/feedback
-reader mail

* Resistance to the War *

As I write these words, war with Iraq appears imminent, despite the efforts and intentions of thousands of dedicated activists and protestors. I firmly oppose this war and have spoken against it and demonstrated against it. I still feel some guilt, that perhaps I have not done enough or spoken eloquently enough to make the difference that I should have, but that is past and I now must think about how to proceed in the future.

Many have called for more and louder protests to resist the war, but I have concerns about this approach. Where I work we have an expression. We say that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I don't think this is necessarily insane behavior, but it certainly does not seem very effective. This is a common complaint that I have against the "far left" in this country. They have a tendency to repeat the same messages again and again (often just to each other, because no one else is really listening). When they are not heard they think they have to speak in a louder voice or more harshly. Rather than continue to repeat the same ineffective message I think they need to reflect more on why their message is not being heard, understood and reacted to by more people.

It seems to me that there are several possible explanations for this lack of "results". Some may be hard to consider, but failure to do so will doom the left to the place they have almost always held in American society; that of a fringe movement, dominated by what many people consider are "kooks" and almost completely ineffective at bringing about substantive change.

The first possible reason no one is listening is that the message is wrong! This is probably the hardest thing of all to consider, but failure to do so makes one every bit as "pig headed" and "narrow minded" as the left accuses right wing ideologues of being. Those on the left, in this case, those who oppose the war dogmatically, need to review their arguments. I don't believe that critically evaluating your own position implies that you are not committed to "the cause". I believe it is crucial to making the best case you can. And this self analysis or self criticism should not just be "eyewash" or a cursory, quick review of your arguments that rapidly concludes that you were completely correct all along, so let's get on with it. There are almost certainly good points being made by the other side. These points need to be understood, acknowledged and perhaps even incorporated into your position. This will make it much stronger and much more likely to be correct. In addition, when arguing the issue, if you start with an acknowledgement of the strengths or truths of the "other side" you build some credibility with a critical audience. They start to think you understand something of the issue and are more likely to hear the rest of your argument.

Another reason the message is not being heard is that it is not being presented in a convincing manner. Shouting a slogan or waving a sign is not convincing to many people. If you marched recently, were you very swayed by any "counter demonstrators" with colorful signs or clever chants? If not, why do you believe others will be swayed by yours? That is not to say the protests have no value, but they are not likely to convince lots of people to change their views. Further, chanting "no blood for oil" is not likely to cause the majority of Americans, who do not think this war is about oil, to be suddenly convinced that the war is wrong. Instead you need to understand what the people you hope to persuade do believe and what they hold dear. Perhaps you need to appeal to their love of their country, their sense of fair play and their concern about their security. If this is why they support the war, they should be shown why the war does not add to America's safety and greatness but quite possibly will detract from it. Even if you can not "prove" that America will be less safe after we stir up even more resentment toward us, neither can the other side "prove" that we will be safer after Hussein is gone. It is a complex and difficult situation and both arguments can be made. But we should be making people doubt the certainty of this war, by showing that it may well not give them the results they want but will certainly result in the death of innocents. Is that the American way?

Are there "third way" types of solutions? Solutions that consider the valid points of each argument and try to reach some type of middle ground. At this moment, none immediately come to mind for this issue, but in many cases there are. With more thought and reflection, some probably exist and should be seriously considered. (They are harder to find when we are so far down a path as we are now. More options probably existed a few months ago, but we have missed them now).

A final comment or thought for those who might believe that failing to hold unflinchingly to the "pure truths" of "our" side and believing that compromise of any sort is selling out. I believe that this war is now happening precisely because certain elements of the American far left take this position. The last presidential election was unbelievably close. A few hundred or few thousand votes in key places could have meant that Gore would be president and it is quite likely that we would be pursuing a significantly different direction if Gore were president. Unfortunately, Ralph Nader and thousands of his uncompromising followers believed that they needed to make a "statement" and take a stand for purity. So Nader got the votes that should have gone to Gore and would have been enough to put him over the top. Are any of those people who vote for Nader looking in the mirror today and saying, "I could have prevented this war if I were willing to compromise?" I doubt it. And that in a nutshell, is why the American far left will continue to be ineffective at bringing about real change and making a real impact on American society and part of the reason they have not been successful in stopping this war. Until that changes, all the protests and acts of civil disobedience will continue to be ineffective.
Steve Tripp

Mr. Tripp,
Thanks again for writing in- I'm glad to have the input of a "middle-aged white guy" on this matter. =)
I agree with you wholeheartedly on your first point. Any dogmatic position, on any issue, is generally much less effective and much more easily ignored than a well informed, thought-out, mature, and mediated position. I know how you feel; at the anti-war rally Thursday at University of Michigan, one of the speakers said something to the effect of "we will continue to oppose this war, because we know our viewpoint is the just and righteous one," causing a huge uproar from the crowd. I turned to a friend of mine and simply said, "Righteousness- isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place?" Unfortunately, these days it is becoming more and more difficult to develop a credible standpoint due to the corporate media's huge role in public perception. I am a major advocate of independent and international media, but all too often these sources are written off as "biased" or "less than credible". With the majority of the U.S. corporate media presenting only one side of the issue, it is sometimes hard to find a credible argument no matter how hard you try. Nonetheless, I feel that good arguments can be developed by employing the use of Western international news sources (to nullify accusations of bias) and some of the more liberal U.S. Publications (for example, the Washington Post). Also, looking at history helps in many arguments, in this case, the history of the Gulf War and the background of the energy-crisis era Reaganites which form most of the Bush administration.
On your second point, I also agree. This is why I am quite glad to have intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, both of whom are experts on U.S. Foreign policy and the politics of the Middle East, presenting valuable view points and facts to the public, speaking in interviews and at colleges across the nation. I think it is also important that there are teachers who are against this war, who are willing to present both sides of the argument to their students, helping them to make better-informed decisions be they pro or con.
As far as "middle ground" solutions go, I feel that working through the U.N. is the most obvious, though it seems most Americans regard this as an impossibility. Many people seem to misunderstand that while we claim we have a right to go to war because Iraq violated UN resolutions, we are violating UN statutes by using unilateral force.
On your last point, I disagree with you. I put little faith in the Democratic party to represent the people, and I cannot help but question your assertion that things would be different if Gore were president. During a time like this, it is helpful that we remind ourselves that it was a Democrat who went to war with Vietnam, and it was a Democrat who dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Public sentiment at the time of the Vietnam war was fervently anti-Communist, and allowed for the invasion of Vietnam as it was manipulated to be a war to prevent the spread of communism. I feel that the same applies in the aftermath of September 11th, and the anti-terrorist public would have called strongly upon Gore to respond with force, much as Bush did in Afghanistan and claims he is also doing in Iraq.
During the last election, many of the people who voted for Nader did so for a notable reason- the green party stood to get more votes than before with "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" running, and if they could have gotten 3%, they would have been allowed funding and recognition as a major party. You call for the left to unite under the flag of the Democratic party and forsake the freethinking that it stands for, on the basis that this freethinking may sometimes be hurtful to its position. Simply look at the Clinton presidency and you will see where this can go wrong. During his time in office, Clinton pulled large amounts of previously-granted aid to Iraqi civilians, bombed Baghdad for unclear and possibly very personal reasons, refused to appoint any judges liberal enough to be controversial, and continued a $250 billion dollar military budget at the cost of funds for our dying prison system and other needs. I followed the last election, watching both debates and studying both candidates, and I have to wonder: would Gore have done things much differently? For people who share your viewpoint, and for the many Democrats who are taking advantage of this war to gain a political edge, it would certainly be nice to think so.
You seem to lack faith in the merits of a mass people's movement, instead placing your faith in the dual-party system of consensus, in which our votes hardly even make a difference. Social change comes not only from the ballot box- while I agree that we should vote for candidates who share our convictions, we must accept that in a capitalist society, corporations will run the White House no matter who we vote for. We must understand that corporate sponsors, be they for the Democrats or the Republicans, possess a stronger and louder voice than the people, but we must not give up hope. Did the Civil Right's movement ever give up, did it ever stop? Even after Martin Luther King was assassinated, the Civil Rights movement continued, and still continues winning countless rights and justices for oppressed people. Women's right's activists were never set back when the movement let with little initial success. Whenever enough people are involved, and whenever enough of them demand to have their voices heard, flooding congressmen and senators with mail (such as the 40,000 letters received by congress in one day demanding they not attack Iraq), participating in nonviolent civil disobedience to raise public awareness of the issue, utilizing the Internet to disseminate factual information little-publicized in the mass media, and banding together to work for a common goal, eventually success can be attained. This is the way things work in a Democratic Republic under capitalism . You often see signs reading "This is what you call democracy?" while riot police are teargassing, beating, and arresting nonviolent protesters, but if we combine our efforts on both fronts, staying united as much as possible, we can eventually achieve our common goal. In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Even the mainstream press now reports the "urgent and disturbing" messages sent to Washington from US embassies around the world, warning that "many people in the world increasingly think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace" than Saddam Hussein (Washington Post lead story)... Whatever happens in Iraq, the popular movements here should be invigorated to confront this far larger and continuing threat, which is sure to take new forms, and is quite literally raising issues of the fate of the human species.  That aside, the popular movements should be mobilized to support the best outcomes for the people of Iraq, and not only there of course.  There's plenty of work to do."
--Francis