Sunday, February 02, 2003

Why We Oppose the War While Accepting its Inevitability Eric Boehlert’s Friday Salon article about the irrelevance and demoralization of the Democratic Party over the war also reflects a real dilemma for the anti-war movement.  Despite congratulating ourselves with polls that show most Americans do not want a unilateral war, and doubt the war is necessary, basically most of us in the movement have accepted that war is inevitable.   What does this mean?  First, despite our increasingly strong rallies, marches, and demonstrations, we are not stupid, and we believe that Bush will attack Iraq in the near future, either with a fig-leaf of approval from the UN, or without it if there are any security council countries willing to pay the price of opposing Caesar.   So the rational for the rallies, besides expressing our deep disgust over bombing innocent Iraqi’s, becomes an exercise in raising the political cost.  But this is a double-edged sword.   The idea is that if Bush goes ahead in isolation, with many people visibly against him, and then things go wrong—let’s say Americans are attacked in Kuwait with chemical weapons, and in a single day several thousand Americans are killed—Bush will bear the blame for the disaster.   But who wants to be in a position of benefiting from this horrible scenario?  It is a no win situation.  If there is disaster, Americans whom we all want to see safe and at home, will be destroyed.  If there is no disaster, Bush will claim victory, and those who questioned the costs of the war will be further marginalized.   We need to recognize that our enemy-- the right wing junta that has taken over the country and is taking over the courts-- is strong, powerful, and in a narrow sense, popular.   So our opposition has to start with the idea of building a majority.  This is why the marginalization of the democrats is so devastating—because there is no hope for building a majority when they accept their role as pygmies—biting at the heels of the republicans, but afraid to take them on directly.   This majority will be built on common good and self-interest, not morality and justice.  But to create a new sense of common good and self-interest, we need to radically change the framework of “politics”.    For example, we need to challenge the notion that corporate needs come first. Why should we not guarantee six weeks vacation to every worker.  Why should we not guarantee health care for all.  Why should we not guarantee housing for families by the government, if a last resort.  We don’t need to live in the Hobbesian world of all against all simply because that is the world in which corporations thrive best.   In the anti-war movement, we need to broaden our demands to much more than simply not bombing Iraq.  When we can tie the lack of basic security at home—lack of economic security, lack of personal safety, the climate of fear—to the pursuit of wars and military domination abroad, then we will have our majority, not simply against militarism, but for a more humane and person centered society.  That will be a campaign that transcends the present day democratic party, and the upcoming war with Iraq.   So we can appreciate how boxed in we are about Iraq, but recognize that our opposition will contribute over the long term to a real rebirth of a more just, equitable, and people centered American society.  5:54:38 PM   comment []

© Copyright 2003 Toby Sackton. Last update: 3/3/2003; 11:24:20 PM.