Activism

The antiwar movement must rise again. Now

iraq 045
Anti-Iraq war protest. February 15, 2003 (Photo: REUTERS/Peter Macdiarmid)

For the last month there has been a rather heated discussion on this site and others about Ron Paul and to what extent his candidacy for the Presidency should be viewed as a positive vehicle for raising the issues of war, occupation, America’s military footprint (including bases) apoad, interventionism and civil liberties. Having watched Ron Paul the other night in the first Florida Primary debate, I can only conclude that his participation in these debates is helpful to those issues. His arguments were reasonable and plausible, and should not have been taken as extreme by the average viewer. Moreover, Paul faced three other individuals on the stage who presented polar opposite views to himself. On the issue of Iran specifically, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum had a contest to see who could sound more determined about going to war with Iran. Sadly, it is highly unlikely that we will hear such contrasting viewpoints in the future debates involving President Obama.

In the South Carolina Republican primary last Saturday Ron Paul received 13% of the vote and the nod from only 10% of the voters who identified themselves as Republicans in the exit polling. He received 14% to 15% of the Republican vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. Paul polls better among declared Independents, and will achieve higher numbers in states that have open primaries. In open states Independents will vote for him out of conviction and some Democrats will vote for him tactically. With a current ceiling of about 15% of the Republican vote, there is no realistic path for Ron Paul to the Republican nomination.

More importantly, to what extent are Paul voters motivated by his positions on international issues and civil liberties? The readily available polling date on this question is not extensive, but based on what I have found, even the most optimistic interpretation of the data would indicate only a small minority of Paul voters are primarily driven to vote for him based on these issues. In the Florida debate, Gingrich went out of his way to associate himself with Ron Paul’s FED and monetary recommendations. Of course, Gingrich wouldn’t go near Paul’s anti-war message.

To those readers who are convinced that Ron Paul is the answer – and maybe the only answer – to changing US policy, I say, “Keep on Truckin,” no need to read further. To the rest of us, and particularly those people who call themselves Progressives, I argue we should look back a year and ask what went wrong, and how did Ron Paul end up the only anti-war candidate of 2012.

I contend that the Democratic base is more inclined towards anti-war positions than the Republican base, and that no anti-war movement will succeed without getting the support of that Democratic base. Hence, the first question is: “how did we end up with no significant challenger to President Obama in the Democratic primaries?” Going back in modern American history, there have been two major primary challenges to existing Democratic Presidents, McCarthy vs Johnson in 1968, and Kennedy vs Carter in 1980. The latter contest revolved around Kennedy himself, so I will concentrate on the challenge to Lyndon Johnson.

Allard K  Lowenstein
Allard K Lowenstein

The Dump Johnson Movement arose in 1967 around opposition to the Vietnam War. Two individuals, Allard Lowenstein and Curtis Gans, were the main drivers behind the movement. Lowenstein, in particular, actively spoke at numerous university forums to kick-start the effort. He tried to convince Robert Kennedy and then others to run, but all refused. Finally, in October 1967 Senator Eugene McCarthy accepted the long-shot challenge. McCarthy did so well against Johnson in the initial primaries, the President suddenly decided to withdraw from the race.  The Movement succeeded beyond all expectations. Unfortunately, Robert Kennedy was assassinated after he too entered the race as an anti-war candidate. Chaos followed within the Democratic Party, which led to the election of Richard Nixon that November. But the seeds were planted for a major reform of the Presidential nomination process four years later. Rules that basically remain in tack to this day.

My point is that despite all the advances in social networking and public communications that have occurred in 44 years, no major individual or group has persistently attempted an organized primary challenge to President Obama as Lowenstein did in 1967. And no major Democratic politician has shown a willingness to run. No profiles in courage this year. I will not deny that the Vietnam War was a larger issue in 1967 than the Mideast wars are today, and that asking Democrats to challenge the first African-American President presents a special problem, but I suspect not putting up a primary challenger to President Obama is going to be judged by history as a mistake. What is clear is that our views are not getting a proper airing in the 2012 Presidential discussions.

It is now too late for a primary challenge. Moving on, “Why is there no organized anti-war movement in 2012?” Before George Bush’s Iraq war there actually were massive global anti-war protests. True, those protests only aided in keeping some countries from entering the war rather than preventing the war itself. Hence, many probably believe that an effort today would be as hopeless as in 2003.  On the other hand, we now have global and American publics that generally views the Iraq war as a monumental mistake, publics that are reluctant to see yet another war in the Middle East, publics that are hurting economically, and perhaps most importantly, a US military that is exhausted and wants to stay home for some years.

Therefore, I strongly recommend that publishers, pundits and bloggers such as Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Katha Pollitt, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Matt Stoller, Cenk Uygur, folks at this site, and whoever else you want to name, put aside their differences and call a meeting to initiate the organization of a single-focused “No More Middle East War” movement. Sirota can negotiate to bring along the Ron Paul people. If organized and positioned correctly, it should be again able to gain broad public support. Even significant support from our soldiers and their families should be possible. We need an American Spring.

Phil has stated that the Iraq war motivated his starting Mondoweiss. His number one concern is that we not go down the same road with Iran. In one comment, Phil even called for a clean-Gene effort, putting on ties and dressing up to convince middle America to stop an (impending) war. If nobody else will lead the effort, then maybe Phil should suspend the other activities of the site and use Mondoweiss as a vehicle solely to initiate a movement to prevent armed conflict with Iran. After all, there is not going to be any near or medium-term progress on the I/P front if the US and Europe continues to escalate their conflict with Iran.

My only caveat against what I just proposed is the worry that a more visible anti-war movement might actually be used as a foil to gather support for military action. Recall how quickly the mainstream media helped turn around public support for the Occupy Movement by picturing the activists as DFHs and freeloaders. At the moment, it is impossible to figure out with certainty what is happening inside our government with respect to Iran. Even on this site, quite opposite theories are being offered. Is Obama engaged in some opaque effort to outflank the Israeli government, the pro-Israeli lobbies, our Congress and the Republican Party? Is our military the only significant power in Washington preventing another war? Segments of the US military and the CIA were the only forces able to stop Bush-Cheney from bombing Iran during the second term of that administration. Would a large public anti-war movement compel the military to side with the hawks? I cannot answer that question.

Based on what I do know, I advocate for a massive, public effort.   

100 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well, I’m skeptical for several reasons. Let me delve into the matter:

First, there is a blessing on war with Iran in the media. It’s not the preferred choice, but it’s seen as acceptable, even preferable if sanctions don’t bring immediate results and Israel would attack.

There was no such latent backing of the Vietnam war. The press was simply subdued in earlier generations, but with Vietnam they asserted themselves. With Iran, not so much. A few scattered voices.

Second, the Republican party has changed. Yes, Ron Paul has shown that there is still an anti-war faction(derided as ‘isolationist’ by people who should know better on the left) within the Republican party after 3 decades of neocon dominance which has shattered the GOP into a mere ghost of what it used to be.

Third, Obama is not Lyndon Johnson, he has started all kinds of wars. It means that war itself is now so common that Americans have more or less accepted it as a permanent state of mind. Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq(up until recently), and now Iran is looming.

Second, the nation is more heterogeneous, not just by ethnic diversity but also by class and common experience. The gated communites are on the rise.
Aside from things like ‘the economy’, which everyone cares about, politics have become very much more niched. Hispanics care about immigration, for one, Asians care about affirmative action and anti-Asian discrimination in our culture and in our wider society(especially against male Asians), the situations for blacks are not better.

Even whites are starting, as they already are a minority among those under the age of 5 and if you discount Jews and Arabs from their population, they already are a minority in the under 18-age range too, to take on more grievances. I think it’s just a matter of time before you get equivalent racial organisations. I see ‘NumbersUSA’ as a mere precursor.

All this means that it’s harder to unite all communities, politics have become much more fragmentized. Another thing: in times of economic decline, people don’t tend to want to get engaged with the wider world, as they suffer in their private lives.

The 1960s was a great decade by most economic means, people could take time to look at our culture or our foreign policy, we could afford it.

All these internal factors make it hard, but not impossible, for a anti-war left to gain traction and work together with elements of the right to prevent a war.
But they inevitably have to take on the Israel Lobby in trying to stop a war, because unlike Iraq, where discussion of ‘who started what, and when’, Iran is a clear-cut case. It’s the Israel Lobby all the way, and that means if people start talking about this, the whole ‘the left are anti-Semites meme’ will resurface again. This is yet another issue which wasn’t present in the 1960s when it was Vietnam.

I’d love to see some kind of evaluation of United for Peace and Justice. But not one of those ‘if it weren’t for us even worse things would have happened.’ More like, ‘we failed and you should learn from our mistakes.’

Well said Bruce.

“I will not deny that the Vietnam War was a larger issue in 1967 than the Mideast wars are today”

Well, yea, no one is getting drafted into the service

“”Why is there no organized anti-war movement in 2012?” Before George Bush’s Iraq war there actually were massive global anti-war protests. ”
———
George Bush was a Republican. The Democratic party(and its assorted minions) is not going to get behind a anti-war movement when a democrat is in the white house (especially when there is no draft)

“My only caveat against what I just proposed is the worry …..”
——–
That you would be creating something like a “vanguard”? – While I treasure Greenwald, some of the others you mention have cheered on war before and some (sullivan) are tried and true Thatcherites. Others (Uygur) have done a 180 since their salad days, in his case on the young turks web based show. Aside from Greenwald and vanden heuvel there really isn’t a portrait of integrity mentioned. And to me, that is what being “anti-war” is all about. Do I want to fight and die? No. So, therefore, I don’t want anyone ELSE to fight and die.

Unfortunately, this sentiment becomes harder and harder to find as we climb the economic and influence ladders in liberal circles. the further removed one is from the prospect of actually fighting and dying, the more one seems to care about far away places that might be in the need for “humanitarian intervention” — we see this among celebrities, professional “left” agitators etc. I mean, Rachel Maddow fell just short of advocating an invasion into Uganda because of their anti-gay laws. Some of the “liberals” on this site are STILL defending US involvement in Libya. So, I think before any agenda or platform gets decided on, “the left” needs to first call out some of its inconsistent members.

I guess what I am saying is, the “left” needs to first admit how full of sht they are and have been, and then go from there. And the people who have “lead” in this area, should be looked on with skepticism, not with reverence – in my opinion. Some of the “faces” of the left need to go, post haste

Here’s a recent article about the current campaign for the next POTUS in Florida: http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/florida_primary_is_first_big_showdown_for_the_jewish_vote_20120124/

Judging by the thrust, tenor, and conclusions of referenced and hot-linked article, the Jews in the key early primary voter state of Florida (a bell weather state), numerically more than in any other state except California, the choice boils down to Obama, Newt, or Romney. Ron Paul is not even in their thinking, either because of their concern for the US safety/welfare & net & social issues like abortion & gay rights, or Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance–or both. They will be either super-PEP or super-neocon when they vote. There will be no issue on foreign policy in the main election (except who loves & promises the state of Israel (right or wrong) more. Sad. I’m so old, I won’t live to see the eventual regret. Looking forward to the TV ads for Newt purchased by the Adelson couple.

If Israel attacks Iran it’s going to be very different to 2003 and the assault on Iraq . The Jewish influence then was hidden but an attack on Iran wil bring it right out into the open and it will be seen by Shia all over the world as a Jewish attack on Shi’ism. And Shi’ism especially the Iranian version is prone to feeling persecuted. And striking back. And Americans should remember what happened to the Marines in Beirut in 1983. And what happened afterwards. And Jews anywhere could be targeted. And war is a racket. Always has been.