Pelosi and Reid have a job to do. The antiwar movement has a job to do. The jobs are not the same. This should be obvious -- but, judging from public and private debates now fiercely underway among progressive activists and organizations, there's a lot of confusion in the air. No amount of savvy Capitol-speak can change the fact that 'benchmarks' are euphemisms for more war. And when activists pretend otherwise, they play into the hands of those who want the war to go on . . . and on . . . and on.
That's Norman Solomon from "The Pragmatism of Prolonged War" (CounterPunch). We picked it last Sunday for "Truest statement of the week." This week there were other brave voices tackling many issues. We wanted to focus on some of the ones who spoke out against the Pelosi measure because you may have missed them. They weren't given a lot of platforms.
As Solomon points out the peace movement is not Congress and Congress is not the peace movement. That was hard for a few to grasp. (David Sirota is only the most embarrassing example of the challenged set.) It wasn't hard for Howard Zinn to grasp. Zinn's done more than most to teach us all where the power comes from: the people. Writing for The Progressive, in "Are We Politicians or Citizens?," he once again told the real truths:
As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration's "surge" of troops, and the Republicans' refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.
That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal, saying that progressives in Congress, "like many of us, don't think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war."
Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It's as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.
The real truths? Some like Sirota wanted to play like they were the reality-based community. They were The Last Pragmatist Standing. More like No Hope Walking. They knew, because they can see the future, how things would turn out if everyone didn't hop on board with the Pelosi measure. Apparently, The Psychic Friends Network imploded and all the seers became Beltway Babies for the 'left' determined to save us from ourselves. Lucky us.
Of course, the peace movement wants to end the illegal war and the Democrats have to face an election in 2008. Something our Psychic Friends Network couldn't tell you about but a thinker, a professor, Frances Fox Piven could voice (last Tuesday on KPFA's The Morning Show) the the US should "begin withdrawal immediately and we also should push for an interim authority in the area made up of other national representatives that's either nations in the area or UN authority that tries to surpress violence while we are withdrawing. We should withdraw as fast as we can. The Democrats are as timid as they are not because they don't have the support of the American people for withdrawal but because they have their eye on the 2008 election and they want to avoid any circumstancing which they can be attacked, including attacked for 'exposing the troops' or . . . adding to the 'losing' of the war, or whatever, politicans are always going to be cautious, especially in a two-party system where there is no alternative to the left of the Democratic Party so they can position themselves very moderately and still hope to gain electorally."
Careful, Piven. We know you're highly educated. We love your work. But too much more talk like that and Sirota will be screaming your a "conspiracy theorist." He's already got his talons out for John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton who came out swinging last week:
Politically, the Lee amendment cannot pass; fewer than 100 members of Congress are expected to vote for it. However, the same thing is true of weaker legislation that MoveOn is currently supporting, in league with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and David Obey. The Pelosi bill merely establishes "benchmarks" of progress in Iraq, so that all Bush has to do is certify that he is making progress on those goals to keep funding flowing for the war. Instead of withdrawing troops this year, the Pelosi bill talks about beginning to withdraw them in March 2008. Even so, it faces united Republican opposition and is not expected to pass the U.S. Senate, even if it is approved by the House of Representatives. And even if it does pass, Bush has already said he will veto it. So why was the Democratic Party leadership so determined to prevent the Lee amendment from even coming to the floor -- and why has MoveOn.org avoided even mentioning the Lee proposal to its members?
On Sunday, MoveOn distributed a survey asking its members to vote on three options: support the Pelosi bill; oppose it; or "not sure." MoveOn's Eli Pariser described the survey in an email as an opportunity for members to participate in "a big decision coming up this week. ... MoveOn is a member-directed organization -- we believe that all of us, together, are smarter than any one of us." In fact, however, MoveOn's survey was designed to conceal from its members the option of supporting the stronger anti-war amendment put forth by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
There are, of course, other ways of running a survey. When TrueMajority.org recently surveyed its members about the best way forward, they offered three choices: the Lee plan, the Pelosi plan, and the option of demanding that Congress reject any further war funding, period. Only 24 percent of TrueMajority's members supported the Pelosi plan -- which appears to be the reason why MoveOn's survey gave their members no choice but the Pelosi plan.
Even MoveOn's rules for the war's fourth-anniversary candlelight vigils expressly exclude anything specifically aimed at ending it. "There are many ways to commemorate the war anniversary -- but MoveOn and other coalition members are coming together around solemn candlelight vigils," explains their website. "Events other than vigils that honor the sacrifice of our servicemen and women and their families will not be publicly posted here."
That was hard hitting and it was needed. We were more than a little shocked by it because it was so strong. (And, again, that was needed.) Two popular themes in e-mails that disagree with us (from the center or the left) are 1) "You hate everyone" and 2) "You hate everyone but Russ Feingold." We don't hate "everyone." (Ava and C.I. swear that they're so busy hating Patricia Heaton, they don't have the time to take on anyone else.) We're angry and we're pissed off. If you're not after four years of an illegal war, we praise you for your Zen-like nature. We have praised people and we have slammed them. And it's often been the same people receiving both responses. Amy Goodman got it for, like the majority of the media -- big and small, dropping Iraq as a topic in the summer of 2006. If you read everything we have up here, we think you'll see much praise for Goodman (and she deserves much praise) but we're not going to act like something that we're appalled by didn't happen.
We may not have time for a "Mail Bag" feature this edition. In case we don't, two people e-mailed about Kat's Thursday post, wondering why she was mad at C.I.? She wasn't. Offline, C.I. is the first to admit to the "in fairness" practice. Elaine and Rebecca will tell you C.I. was that way as long as they can remember. Online, community member Yazz has been pointing it out (and objecting to it) since the second month The Common Ills started up. C.I.'s general attitude would be not to note it when the left embarrasses itself. (The "left" is a whole other issue.) The rest of us are much freerer with our comments. In these sessions, C.I. is usually the one who is saying, "Are we sure we want to put that in there?" (And, in some cases, saying, "Take my name off. I can't be part of that.") Most recently, the biggest disagreement for a piece here was one where C.I. wanted to insert a compliment for some writing Christopher Hayes had done. (We all overrode that and C.I. agreed to go along with the group.) Two of the funniest lines to appear here both came from C.I. and both had to be fought for to be included. In one case, it was Jim's father fighting and begging C.I. to include it. In another, it was a number of people begging and pleading. (We won't cite either line because C.I.'s saying, "It made it in once. Don't push it.") So the minor point here is that Kat wasn't angry with or mad at C.I. She was merely pointing out something as obvious as eye color.
The larger point here is that when you take a strong stand, you're going to catch flack. That's fine and we can all live with it. (We don't generally deliberate over an e-mail from a reporter for two days, the way C.I. will but that's the "in fairness" kicking in.) So we were honestly amazed by Stauber and Rampton's critique because it was so hard hitting and the target was the supposedly beloved MoveOn. We think that took real bravery and some of the ones staying silent last week didn't want to burn any bridges. That's what something that strong does. Short of pulling a Mel Brooks (kissing Carson's ass on air after you threw your lot in with Joan Rivers and her show got cancelled) there's nothing between MoveOn and Stauber and Rampton again. That's because MoveOn's not interested in criticism -- they're so touchy Ava wonders if they write for a left periodical? (If that's a private joke to you, you haven't been paying attention.)
That took bravery.
We had an article planned for this feature and Kat was the one advocating it the strongest but we pulled it and Kat was the one advocating that. We disagree with Stauber on something. We'll address that in a later feature (he wasn't going to be mentioned in the article as planned and he may or may not be when we do address it later on). But in the aftermath of coming out so strong, we didn't want to do anything that would undermine that.
Otherwise, we'll say what we think and what we feel. And if someone can't take it (or can't grasp when somethings are intended as humor), oh well. We've received enough e-mails from people who probably are very well intentioned when they warn us that we're going to end up paying (in 'traffic,' in 'recognition') for what we said or are saying. We're sure Stauber and Rampton received similar e-mails.
Unlike them, we don't make a living via anything online. Stauber and Rampton are. When they stood up, it wasn't just offering a critique that could result in nasty e-mails, it was really laying it on the line and we respect them for doing that. We applaud them for doing that.
This edition, we finally offer our take on the Mud Flap Girls. How come?
From Friday's "Iraq snapshot:"
A number of women have been using their voices loudly and proudly (Ann Wright, Cindy Sheehan, Medea, Robin Morgan, Dahlia S. Wasfi, Missy Comley Beattie, Alice Walker, Maxine Hong Kingston, Diane Wilson, Kim Gandy, Laura Flanders, Kelly Dougherty, . . .) but if all the women opposed to this war would use their voices and own their power, the war would be over. The GI resistance is very important and it was important during Vietnam but it's equally true that women were actively leading the cry for an end to the war as well. It's the group that's always 'forgotten' by history.
Peace is a feminist value. We're tired of the do-me feminists (or 'feminist') who have nothing to say on the war. We're tired of their constant obsession with pop culture and we're tired of the implied message that that's all feminism cares about. We're appalled that sites claiming to be feminist have nothing to say on the war but can tell you about this celebrity or that and mix in a little reproducitve rights and tie it all in a smutty little bow.
We think it's past time for people to stand up strongly against the war. If you can't or won't, we don't pull punches. We're not trying to be popular, we're (as Ava informed several lefty journalists one morning when she was on a tear) trying to end the war. We tried sugar and honey and that really didn't do much. As the deaths have grown, over voices have grown louder. One lefty wrote (to The Common Ills, they all tend to run to C.I. to complain about 'the naughty kids') that we're going to turn off "the very people you are trying to reach." Actually, lefty got around to Iraq after the e-mail. Finally. (Ava's reply that, quote: "Your boring drivel isn't reaching anyone as it is," may have helped speed up the process.) We have a core of dedicated readers which we built up (as we've pointed out before) with no real help or assistance online from anyone other than the people in this community and friends. They are our intended audience and they are who we are reaching. We think there's been too much silence and too much complacency. Thursday, C.I. got off the phone with a friend in the news department at one of the networks and asked, "Do I just yell at people all the time now?" No. But when people, four years later, still aren't doing the work they should be (we're just talking volume here, not even quality) on the issue of the illegal war, someone's got to yell.
You've got to shake your fists at lightning now
You've got to roar like forest fire
You've got to spread your light like blazes
All across the sky
They're going to aim the hoses on you
Show them you won't expire
Not till you burn up every passion
Not even when you die
Come on now
You've got to try
If you're feeling contempt
Well then you tell it
If you're tired of the silent night
Jesus, well then you yell it
Condemned to wires and hammers
Strike every chord that you feel
That broken trees
And elephant ivories
Conceal
-- "Judgement Of The Moon And Stars (Ludwig's Tune)," written by Joni Mitchell, For The Roses.