader of International ANSWER) said in an interview. “You hook into a movement that exists — in this case the antiwar movement — and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism.”Also notable about the rally was the large number of counter-demonstrators. Various conservative bloggers and the right-wing protest group and organizer of the counter demonstration Move America Forward had put out the rumor on the internet that protestors were planning to deface the Vietnam Veterans memorial. Needless to say there is no evidence that any anti-war protestor advocated this, nor has the memorial ever been
defaced in any anti-war demonstration. I will write more about these groups latter but suffice to say the “Gathering of Eagles” is a front for Bush conservatives who were trying to mobilize Vietnam era veterans under the guise of “defending the memorials” and “supporting our troops” to back George Bush's surge. For example the founder of Move America Forward is one Howard Kaloogian, former member of the California State Assembly who launched the recall Grey Davis movement. Their chairperson is one Melanie Morgan, right radio talk show host who’s according to the Move America Forward website:"When President Clinton engaged in a series of criminal acts and then tried to
use his Administration to cover it up, Morgan rose up and led thousands to the
streets to demand Clinton’s impeachment.”
I don't remember thousands taking the streets in outrage over Clinton's marital infidelities but maybe I was listening to too much NPR at the time.While not outnumbering the anti-war protesters by any means as claimed by Fox, they were a sizable contingent and created some problems for the anti-war protesters by blocking them from getting to the rally site and yelling 
obscenities at them.Of course Fox News and conservative bloggers were all over them, claiming as “Gathering of Eagles” booster Michelle Malkin does that they are the "silent majority no more."Malkin and Kaloogian no doubt hope they can play at being Nixon by bringing in a new generation of blue collars to back the President's war policies, but the fact is the “silent majority” of Americans are still on the side of the protesters. Over 60% of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq with the 59% saying we need to pull out our troops out as soon as possible. And we can not forget that the Democratic landslide in November was largely the result of voter frustration and opposition to continuing the war.
Part of Nixon’s genius was that he managed to tap into middle America that both opposed the Vietnam war and anti-war protests (nearly 77% by 1968) dominated by student radicals by promising “peace with honor” which turned out to be a way of escalating the war while reducing the number of ground troops. The anti-war movement does not have that problem. Most Americans oppose the occupation and Bush has been so broke in terms of political capital that it would be impossible for him to swing the public behind him again.
obscenities at them.Of course Fox News and conservative bloggers were all over them, claiming as “Gathering of Eagles” booster Michelle Malkin does that they are the "silent majority no more."Malkin and Kaloogian no doubt hope they can play at being Nixon by bringing in a new generation of blue collars to back the President's war policies, but the fact is the “silent majority” of Americans are still on the side of the protesters. Over 60% of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq with the 59% saying we need to pull out our troops out as soon as possible. And we can not forget that the Democratic landslide in November was largely the result of voter frustration and opposition to continuing the war.Part of Nixon’s genius was that he managed to tap into middle America that both opposed the Vietnam war and anti-war protests (nearly 77% by 1968) dominated by student radicals by promising “peace with honor” which turned out to be a way of escalating the war while reducing the number of ground troops. The anti-war movement does not have that problem. Most Americans oppose the occupation and Bush has been so broke in terms of political capital that it would be impossible for him to swing the public behind him again.
"Gathering of Eagles" Engage in a Friendly Discussion with Anti-War Protestors
Still the appearance of Bush’s biker brigades indicates that the anti-war movement can not afford to outdistance the American public through ultra-radicalism or small scale direct action. In some sectors of the movement,-not only among the sectarian groups-there is increasing talk of using the politics of guilt as a device to mobilize people and needing to up the ante and turn protest into resistance. Even Cindy Sheehan, whose powerful appeal to many Americans who were unsure about the war was based on her ability to represent those mothers who have lost children in Iraq has let her self “become radicalized” spending more time during her speech talking about the problems of imperialism than the actual war itself. As one anti-war student organization put it:
"We refuse to be subtle in our outcry against this war, we refuse to do nothing and be silent while people are killed in our name for profit for the rich and we refuse to be sent overseas in a war for oil."
Besides being incorrect about the facts on the ground (most Iraqis are dying in the same of one of two branches of Islam at this point), such language is moralizing and self-isolating. The pressure to end this war is felt by many. America can only move forward and develop new standing in the world until the occupation is over. And the majority is with
us on this but we can’t afford to leave them behind in a quest to radicalize a small section of activists. We don't need more radical resisters; we need more letter writers, email forwarders, meeting hosters and precinct captains.
Besides being incorrect about the facts on the ground (most Iraqis are dying in the same of one of two branches of Islam at this point), such language is moralizing and self-isolating. The pressure to end this war is felt by many. America can only move forward and develop new standing in the world until the occupation is over. And the majority is with
us on this but we can’t afford to leave them behind in a quest to radicalize a small section of activists. We don't need more radical resisters; we need more letter writers, email forwarders, meeting hosters and precinct captains. The problem is not that if we radicalize the anti-war movement it will create a backlash, turning middle Americans on to the war and Bush. The whole war is too much of a disaster and Bush is just not credible enough for that to happen. The problem is that if the anti-war movement artificially cuts off all bridges of communication through ultra radical language and actions, Americans will just end up tuning it out. The anti-war movement must play a role but it needs to meet people where they are, not where its organizers may be.
Labels: anti-war movement, Gathering of Eagles, International ANSWER, Move America Forward
Friday, March 16, 2007
You'd think the War Was Obey's Fault
Going off my post from a couple days ago on Rep. Obey I just got this over the wire:
"The Democrats attempted to silence debate in the Rayburn Building-- half an hour ago 19 youth from FIST (Fight Imperialism Stand Together) stormed Rayburn to let them know that the people will not be silenced...Today--minutes ago-- a diverse group of 19 youth, mostly women, entered the Rayburn Building, to demand "Money for Jobs and Education, not for War and Occupation" and "Cut the Funding, End the War; Troops Out Now!"Their demands were loud enough to be heard from across the street and prevented the Congressional offices and hearings from conducting their daily business of imperialism, greed, and oppression.The Capitol cops were clearly unprepared for the militant youth and could only attempt to chase them through the building as they marched through every hallway on all three floors.Members of Congress may attempt to hide their crimes behind "non-binding resolutions" and phony timetables, but the antiwar movement is not fooled by political posturing. Resistance will only increase until Congress does what the people have demanded--cut off the funds and bring the troops home."
So "FIST" will keep getting arrested for barging into Congressional hearings until Congress-which would have to include the Republicans too-gets
sick of paying the Capitol police over time and brings all the troops home. As Rep. Obey so nicely put it: "Do you see a magic wand in my pocket? We don't have the votes for it." All this is going to do is making harder to get into Congressional hearings. Its one thing for SDS to protest in front of the 1968 Democratic Party national convention; they had after all shut out all opposition to the Vietnam war and it was legitimate to see it as their war. Its another thing to decide that Congress-which has finally began to check Bush's war powers-is now the main enemy which will be targeted by direct action stunts.This is classic substitution of moral witness for real politics not to mention politically disorienting.
sick of paying the Capitol police over time and brings all the troops home. As Rep. Obey so nicely put it: "Do you see a magic wand in my pocket? We don't have the votes for it." All this is going to do is making harder to get into Congressional hearings. Its one thing for SDS to protest in front of the 1968 Democratic Party national convention; they had after all shut out all opposition to the Vietnam war and it was legitimate to see it as their war. Its another thing to decide that Congress-which has finally began to check Bush's war powers-is now the main enemy which will be targeted by direct action stunts.This is classic substitution of moral witness for real politics not to mention politically disorienting. Of course in the case of "FIST", they aren't as naive as they seem. They are the youth group for a Kim Il Sung loving, Tiananmen Square massacre supporting Marxist-Leninist sect who is merely trying to impress college students by being the first to up the ante in the ultra-militancy game. It isn't going to help the movement and it isn't going to give us power. Its true that power conceded nothing without a demand; its also true that if those power show some interest in your demands you don't kick them in the teeth.
Not that the Iraq supplemental they voted on doesn't have major flaws. One could say it stinks. I doubt FIST is going to do a lot to change it though.
I'll let you all know about tomorrow. I'm glad to read in the Post that legitimate anti-war groups(in this case Christian ones) will be protesting in DC tonight.
Labels: anti-war movement, FIST, Rep. Obey, Workers World Party
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
In defense of David Obey
Harold Meyerson at the Washington Post has a nice defense of the new chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) against his anti-war critics.
Despite the taunts from both the G.O.P and the extreme elements of the anti-war left, the Democratic led Congress under Speaker Nancy Pelosi-who has remained consistently anti-war-is developing a realistic plan to end of the US occupation of Iraq. Unfortunately for some, a plan isn’t good enough. Perhaps reflecting the civic ignorance of many of countrymen, some on the anti-war left think all we need a big-bang vote and boom; out come the troops.
As Meyerson puts it:
“Last week, as he was working to build support for amendments that would impose a 2008 deadline on U.S. combat activities in Iraq, Obey was accosted by Tina Richards, an antiwar activist and mother of a Marine. With YouTube immortalizing the encounter, Richards asked Obey why he was supporting the supplemental war appropriations bill to which the amendments would be attached and why Congress couldn't just defund the war and bring the troops home now…Obey has since apologized for blowing up, but that hasn't deterred some antiwar bloggers from condemning him as some loony warmonger.”
Despite the taunts from both the G.O.P and the extreme elements of the anti-war left, the Democratic led Congress under Speaker Nancy Pelosi-who has remained consistently anti-war-is developing a realistic plan to end of the US occupation of Iraq. Unfortunately for some, a plan isn’t good enough. Perhaps reflecting the civic ignorance of many of countrymen, some on the anti-war left think all we need a big-bang vote and boom; out come the troops.
As Meyerson puts it:
"What Pelosi and Obey understand that their critics on the left seem to
ignore is that it will take numerous congressional votes and multiple
confrontations with Bush to build the support required to end U.S. involvement.
Thanks to the Constitution's division of powers, Congress and the White House
seem bound for months of fighting over the conditions attached to any approval
of funds for continuing our operations in Iraq. Over time, as the war drags on,
either enough Republicans will join their Democratic colleagues to put an end to
U.S. intervention, or they will stick with Bush, thereby ensuring there will be
a sufficient number of Democrats in the next Congress to end the war."
I’m not saying that the anti-war movement should pack up and let Congress do its job. Politicians react to organized pressure and the organized anti-war movement needs to make sure that our representatives are reminded that November 2006 was largely a referendum on the Iraq war and that the American people want our involvement in Iraq to end. Parts of the responsible anti-war movement are already doing this.
The irresponsible anti-war left-those folks who think Congressional Democrats are now our main enemy and should be confronted head on-on the other hand seems to be aping Stalin’s bad advice to the German Communists in the early 1930’s; their main enemy was not the Nazi’s, but the reformist Social-Democrats. As one spokesperson for this trend and frequent O’Reilly Factor guest put it:
“The triumph of the new Democratic Congress on their first day and their
promises of a "new direction" offered all the refreshment of Lysol dressing up
the stench of rotting homes of New Orleans' Ninth Ward, of human waste and blood
in the secret C.I.A. torture dungeons, and of the mangled bodies that are being
chewed by dogs in the streets of of Baghdad…Throughout their painstakingly
choreographed first day in Congress, the horrors that the Democrats are working
with the Bush Regime to push out of the public eye and the deep and widespread
disgust of millions with these horrors kept bubbling up.”
Right. If we really think that we have made no progress in influencing those in power we might as well give it up, because if the only tactic we have available to us is direct action stunts and mini-protests to topple the President, progressives will remain impotent. Ending the war in Iraq will means at this point an active coalition with Congressional Democrats, particularly with consistent anti-war Democrats like Jack Murtha, Jim Webb and yes, Nancy Pelosi. Like any coalition it will be fraught with compromise and frustration and at times will move slower than we would like. But in America, political coalitions are the only means to power as shown by the successes and failures of nearly every progressive movement in our history.
Speaking of the anti-war movement, this Saturday there will be a march on the Pentagon. Sadly the whole affair is organized by the leading exponent of the irresponsible anti-war left, International ANSWER. I’m still planning to go and will report back, in general it's a waste of time for progressive activists to work with these outfits that are almost wholly dominated by ultra-left dinosaurs with reactionary and bizarre politics. I would say we have under three years left of occupation to go and by 2008 the neo-conservative school of foreign policy will be almost wholly shunned. At this point these groups will have moved on to another issues to organize a “mass movement” around. We should be working on a building a long-term progressive coalition with the forces that can actually make change in society-labor, the African American and Latino community, young activists and progressive elected officials-not just scream at those in power.
Labels: anti-war movement, David Obey, Harold Meyerson, Internation ANSWER
