Sunday, January 19, 2003

Anti-War Protests This Week Are Largest National Demonstrations in Decades What does it mean when hundreds of thousands of people across the U.S. in large and small cities come out for coordinated anti-war rallies? It means that the political momentum to halt war with Iraq has moved beyond the supine Democratic Party, and into a growing popular protest movement.    Two things stand out about this weekend’s demonstrations.  One is that they are unbelievably widespread, due largely to the ability of groups to organize over the Internet.  Second, the breadth of the movement is far beyond anything seen at the beginning of the anti-Vietnam war movement, or at the beginning of the civil rights movement.   What is propelling such a broad protest?  I think it is the combination of a genuine feeling against war with Iraq at this time, and a sense that Bush has taken silence for acquiescence.  The Supreme Court’s role in appointing Bush to the presidency, and Bush’s subsequent hard right administration, is feeding a growing sense that electoral politics has failed to represent a large segment of the population.   Adding to this sense of electoral failure is the gutting of campaign finance reform.  There is a widespread feeling that politicians have become untouchable tools of corporate interests who finance their campaigns—and this is leading people out to protest.   All this adds up to a very fertile climate for activists.  Much of the organizing and planning of anti war vigils and demonstrations is being done by activists who have a long history and experience either through opposition to the war in Vietnam, support for environmental fights, or anti-globalization efforts.  But their efforts are falling on fertile ground because of the disenfranchisement felt by large groups of Americans.   In Washington, there were 200,000 people.  In San Francisco, 50,000.  In Portland, Ore, 20,000.  In Boston, we decided to do a series of local events for those not going to Washington, which got coverage in the Boston Globe, and involved hundreds of people at different intersections around the city and suburbs.  A sampling of other protests include Fort Wayne, Ind., Orange county, CA, El Paso, TX, Honolulu, HI, Charlotte, NC, Tuscon, AZ, Portsmouth, NH among dozens of other cities across the U.S.   The action I attended in Watertown, Mass.(photos), (a local solidly middle class community) felt more like a demonstration than a vigil.  Hundreds of people lined all roads leading in to the main square.  Motorists going by were constantly honking their support- and a few were disparaging us as they stopped at the lights.  Reporters and media came.    The owner of a local bakery sent out someone with trays of fancy cookies to give to all the people holding signs and banners.  It turns out the bakery owner was Iraqi, and had been the subject of threats and harassment after Sept. 11th.   What is striking about this new anti-war movement is its breadth.  Many of the families who went to Washington did so to make a personal statement against the war—not because they were radical activists.  The media has picked up this theme, and is repeating it in interview after interview with demonstrators.    In Lexington, our weekly vigil is suddenly growing by leaps and bounds.  Some High School students who have been attending our evening vigil have begun holding a peace vigil at the high school two times a week before class.   All of this activity represents a solid majority opinion that Bush has not made the case for war to the American people.    This movement has not been at all divisive so far.  But if Bush overreaches, and begins a war without greater support, things could get very divisive.  Already, I hear a lot of reaction to the tearful goodbye stories about soldiers leaving for Iraq.  The attitude is why did they join the military if they didn’t expect to fight, and that if they are being taken advantage of—i.e. being sent to fight an unnecessary war, than they should stand up and resist.   Our next major demonstration will be at the U.N. on Saturday, Feb. 15th.  If that proves also to be large and popular, it will be harder and harder for politicians to ignore the peace movement.   Edit:  After I wrote this, I saw the NYT editorial for Monday-- even the Times is thinking things could get rough and divisive if Bush does not respond to concerns about not rushing into war.  9:25:07 PM   comment []

© Copyright 2003 Toby Sackton. Last update: 2/2/2003; 5:54:54 PM.