Cowgirl,
You said: “There’s no such thing as the anti-war left.”
And then went on to say,
“The only press the ‘anti-war left’ gets is through street demonstrations, the more violent the better (and sometimes even that will not get attention). Their numerous other activities, writings, conferences, teachings, ideas, arguments and so on do not make the news. But just because you don’t see them doesn’t mean they’re not there.”
Ummm, ok.
Well, I think we can dismiss this notion that there is "no such thing as an “anti-war left.” There clearly is. The fact that Noam Chomsky (and his accolyte Chumsky) yet live and breath falsifies your assertion alone.
I suppose you can’t wiggle out of being called “anti-war,” of course, so your objection is to being associated with the left. Sure, one needn’t be left of the political center to vocally oppose the war. But the correlation is very strong.
You said, <<I should also point out here that, by and large, the only press the ‘anti-war left’ gets is through street demonstrations, the more violent the better (and sometimes even that will not get attention). >>
You went on to say, <<I’m certain you have heard arguments against the war from intelligent people speaking in media other than street demos.>>
Umm, ok. <grimace> So which is it?
Well, I’ll save you the trouble. It’s the latter. I’ve heard antiwar voices all over the media.
No. They’d like us to think that protests are the only press they get, because those demonstrations make them look like anachronisms. But they get a great deal more press than that. They write Op Ed pieces in the major daily newspapers (except the Wall Street Journal, of course). They have regular opinion columns (Dowd. Goodman) They appear on television (Begala. Gore.) I just heard nearly two hours straight on NPR devoted to them. They publish books (Chomsky.) They publish magazines (Mother Jones. The Nation.) They edit academic journals and college newspapers. They run academic departments in Universities.
They get lots of press. There’s an entire cottage industry, the blogosphere, devoted to debunking their statements as published by–drumroll–the press. Now, if there wasn’t a lot of press out there, andrewsullivan.com and opinionjournal.com’s “Best of The Web” wouldn’t have much to make fun of, would they?
But still they manage to publish everyday.
No, the problem is not that you don’t get the press coverage. The problem is that you do, but nobody’s buying into your arguments.
Your insinuation that the motives behind the confrontation with Iraq are “racist assumptions” alone marks you, rightly or wrongly, in the eyes of most moderates, as a kneejerker on the lunatic fringe. It’s just not going to sell, because it is silly on its very surface.
<< Why don’t we make their well-being a priority? >>
Shouldn’t that be the responsibility of their own leader, Saddam Hussein?
Indeed, I would argue that if the well-being of the Iraqi people were our highest priority, then the U.S. should attack and remove Saddam’s murderous regime without delay. We should have done it years ago, and saved those people from unspeakable horrors.
<<Ever since 9/11, debate has been stifled >>
No, the anti-war left has not been stifled. It’s been heard and dismissed.
There’s a difference.
Dismissed by who? It seems to me that W’s pretense for an invasion is what has been heard and dismissed.
Hickory6 I think that you are exactly the person that I need to talk to about this issue. From the tone of your posts, my impression is that you favor a war with Iraq. Please do me the courtesy of answering the following questions:
[ul]
[li]Am I correct in that you favor military action against Iraq?[/li][li]What, if anything, would change your mind about this?[/li][/ul]
First of all, I agree with Neurotik in that protests are pretty much over-rated. To all of you who oppose the war, ask yourself this question: If you saw a bunch of people carrying signs that said, “Invade Iraq!” would it change your minds? Really, is there anything you could see written on a placard that would change your mind? Those who support war are going to be the same way.
The protests in Vietnam, if they did anything, probably worked for a small number of reasons. First of all, there was the involuntary draft. Nobody wanted to go, and the prospects for coming back in one piece were depressingly low. This is something that can easily be expressed on a sign, but more importantly, it’s something that everybody already knew. The signs just reinforced what was already popular opinion. Secondly, the war lasted a long, long time. This was another bullet point for the protesters, and again another reinforcement of the commonly held beliefs of the time. Thirdly, nobody really knew why we were fighting. There was probably some idea that it had something to do with communism, but that was about it. Again, “What the hell are we fighting for?” is a nice slogan. And lastly and most importantly, the 60s and 70s were a much more idealistic time. A lot of people honestly believed that there was no problem that couldn’t be solved without fighting. Listen to the old song: “War! Huh! Yeah! Say it again! What is is good for? Absolutely nothing!” People were already receptive to the notion that war was inherently evil, that no war was just. Basically, the whole environment was ripe for anti-war protests.
So what about today? People know why we’re fighting: to get rid of an evil dictator who poses a threat to the area, and possibly to the US. There’s no draft. The war will likely be short - our last war was, and this is what people are using as a basis of comparison. People are more cynical - they’re willing to accept that sometimes war may be the only answer. You can’t change people’s minds on all that in a sentence or two.
If you want to successfully demonstrate, I think mis-information will be the only way to go about it - but you need some new lines. “War for oil” and “It’s just revenge” don’t cut it - nobody buys it. Try showing pictures of little dismembered children, and claim that this is the norm, rather than the rare exception. Claim that our soldiers are all baby-killers - that one worked during 'Nam pretty well. It needs to be visceral. You’ll be going after people who can form an opinion based on a bunch of people standing in the cold chanting easily-remembered ditties - ie, not the sort of people who really like to think things through.
Now, if you want to attract the type of people who are actually thoughtful individuals, you need to start an information campaign. Make flyers, hand them out. Include commonly held beliefs, and explain why they’re wrong. Include cites (they don’t need to be real cites, nobody ever checks those things, outside of the SDMB). Make some concessions to the other side - it makes your argument stronger. Get some money together, and buy some air time on local access channels. Give lectures. Attend lectures, and ask good questions that reinforce your ideas. Get creative. And, as has been mentioned numerous times, offer alternatives. Explain how the UN should act when nations ignore security council resolutions. Perhaps give a minimum condition that you feel would justify war - this makes you seem less like a perpetual peacenik who would never go to war, no matter what. If you are such a peacenik, don’t admit it, because you won’t win many friends. 
Anyway, hope that helps.
Jeff
Mere previously defined words are not sufficient to describe the stupidisuckitude of that last post, even if it was meant in a “Modest Proposal” sort of way.
Hickory6: I’m not denying that there are people who are against the war. I am objecting to the suggestion that they are in any way unified or in any way represent a single argument. When you disagree with ‘them’ you disagree with ‘SOME of them’.
(If I were to start sounding off about how rotten Americans are, or even ‘what Americans think’ you would probably object as well.) (And please pardon my assumption that you are American, my apologies if I am mistaken. Simply substitute your nationality, or any other quality that seems relevant.) A few examples of blanket generalizations:
The ‘blogosphere’ - you have read, and disagree with, everyone who has deconstructed something about ‘the press’? Wow! Where do you find the time to post here?
The problem is also not that ‘nobody is buying into their arguments’. You, and many others, are not. That in no way implies that ‘nobody’ is.
And the ‘anti-war left’ has not been heard and dismissed. Dismissed by whom (thank you, Diogenes)? The fact that people still manage to publish what you describe as ‘blog’ means that they are not convinced, either.
And finally: to label me ‘rightly or wrongly as a kneejerker’ is kind of a kneejerk thing to do. I never said that the motives behind the confrontation are racism. I implied (and would defend, but not in this thread) that racism is involved in the construction of the debate. To dismiss me as a kneejerker, and reject my opinions because of this, is one excellent way of suppressing debate.
This could quickly degrade into another argument about the war, but I am far more interested in discussing protest. I just wanted to point out (and Hickory6, you have illustrated this admirably) the troubles inherent in protest, when dissenting opinion is forced into the ‘with us or against us’ dichotomy. People who disagree with Bush’s line end up either (a) arguing with each other or (b) arguing with people who would lump us together into a group whose opinions have already been dismissed.
oh, one more question - in earnest, and in the spirit of the OP:
I would really appreciate the responses of Hickory6 and others who support the confrontation:
If your nation were pursuing what you saw as an unjust war, what would you do?
It’s going to be hard to discuss general trends, public perceptions, and groups of people with a similar agenda without doing some generalizing. I can’t speak for anyone else here, but when I hear the term “anti-war protester” I conjure up an image of that person based on my personal experiences and prejudices. A lot of the “anti war protester” image is based on what I’ve seen here in the DC area during the various “No War For Oil” rallies. And even if I agree with the protesters on some level, I still don’t think I’d want to associate myself with them based on the image I have- I feel that I’d wind up spending the majority of my time disassociating myself from the “McDonald’s/AmeriKKKa is evil”, “No War For Oil”, and “He’s Doing it For Daddy!” crowd rather than a real discussion of whether to forcibly remove Saddam and the pros & cons of the various methods.
As for “If your nation were pursuing what you saw as an unjust war, what would you do?”, I’d convince my fellow countrymen that this war was unjust and/or come up with viable alternatives to the war.
Olentzero:
Well, thank you. I feel proud to have left you speechless. I admit that parts of that post were tongue-in-cheek, but the main points I was trying to get across were:
Demonstrations aren’t going to change many people’s minds, unless the demonstrators resort to unsavory tactics. Intelligent people do not form important decisions based on the type of soundbite you can print on a big sign. Demonstrations have pretty much the sole purpose of making the demonstrators feel good about themselves. I would say the exception is in cases where demonstrators are trying to make people aware of something that is not common knowledge - war against Iraq does not fall into this category. I’ll ask the great people of the SDMB, though, to see if I may be mistaken: Has anyone here ever had an opinion on something, and had it changed by seeing a bunch of people walking around with placards?
Well-organized information campaigns will be more effective. They will also take much more time and effort.
Jeff
How is a well-organized information campaign an unsavory tactic?
Neurotik:
I was differentiating between a well-organized information campaign, consisting of things like handing out flyers, holding lectures, and such, vs standing around waving pickets and chanting. The former I believe could prove effective. The latter, not so effective, unless the protesters resort to dishonesty and misguidance. Basically, a good, convincing argument against the war cannot be provided in soundbite format, which is the format the most demonstrations rely on. Something more substantial will be required.
Jeff
Yes there is. True, leftists don’t agree on everything, including whether to support the war, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a large group of left-wing thinkers who are opposed to war in Iraq. That group is the anti-war left. They exist. The idea of the thread is to consider how their protests might be made more effective.
Not at all. In addition to anti-war leftists, there is a substantial number of anti-war moderates (a group I have not joined, but might be persuaded to join) and a small handful of surprisingly shrill anti-war rightists (who generally believe the war would be unconstitutional or something). Merely being against a unilateral invasion doesn’t make you leftist (although the rest of your post makes me think that you indeed are left-wing).
Of course unilaterally bombing Iraq is a solution. The Iraqi government cannot use weapons of mass destruction against the United States after the United States blows the personnel of said government to smithereens. Is it the best solution? Of course not; even the Bush administration itself clearly prefers a different solution, namely, multilaterally bombing Iraq. Unilateral military intervention is the administration’s second favorite course of action, to be employed if we continue to fail to get other nations on board with us.
The task of the anti-war movement, both leftist and otherwise, is to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Bush administration or of the voters that if we do either (a) nothing, or (b) something other than war (please specify), that the U.S. will be safe from an Iraqi terrorist attack employing weapons of mass destruction, or at least that the risk of such an attack will be no greater than if we did go to war.
**
Moan a lot about how stupid the war was. No, really! That’s all I did when we were fighting in Kosovo in the '90s, a war that at the time I thought was pointless and counterproductive, though in hindsight I suspect I was wrong.
I thank you for your thoughtful replies to my suggestion that there is no unified ‘anti-war left’. I understand that for a social movement be useful there has to be some sort of consensus. However, most social movements are deeply divided along many different lines (civil rights, feminism, gay rights, ‘anti-globalization’, you name it). I see this division as a strength, rather than a weakness, and generalizations upset me for this reason. But they also upset me for this reason:
I happen to agree (politically) with some people who do things that I find absolutely unacceptable, in the name of this (political) thing we both believe in. I don’t think that the things they do should reflect on me, nor on the validity of the (political) thing that we both believe in. For example (for illustrative purposes only), I would never spike a tree. But, like the spikers, I think logging practices in BC must be drastically amended. Judge them by their actions if you must, but please do not judge me by them. Judge me, and my opinions, on my own actions and opinions.
Danimal, I understand your point about the group of leftist thinkers who are against the war. But I don’t think this is a useful distinction to make, because I think opposition to the war does not correlate with any left/right distinction I have seen in the past. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I also appreciate your responses to my question (‘what would you do if your nation was fighting an unjust war?’) Please think of this when you find yourself disagreeing with someone on this subject. Your responses may also be educational to a seasoned protester (broadly defined) such as myself!
The problem as I see it with ‘well-organized information campaigns’ is that they too often end up preaching to the choir. The people who turn up at the lectures tend to be people who already have an interest. (I’ve been to the lectures: I’ve seen it.)
Think about it: I’m on my way home from work, thinking about dinner with my family and maybe getting that laundry done. Someone approaches me to discuss the upcoming G8 meeting, gives me a flyer, and invites me to a lecture. Then, someone approaches me to discuss animal testing, gives me a flyer, and invites me to a lecture. Then, stem cell research, flyer, lecture. Then, consumer boycotts against African warlords, flyer, lecture, and so on. Do you see my point? There are so many of these causes that it is impossible to expect people to give enough time and attention to each to be able to have an informed opinion. Everyone will have certain issues which are most dear to their heart, and others may not reach as high a level of awareness, and they are left with the evening news as a basis for their opinion.
So some activists don’t like these tactics, get tired of being ignored on the street, and prefer to grab attention (eg waving placards). I am not trying to endorse the other kinds of methods that they can choose to use, but I can understand why people get so worked up that they do things that you (or I) find intrusive/annoying/offensive. A slight amendment to my earlier question, if you don’t mind: If something was happening on a large scale that you found unacceptable, and that required the public’s support to change, what would you do?
Several years ago our government decided to pass a bill which would be very, very harmful to our wilderness. They tried to do this when no one was looking. A few greenies caught on to this and a massive awareness campaign was started. In the end I was on the street, protesting, and handing out flyers. More than one person stopped to ask what was going on. We explained, they were horrified to hear it, and eventually public discontent grew so that the gvt was forced to address it, and softened their legislation (if only slightly). A small victory to be sure, and I won’t pretend it was me and my troop that made it happen, but in cases where the public does have some sort of power, sometimes you have to (figuratively) beat them over the head to get them to realize it.
(Of course, this has never happened to me since.)
This war–if it should come to pass, is not ‘unjust’ as wars go. It is certainly no more unjust to go to war than it is to pursue policies which allow murderous, unjust regimes to remain in power to kill and terrorize, torture, rape, and maim innocent people.
Further, you have been trying to convince the American people that the war is unjust. The tactics are familiar: ‘no blood for oil’ placards, “Doing it for Daddy” snide remarks, allegations of “racist” motivations. In short, all the same tactics that failed to prevent us from crossing the LD in 1991.
Well, it failed for you then, and it’s failing for you now.
Sure, the tactics are tired and worn out. But I would suggest there is no set of tactics which would be any more effective for you. Why? Because your premise is wrong.
You have tried to argue that a war in Iraq would be unjust. You lost that argument nearly a year ago. You lost it in the United Nations, and you certainly lost it on Main street.
You’re flogging a dead horse. And the longer you flog it, the shriller and more irrelevant and pathetic you antiwar types look.
In order to prevent a war in Iraq, you must abandon the long-lost premise that the war in Iraq is unjust. We moderates have heard it all before and, frankly, we don’t care what you think.
Instead, you must engage the debate on grounds which you have NOT already lost. Rather than argue that the war would be unjust, you should argue that the war is ill-concieved.
I’ve sketched out how to do this in a previous post in this thread.
I cannot emphasize enough: stop the “racist war” talk and the “no blood for oil” foolishness.
It loses, and you know it.
Amen. I’m awfully tired of people opposing some thing or another but having no idea about what the alternatives might be - except some vague idea about how everybody will magically get along if some (few) people only stopped making things worse.
Not to mention that the protest tactics of the 60s have had all meaning stripped from them anyway. They’ve been used and abused by every advocacy group till the cows came home then left again.
And, yeah, given that the oil in Iraq is all tied up by the Russians and French, who exactly expects Texans to make money on this job?
I’m sorry, but this is just plain wrong. The oil in Iraq is all tied up by the Iraqis. They nationalized their oil fields back in the 1970s. The French and the Russians have development contracts for natural gas and for future oil exploration in certain sites, but by no means all of the sites expected to contain oil or gas. US companies would benefit should the new government decide to privatize its oil fields and sell off the extraction and property rights to them, and also for unclaimed development sites.
So you’ve decided that the protesters have nothing worthwhile to say about the war.
This is NOT a thread about the war. Why are you pushing your conclusions here? Just as you don’t care what the protesters are saying, they don’t really care what you are saying.
The question in the OP has led me to ask another question, which has been ignored:
If something was going on which you deemed to be unjust, what would you do?
(It is not important whether you and I agree on what is just. I’m assuming that there is conceivably something which you would find unjust and worth objecting to. If not, your mind is made up and this isn’t a discussion any more, merely you repeating your conclusions.)
I also need to point out that these tactics which you have decided are tired and worn out are much older than Vietnam and are used more widely than you seem to realize. It’s nice that you think they’re useless, but many millions of people around the world continue to use them. If your government policies prevent you from speaking (and I’m not referring to America or Iraq here), sometimes the only thing you can do is take to the streets. Further to my question above, if the military kept coming into your village, killing your family and stealing your food (like in Guatemala in the 80s and 90s*), what would you do ? If the government and the World Bank decide to destroy your countryside and evict you from your land to make a dam to power faraway cities (like in Sardar Sarovar*), what would you do? People took to the streets and made noise, yelled slogans, went on hunger strikes etc because there was nothing else to do. They were otherwise completely powerless. Will you tell them that their tactics are old and tired?
Please address this question. The justness of the war in Iraq is an entirely separate issue. If you can’t acknowledge that any protesters may have something to say, then there is no point having this discussion with you, and you are in the wrong thread entirely.
Guatemala:
Just doing it : popular collective action in the Americas
Desfor, Gene.
Sardar Sarovar:
Toward sustainable development? : struggling over India’s Narmada River
Fisher, William F
Okay, assuming, cowgirl, that you’re talking to me:
I didn’t say there was nothing worthwhile to say about the war. I said those arguments about “it’s all about oil” don’t wash.
The fact that the tactics are older than the vietnam war makes it worse, not better - they have been so diluted that no one pays attention to them anymore.