Category: Political

When we protested the Vietnam war, our goals were simple, our vision united: stop the war, bring our boys home. Stop the war, bring our boys home. And in that time a simple symbol was all we needed.

Today, though, our goals are muted, splintered, filtered through uncertainty, fear, frustration, and too many long standing and deep seated hatreds.

In the last few weeks, I watched a friend of mine as he agonized over the injuries and ultimate death of a close friend of his. My friend’s friend was killed because someone somewhere thought that his death was necessary, to make a point, to send a message. In their mind, they weighed my friend’s friend’s life and their cause and deemed their cause of more value. I cannot agree.

Over 150 people have died from gas used by Russian soldiers to free hostages from Chechen separatists. Some would call the Chechan’s terrorists, because they targeted innocent people. Other’s would call them freedom fighters because they moved their fight from their own homeland into the land of the oppressor. Regardless, the people are still dead.

Yesterday, another suicide bomb went off in Israel, the second in the same number of weeks. Issues of Israeli domination and suppression of the Palestine people, and Palestinian use of suicide bombers, all get a bit lost among the death of innocents.

And overlaying all of this is a very real possibility that the United States will invade Iraq.

Stanton Finley wrote several of us about finding a new symbol for peace, and providing a manifesto to accompany it. In response, David Weinberger provided the following:

All people are created equal. We all have an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

All people are created different. There is value in that difference and we need to preserve it.

All people are connected. We are connected by geography and responsibility, and, if we would let it, by love

Simple and elegant, yet David and I both know that there really is no simple manifesto, or symbol, for peace today. We live in interesting times.

We can say, We all have an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but too many people see happiness only at the death, or destruction, or displacement of others. How then to reconcile conflicting viewpoints of ‘happiness’?

Do we say that the assumption of “equal right” means that those who would advocate the loss of freedoms for others must suffer the penalty of the loss of those freedoms for themselves? Who then judges the actions of all? Who can we consider impartial enough to give this power to, the ability to say to one people, “You are suppressing others, and you must now lose your freedoms”?

Or do we say that people have the right to practice beliefs as they see fit as long as their beliefs cause no harm to others? This would certainly apply to the Islamic extremists, many of whom advocate the death of non-believers such as myself. But it could also apply to those religions that frown on birth control, who fight abortion, and who actively promote the birth of numerous children in a world that is badly overpopulated. After all, death from starvation is just as much an act of wanton cruelty as death from a bomb.

Years ago I would have said, “Give peace a chance. Love one another as brothers and sisters.” Today, I don’t care if my brothers and sisters love me or not, as long as they just let me live.

The era of simple symbols and slogans is gone. The days when we could look simply at an issue, even one as seemingly black and white as whether to invade Iraq or not, are over.

So, here is my proposed replacement for the peace symbol:

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Today’s anti-war rally held at the U City Loop in St. Louis unfortunately lived down to my expectations. The demonstration was poorly organized, and instead of focusing on a possible war with Iraq, those participating spoke out against everything from the treatment of Native Americans in this country, slavery, to our friendship with China and it’s policy with Tibet. Two of the speakers didn’t even mention Iraq if I remember correctly.

I was especially put off by one speaker who belongs to an organization that believes in using violence to meet the group’s objectives, as long the violence “…didn’t exceed the violence committed by the US”. What was the group’s objectives? Much of the talk had to do with neo-liberalism and overcoming imperialism, and he mentioned a whole list of countries and “freedom fighters”, most of whom I’ve never heard of. He also spent a considerable amount of time talking about how to get on the group’s listserver, but to use caution, they’re being watched, and to connect from the library so the connection couldn’t be traced (but you have to give your email address — anyone else see a disconnect here?). No web sites with this group — think I should send them an email, tell them about Blogger?

(I also found his interpretation of why the Vietnam war ended to be interesting. It was because the true freedom loving Vietnamese drove the evil transgressing US soldiers from their land.)

The speakers that saved the day came at the end. In particular, a woman with a baby brought up what I considered to be valid points. That invading Iraq will most likely increase terrorism rather than decrease it. That we can’t afford this fight. That we haven’t been truly successful in Afghanistan, and will be less so in Iraq. That we have serious problems at home we should be focusing on. She was followed by another woman calling herself Queen Zinia, who talked about her grandkids and her worries for their future if we continue a campaign of aggression. Queen Zinia equated the US actions with the actions of a school yard bully, and that someday, even the smallest, weakest country is going to get tired of being pushed around, and will fight back.

Following the two women (who, in my opinion, stole the show) was a quiet, older black man who asked the audience if they remembered Vietnam. There were only a few of us who could nod. He then talked about how he has fought against war since that time, and he’ll continue to fight against wars we can’t hope to win. He talked about how he’s tired of sending our people to other countries to die, and for no good reason. His quiet dignity spoke louder than all of the slogan filled hyperbole of most of the other speakers.

(I wonder what he thought of the kid that advocated violence and celebrated all of those soldiers getting killed in Vietnam?)

The Green Party candidate, Daniel Romano was there, and talked about the debate last week, which he seemed to think he won. He was definitely more in place and outspoken in this venue, but as with so many of the other speakers, his focus was all over the board — anti-imperialism, bombs in Afghanistan, divesture in Israel, down with all forms of capitalism, and so on. I am extremely curious, now, as to what other Green Party candidates are like.

What I particularly disliked about the rally is that I felt most of the speakers could really care less about the Iraqi people. Or the American people for that matter. Each was caught up in a cause. And while I believe that most people who attended the rally did so because they are genuinely concerned about the war, too many of the organizers had too many other agendas to push.

The issue of a war with Iraq was diffused and confused and ultimately lost.

I ended up coming away, cold and saddened. I expected at the very least a group hug to warm me, and all I got was hot air instead.

 

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Warning: this is yet another disconnected ramble.

I never publicly thanked Dorothea for her strong defense of me in my recent confrontation with a well known weblogger. I did privately, but didn’t want to publicly because, well, I wanted to let the whole thing just die out.

However, now is the time for me to thank Dorothea, not so much for speaking out for me, but for speaking out for, to paraphrase Dorothea, the kind of talk that makes you uncomfortable. Stripping away social politeness, dropping the niceties. Yelling fire in a room full of fireman.

A little digression: You know why Vietnam ended? I got into an argument once with someone in California about this. He said it was because people like him (and myself) protested it when we were younger. Thirty years ago, I would have believed him, and marveled at the power of my flowerchild-like fingertips. However, today, I know that the reason the war ended wasn’t because people like me got sick of the war. It was because people who were not like me got sick of the war. When almost every family in this country had received at least one body bag. When people at home, watching news on TV watched yet another film about the atrocities committed in Nam, by both sides. When middle America wearied of the blood and the cost and the horror, that’s when the war ended.

This all leads me to a thought: You want to change this country? Convince someone who is totally unlike yourself to want this change. Then you have a chance.

Tomorrow big anti-Iraqi invasion demonstrations throughout the world. I think it’s great that people are making a show of solidarity about this issue, and will be attending a rally here in St. Louis. However, I hope people remember that though great big group hugs among people of like mind might make us feel good, they won’t change minds. Calling President Bush “King George” or “Shrub” won’t change minds, either.

You want to change minds? Find your way into the kind of mind you want to change, and speak the language it can understand. That’ll change minds.

Well, bit of a ramble. Time for bed. Big rally day tomorrow.

Steve Himmer talks about expressing his political viewpoints, especially after a gubernatorial debate:

It also makes me wonder, though, with all of the hegemonic masculinities and femininities and political opinions we encounter everyday, how many of us actually agree with the party line–with any party line–and how many of us are just too tired or too lazy or too inadvertantly threatened (or feel threatened based on past experience) to say so? If we could gauge the quiet minds of our neighbors, would they be so different from ourselves? Would we, in fact, all be the same in our difference, keeping our non-compliance to ourselves? Or am I really the only lefty in town? The Green Party is having a standout in the city center tomorrow… maybe I’ll go and find out.

Only lefty. In Massachusetts?!? I shouldn’t think there’s a problem on that one, Steve.

Tis the season: I watched a senate debate yesterday: Jean Carnahan (Democrat/Incumbant), Jim Talent (Republican), Tamara Millay (Libertarian), and Daniel “digger” Romano, Green Party. Before I give you my impression, I want to give you some second hand impressions that my roommate brought home from work today.

 

Jean Carnahan and Jim Talent — spent the entire time squabbling and pointing fingers at each other over patriotism and homeland security.

Tamara Millay — smart, good speaker, projected confidence. However, after a listing of party platforms and objectives the concensus was that a vote for Millay is a vote for anarchy. However, she was the most impressive speaker.

Daniel Romano — looked like a Berkely Professor. What’s with the hair? The clothes? Is he stoned?

 

Now for my viewpoint:

Carnahan and Talent have run the worst campaign I have ever been unfortunate to witness. Spiteful, petty, vicious, ugly. I can’t stand either of them, as neither seems to care a fig about the people of Missouri. An interesting thing in Carnahan’s favor though is the plane crash today of Senator Wellstone: Carnahan’s own husband, Mel Carnahan was himself killed in a plane crash two years ago as he ran against John Ashcroft, our current Attorney General of the United States. This might re-generate a sympathy vote for her this term.

Tamara Millay — The Libertarian Party picked a winner here. Smart, presentable, quick on her feet, and knows how to play the game. However, as with Steve, I also draw the line at arming airplane passengers, and removing all social structure and services.

Daniel Romano — What an absolute and unmitigated disaster. One has to ask if Mr. Romano and the Green Party truly want to win. When you’re in California, you can wear dreadlocks and “Berkely Professor” attire, and win. Not in the midwest, in the middle of the bible belt.

I respect the Green Party, and before today’s plane crash, had planned on voting Green Party, but not now, and for two reasons: I can’t stomach the fact of a Republican controlled Senate and House, and I have no patience for people who care about issues, but not to the point of getting a bloody haircut if it will make him more consumable to the voters.

Now before you jump all over my case for this ‘shallow’ viewpoint, hear me out. The Green Party has some important platform issues, such as total equality regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, and so on. And they have a very progressive viewpoint about the environment, as well as genetic experimentation. They’re also against unilateral action against Iraq (as are the Libertarians). They have good things to say, and are worth hearing.

All of which goes for naught because their candidate shows up for a mid-west, bible belt, relatively conservative debate with dreadlocks and dressed like a Berkeley professor, to borrow the popular impression. He then proceeds to look with seeming disdain on the whole affair as if he couldn’t quite figure out why he’s there wasting his time, when he should be at a peace rally somewhere.

Combine everything, and whatever Digger was going to say wasn’t heard.

Voting for a person’s attire and mannerisms is shallow, but it is also a major reason why many people get elected. People vote for people they’re comfortable with. Someone like Jean Carnahan, the Democratic candidate, wouldn’t have a chance in California, because she doesn’t fit in as a Californian. She wouldn’t be “bad”, but she would be different.

Digger is native Missouri, but he’s outside the bell curve, so to speak. This doesn’t make him “bad”, but it does make him different. And when people perceive you as too different, they’re not going to listen to what you have to say.

Hasn’t this mess in the world taught us that one by now?

Now I’m faced with two unhappy options: throwing away my vote on Digger, because I like many of the Green Party plaform ideas, but the man hasn’t a chance; or voting for Carnahan and hopefully keep Talent out of a Senate seat, and helping to prevent a Republican owned Congress.