[statecom-discuss] Re: The people are in motion to oppose war andempire.

[Betty H. Zisk]

Bill: I havent followed this particular phase of the debate closely but I do agree with your point that the peace movement is in the doldroms at the moment. As someone who has been a longtime activist as well as someone who has taught a seminar on pollitical movements since about 1975 (that is very popular at BU--I usually have a waiting list of about 5 students wanting to get into the seminar of 21 students) I feel somewhat qualified to speak up. It has always been so, even during the height of the Vietnam War. My own students attend the seminar I teach more because of curiosity rather than commitment. Many of them are confused (as you are not) about what exactly constitutes mvt activity. They are puzzled and even negative as to why anyone would become a conscientious objector (one of my sons got that status as a birthright Quaker very easily during Vietnam; the others were too young to be drafted). They think that movement activity consists of something like membership and activity in Mass Pirg. They think Quakers are quaint remnants of the past. When I pt out that AFSC New Eng Regional Office is alive and well and I invite a selected few to come to Friends Meeting at Cambridge they look at me as if I had disobeyed the fundamentals of separation of church and state. 

I personally am not discouraged. As two or three of my good friends (all peace people) said when I came to the conclusion of my last major book (on peace and environmental activism)--and was highly discouraged--"Betts, we are in it for the long haul. Hang in." I think we might be more positive about our purpose. It is the peace movement, not the antiwar movement. And it is found in the nooks and crannies, not in those huge demonstrations to which I have stopped going. It is found in quiet actions like tax refusal (which many of us still do). It is found in the quiet way I announce several times at beginning of classes that I am a draft counsellor and that if anyone wants to see me they are welcome and here is my snail mail and e mail address. It is alive and well in Western MA (Pioneer Valley) and in Maine more than here as far as I can tell. 

Finally I dont agree with your main pt that we need a MASS MOVEMENT. We can prevail with small numbers. I DO agree with you that there is a lack of new leadership but even there I am not sure. We are sometimes quiet and very often split. That is because (I fear) our numbers include many who are tactically committed to antiwar--not to positive values of nonviolence. Fondly and in solidarity, Betts Zisk

-----Original Message-----
From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
[mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of
BillCunningham
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 7:55 AM
To: gary hicks; John Walsh; NeedToKnow at green-rainbow.org;
adcom.members at green-rainbow.org; Discussion List for StateCom members;
Jill Stein; David Rolde; ronghua.zhuge at umassmed.edu
Subject: [statecom-discuss] Re: The people are in motion to oppose war
andempire.


I wasn't bemoaning anything then, but I will now. 

I hereby bemoan the careless way we treat one another (a.k.a. the human material at hand), and our habit of using words as masks, rather than as tools. 

To paraphrase the Bee Gees, "It's only words, but words are all we have (at the moment), to take their power away."

When I said there is no peace movement, I assumed agreement on what a movement is. I shouldn't have. 

Surely though, the word suggests both motion and direction. 

I propose that a real US peace movement would be COUNTRYWIDE, and a MASS movement, meaning a lot of people ACTIVELY involved, not just a passive Silent Majority.   

In the past a movement meant (I thought) that there were always new organizations popping up, so that new leaders and patricipants came to renew and clearly outnumber the "original" leaders and patricipants. 

A social movement must include many organizations and competing ideas, but cannot be reduced to any of them. It has a life of its own, independent of established legal, State, and media structures, though it's not completely separate from them. 

Millions of people in the US, apparently a silent majority, are opposed to current war policies. But if you go to the meetings and rallies, you don't see a lot of new leaders there. You don't see new organizations. If you look at the organized opposition, what is it? You see lots of websites, nonprofits mostly attuned to the Democrat party, and some small socialist and anarchist groups. You don't see large activist organizations. 

Has that situation changed since GRP was sending reps to UJP? If we were to reconnect now, what would we bring to the table? Do we have a distinct strategy to propose? Are we in a position to participate as a coherent, visible group in the current consensual "strategy" of sporadic protest demonstrations?

I agree that antiwar work should be a core GRP activity. But HOW to do this work should be part of a strategic decision that we have yet to make. In order to make responsible decisions, I hope we can replace wishful thinking with a serious inventory of our strengths and weaknesses and of the current political environment in Massachusetts. 

Peace,



-----Original Message-----
>From: gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com>
>Sent: May 3, 2007 8:24 PM
>To: BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net>, John Walsh <jvwalshmd at gmail.com>, NeedToKnow at green-rainbow.org, adcom.members at green-rainbow.org, Discussion List for StateCom members <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>, Jill Stein <jstein at massmed.org>, David Rolde <davidrolde at comcast.net>, ronghua.zhuge at umassmed.edu
>Subject: Re: The people are in motion to oppose war and empire.
>
>to paraphrase john reed to emma goldman, in the movie "reds": DAMMIT, IT'S NOT THE PEACE MOVEMENT WE WANTED, BUT IT'S THE ONE WE'VE GOT!!!
>
>instead of bemoaning the lack of a peace movement, we need to deal with the human materiel at hand in this country, and therefore the prospects and limits of what we can do at this hour. otherwise, we should pack up, go home, tell the bourgeoisie we were just kidding all along, andf re-enroll in sunday school where god is in his heaven and all is well ---------------------
>
>gary
>
>BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net> wrote: John, the problem can't our relationship with the peace movement. There really is no peace movement. The problem is how to bring one into being. What strategy to achive this would we offer antiwar activists? If we have one I am not aware of it. As a party we aren't organizing around ANYTHING at the moment. 
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: John Walsh 
>>Sent: May 2, 2007 2:05 PM
>>To: NeedToKnow at green-rainbow.org, adcom.members at green-rainbow.org, Discussion List for StateCom members , Jill Stein , David Rolde , ronghua.zhuge at umassmed.edu
>>Subject: The people are in motion to oppose war and empire.
>>
>>PLEASE POST
>>
>>I am more than a little frustrated by our attitude toward and
>>relationship to the peace movement.  For years now THE MAIN thing on
>>the minds of the electorate is the war on Iraq - with others, Lebanon
>>(again) Somalia, Iran, Sudan, Syria, looming on the horizon.
>>It is no secret that the empire wants to lock up access to the world's
>>oil supply and that the Israel Lobby wants to use the U.S. to wage war
>>on as  much of the Arab and Muslim world as possible.
>>
>>Where are we?  As I think of it, we are elsewhere.  We have our
>>priorities and the people have theirs.  How smart is that?  The people
>>have lost faith in the Democrats as an antiwar party as the polls
>>show.  But have we presented an alternative?  Are we there at every
>>possible community meeting, every demonstration, every meeting of UJP,
>>UFPJ, ANSWER, etc, offering an alternative specifically labeled as a
>>GRP alternative.  The answer is NO.  We are engaged in internal
>>squabbles, putting out manifestos, forming ever more committees and on
>>and on.  And we are not even a member of many of these coalitions.
>>How many have worked actively with MFSO, Vets for Peace, Smedley
>>Butler (many of whom did show up at our anti-Kerry picket which could
>>have been a GRP picket by the way)?  We are too small to do everything
>>and it would seem that  our number one priority should be that of the
>>people and the things that are setting them in motion.
>>
>>The only time that the GRP has made a really big deal out of the war
>>was when Chuck Turner introduced the antiwar resolution in the City
>>Council.  It got front page news and even that reliable lackey of
>>AIPAC, Menino, had to vote for it.  (The GRP was not mentioned in the
>>news coverage.)  Even  that effort although the best was too
>>short-lived
>>
>>If this is not dysfunctionality, I do not know what is.  Of the
>>innumerable committees, do we have one that is directed at the war on
>>Iraq.  So we have a golden opportunity and it is being systematically
>>squandered.  UJP in this area is not doing its job.  They are in bed
>>with the Democrats even though many if not most of the rank and file
>>do not like this state of affairs.   They desperately need our input.
>>But  we seem to have "other priorities" to quote our Vice President.
>>
>>The Dems are running scared but if there is no alternative to them,
>>they have nothing to worry about.  I hope you have a chance to read
>>the following:
>>http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh05012007.html
>>***
>>May 1, 2007
>>
>>Fear and Vitriol in the Halls of Congress
>>
>>Edgy Dems Snarl at Their Antiwar Base
>>
>>By JOHN V. WALSH
>>
>>Democrats in Congress are growing increasingly hostile toward their
>>antiwar base. David Obey has provided the most notorious example upon
>>a chance encounter with Marine Mom, Tina Richards, in a Congressional
>>hallway. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS4wHMCc57k). Richards
>>had tried to talk with Obey, her Congressman, for a long time, but he
>>had successfully eluded her until this day. Now she and other antiwar
>>activists were lobbying in the Capitol in an attempt to get "our"
>>Senators and Representatives to cut off funding for the war. Not
>>surprisingly, Obey gave the standard response when Richards asked why
>>he continues to fund the war. "We don't have the votes," he shouted at
>>her. To which the answer is of course: "Congressman, we only want your
>>one vote, and your help in getting the rest. You cannot win if you do
>>not fight." Talk to any Dem politician and he or she will tell that
>>they on your side but the others are the problem. So the votes are not
>>there collectively, but individually everyone is on the side of peace.
>>That is a very strange calculus.
>>
>>The odious aspect of the encounter was that Obey set about attacking
>>the Marine Mom and the handful of Democrats who, unlike him, refused
>>to vote supplemental funding for the war. "Idiot liberals," was the
>>first outburst, followed by: "The liberal groups are jumping around
>>without knowing what the hell is in the [supplemental funding] bill";
>>"You're smoking something illegal"; and "If you guys don't stop
>>screwing it up," we will end the war. Finally an aide pulled him away
>>and he waddled through a door and slammed it shut in Richards face.
>>What is wrong here? Why would he treat this worried mother in such a
>>shabby way?
>>
>>It is not just Obey; he just happened to get caught on camera. When we
>>went to visit Senator Kerry's aide here in MA we got the same
>>response. We were just "a bunch of liberals." Senator Kerry, the aide
>>said petulantly, is trying to do "some good in the world", not just
>>trying to "feel good" like "you liberals." And again from my "liberal"
>>Congressman Capuano, the same thing. Capuano assured us that he was
>>trying to do some real good in the world unlike "the liberals" who
>>voted against the supplemental. Again the anger at the "liberal"
>>groups and the ten Congresspeople (two of them Republicans) who voted
>>against the supplemental out of opposition to the war was ferocious.
>>Why is this?
>>
>>I submit that these Democrats are running scared. They know that their
>>antiwar base is crucial to winning their next election. Without it
>>they might lose in 2008. In strongly antiwar districts like Capuano's
>>in Massachusetts or Obey's in Wisconsin, there is a real danger of
>>losing their Congressional seats, than which nothing is more important
>>to them. And the few genuine antiwar voices in their party, Dennis
>>Kucinich or Barbara Lee, for example, make then look bad by
>>comparison. They wish these bothersome liberals would just go away.
>>What if a strong antiwar Democrat were to appear in the next primary
>>or what if a Green should run in the general against them in '08? Can
>>they win if their antiwar base is fed up with them and turns
>>elsewhere? And what if they also face a strong Republican opponent,
>>which is Kerry's problem in '08?
>>
>>The same dynamic showed up in the recent MoveOn town hall meeting,
>>which featured phone presentations and questions for each of the
>>antiwar candidates, meaning Democratic candidates. (Libertarian Ron
>>Paul was not invited, unsurprisingly since MoveOn is a wholly owned
>>subsidiary of the Democratic Party.) A vote was taken afterwards on
>>the favorite candidate of the antiwar participants, and the results
>>were headlined as "Clinton suffers virtual defeat in MoveOn vote on
>>Iraq," or "Clinton Bombs in Liberal Straw Poll.
>>
>>With 43,000 people responding, the numbers were: Obama, 28 per cent;
>>Edwards, 25 per cent; Kucinich, 17 per cent; Richardson, 12 per cent;
>>Clinton, 10 per cent; with only Biden and Dodd lower. The
>>interpretation is simple. If you are seen as pro-war, your prospects
>>are dim. True to form, having taken the poll, MoveOn quickly
>>disappeared the results from its web site. One can be fairly certain
>>that the Dem hierarchy was displeased with the results for HRC and
>>ordered the whole thing air brushed away. MoveOn dutifully obliged.
>>
>>The striking thing about the poll is how well Kucinich did. He is the
>>only one in the entire pack who can legitimately claim to be antiwar.
>>Obama and Edwards were ahead of him only because they are widely
>>perceived, or more accurately misperceived, as antiwar. And of course
>>they get tons of sympathetic coverage in the mass media. But their
>>true colors are becoming ever clearer. Recently (4/29) in the
>>Washington Post, the rabid neocon Robert Kagan of the American
>>Enterprise Institute, adviser to the McCain campaign and lead
>>proponent of war on Iran, heaped praise on Obama for being an advocate
>>of pre-emptive war and of increasing the army and marines by tens of
>>thousands of troops. ( For his part Edwards is now exposed by Senator
>>Durbin's disclosure that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee knew
>>that the administration was lying in the lead-up to the war on Iraq.
>>Durbin excuses himself from hiding the truth from the public by saying
>>the committee was sworn to secrecy. But that was a time to come
>>forward with the truth and take the consequences--even jail--to stop a
>>war based on lies. And it is even worse to have been on that committee
>>and to have voted for the war. John Edwards was on that committee.
>>John Edwards voted for the war. It turns out that John Edwards did in
>>fact know then what he knows now! Durbin is the second Senator to have
>>outed Edwards in this way, the first being former Senator Bob Graham.
>>
>>The Democrats are in an awful bind. They have been complicit in this
>>war from the beginning--up to their necks in the death and destruction
>>every bit as much as W. That provides an opening for a new start in
>>American politics. But this means that the Greens and the Libertarians
>>must seize the moment, overcome their dysfunctionality and pose a
>>serious challenge to the two War Parties. The Democrats are on the
>>run; will we go get 'em? Will we live up to the challenge?
>>
>>John Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar at gmail.com. He encourages one
>>and all to join the many thousands who have signed the petition at
>>WWW.FilibusterForPeace.org. It only takes 41 of the 51 Democratic
>>Senators to bring the war on Iraq to an end. They have the power. Why
>>do they not use it?
>
>
>Bill Cunningham
>
>
>       
>---------------------------------
>Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.


Bill Cunningham
_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss