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

[BillCunningham]

By non-electoral work around medical issues I would include stuff like that but also, eg setting up free clinics, distributing medical marijuana, presenting public lectures on alternatives, working with unions and community groups like ACE... what I have in mind is more counterinstitutional, ongoing work, not just lobbying and petitions, which are sort of episodic, like elections are.

I agree we must get elected at that level, but we need a strategy to get to a position where that is possible. It seems to me that the best way to do that is to develop a base of elected officials who gain experience and confidence at the local level, and one of the byproducts of building ongoing nonelectoral efforts, including independent media, would be to develop a party infrastructure capable of supporting larger-scale campaigns.

Only people who are already rich and powerful, like Kerry, Kennedy, Romney et al, can successfully launch political careers near the top of the system. 

-----Original Message-----
>From: John Walsh <jvwalshmd at gmail.com>
>Sent: May 4, 2007 11:48 AM
>To: BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net>
>Cc: gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.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.
>
>Hello Bill,
>I have done non-electoral work for years, most notably on
>single-payer.  We have tried everything and we have failed so far -
>although we won the argument in the public mind long ago over
>single-payer.
>
>I have had to recognize that our government is basically a
>representative one.  There is simply no getting around that, and that
>by hook or by crook we must get elected at the state and federal
>level.
>
>Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have made an enormous difference in the
>debate over the war - just two of them.  But they cannot do anything
>more than develop a personal following because they have no
>organization to direct people to.  They are both mired in the Dem and
>Republican parties.
>
>Think what might happen if they were Greens and their actions
>constituted a call to join the Greens.
>Ever the optimist,
>jw
>p.s. That is where I feel that Nader failed, as did people like Jerry
>Brown and Jesse Jackson before him.  They did not try to create
>another organization but stuck with the Dems or in the case of Ralph
>simply ran as an independent.
>
>
>
>
>On 5/4/07, BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Again the matter of words. What "grassroots" used to mean was a lot of people in a lot of places, who suddenly find themselves almost spontaneously organizing along similar lines. The populists are an example. Another is the spread of lunch-counter sit-ins to hundreds of locales within a few weeks. It's not that nobody had been preparing for these things or that there were no organizations in place trying to promote them. But now we have nonprofits, government agents, trendseekers and issue sniffers scouring the ground constantly ready to move in on the first hint of spontaneity and smother it with their attentions. They in turn are linked up with guys like AIPAC and the Dems. Those are the folks with the organizational structures, staffs, money etc to be able to channel and control. Thousands of people signing an online petition is the opposite of grassroots. Someone takes an initiative that is rapidly disseminated through the internet and people assent to it with a click of their mouse. That is just a tool, not a movement. Is it a shortcut or a short circuit?
>>
>> As to a principled opposition to war and empire, there are many small socialist and libertarian groups that can claim that with more justice than we. Check out the Green party state and local sites, blogs, green parties in other countries and you will find a wide variety of views rather than a clear and principled position. One of the first papers put out by the GP-affiliated policy think-tank in DC was on defence policy. I don't think you will find it happy reading.  I just skimmed a new book by former German GP FM Joschka Fischer, where he writes of the tasks of the West in terms that are not so different from the US duopoly consensus. The French GP defends the State of Israel's right to exist. The Czech GP is in a ruling coalition government right now that is bringing in a US Star Wars missile base; the PM stated a few weeks ago that global warming was taking the place of communism and must be exposed as a myth.
>>
>> I honestly don't believe that we can win elections at more than a local level at this point, so we are not a real electoral alternative. We may be able to spoil a few, but it doesn't seem the Dems really care. With few exceptions, they are happy enough with Bush in office as long as they have Nader to blame for their own failures.
>>
>> I believe that the political system in this country requires us to emphasize non-electoral work and to focus electoral work at the local levels where we can win office.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: John Walsh <jvwalshmd at gmail.com>
>> >Sent: May 4, 2007 10:05 AM
>> >To: BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net>
>> >Cc: gary hicks <gooberthink06 at yahoo.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.
>> >
>> >Hi Bill,
>> >I agree with you that the antiwar movement is not what it should be.
>> >But if you look at Michael Moore's web site there is enormous grass
>> >roots activity.  (Our own FilibusterForPeace.org site now has
>> >thousands of signatures in just a few weeks time.  And this gives us a
>> >mighty data base of activists not tied to the Dems.  This might have
>> >been a Green or GRP site, but for -------.)
>> >
>> >The lack of new leaders and better organization is due, in my
>> >experience, to two factors - the Dems and AIPAC.  They have kept the
>> >movement tied to the Dems and expelled or isolated anyone who stepped
>> >outside the narrow political bounds that they tolerate.  But the rank
>> >and file in the movement are chafing at those restraints.
>> >
>> >What do the Greens offer?  A principled opposition to war and empire
>> >and an antiwar electoral alternative to the Dems.  That would make a
>> >world of difference.  In fact I think it is our moral obligation to
>> >offer that leadership.
>> >And the Dems are scared to death that this might occur.
>> >See: http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh05012007.html    "Edgy Dems, etc."
>> >jw
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 5/4/07, BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> 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
>> >>
>>
>>
>> Bill Cunningham
>>


Bill Cunningham