The Anti-War ABB Democrats

As the election approaches, I've found myself in engaged in more and more 
conversations with liberal Democrats, who both oppose the occupation of Iraq 
and support John Kerry for President, about what is wrong with my stance on 
American politics.  The following represents various parts of that ongoing 
conversation.

I frequently find myself in agreement with the conservative press.  Despite 
how people pigeon-hole me, I *do* think of myself as a conservative.  I was 
raised in two very conservative households in Texas.  I favor small 
government, reducing debt and lowering federal spending (eg. let's cut the 
pentagon budget that represents HALF of your taxes, or take a look at 
priceofwar.org).  I want to keep the state out of my life.  I support states' 
rights.  Nation building is not the business of sovereign democracies, etc. 
The problem of course is that those who describe themselves as conservative 
are far, far from it.

I think the conservative press got it *so* right months and months ago when 
they said this election was about one issue -- the war.  That is certainly the 
only issue for me in this election.  And as the DNC unfolded we saw that Kerry 
is for escalation, not withdrawal.  As the election comes closer a plan to 
withdrawal WILL come out of the white house, maybe even as soon as the RNC. 
Kerry, having painted himself into a corner will then have to argue on the 
side of a continued occupation (for the safety of Iraqis), while Bush puts 
forward a definite plan (albeit all smoke and mirrors) to remove troops over 
the coming years.  I do think that the elite have chosen Kerry thinking he 
will represent their interests with more nuance and less offensiveness (and 
thus with more effectiveness).  But, the best I can hope for is that the war 
will be a real issue in another four years.

How can the Dems win a presidential election if a group as small and 
marganilized as Nader supporters can bring them to their knees (literaly on 
the Maher show)?  And if a group as small and marginilized as the Nader camp 
can bring the Dems to their knees merely by standing by their positions -- 
imagine what a Democractic party united by opposition to the war could do to 
the Republican party.  There is a profound lesson to be learned there: 
principled opposition begets influence.

There will be no change through concession.  In the book I'm reading, Edward 
Said's End of the Peace Process, he makes a comparison between Yasser Arafat 
and Nelson Mandela.  Arafat has conceded every conceivable right of 
Palestinians.  He has cooperated without the slightest resistance in a "peace 
process" that has crippled Palestine.  In doing so he has enjoyed the power 
afforded to him by Israel and the U.S.  Mandela on the other hand, said one 
person, one vote.  It cost him almost 3 decades in prison.  Today the 
apartheid has ended, while the longest occupation of the 20th century persists 
into the 21st.  "Only the force of unyielding principle held on to from the 
position of moral strength [...] was capable of delegitimizing apartheid all 
over the world."  Likewise, this is the *only* way to delegitimize the war in 
Iraq.  It's time the Democractic party, or it's successor, started acting more 
like Mandela and less like Arafat.

I'm often told that my politics aren't grounded in reality.  That I'm naive 
and that I don't posit an alternative that is realistic and that politics is 
about realities, not abstractions.

This reminds me of all the pushing and shoving at the DNC to get the Kucinich 
delegates to switch to Kerry in order to give the appearance of unanimity, ie 
around 5,070 vs. 5,000 votes for Kerry.  What's the big deal -- the party is 
still going to choose Kerry?  Some Democrats really want to the end the war 
(90% of the delegates oppose the occupation) but there's not room for that 
position in the party's leadership.  I just saw that delegates at the DNC with 
pink handkerchiefs that say "Give Bush the Pink Slip -- Delegates for Peace" 
were confiscated by the DNC organizers.  There is also no debate on the issue 
of this war -- when they asked if there were issues to debate many delegates 
screamed yes and then the speaker said, well since there were no voices raised 
there are no issues, let's move on.  It's the Dem party that is working in 
abstractions (unanimous support, no need for debate, a facade of no conflict 
within the party, a media spectacle of a convention, etc.).  I'm supporting 
reality in politics through debate, dissent, and rationality.

Michael Moore has said to Nader supporters, "Your message was carried this 
year by Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich and they already pushed the party to 
where it should be, with the majority of Americans."

I don't think Moore is to be trusted on the issue of partisan politics.
I've been skeptical of him since he pimped Wes Clark, who was Supreme Allied
Commander while several war crimes were committed (depleted uranium was
used, civilian markets were cluster bombed, a passenger train and a local
media center were targeted and destroyed).  Moore has also misrepresented
footage of Burlington activists that were beaten by the police outside the
Governor's conference after Tom Ridge (then Gov of Penn) signed Mumia's
death warrant.  Moore used it on TV Nation in a piece on "hug a governor
day" and said that these protesters were there to hug a governor and then
beaten.  So I'm a Moore skeptic to say the least.  But to think that
Kucinich and Dean have pushed the party is laughable.  Dean's been a phony
from the beginning, and Kucinich couldn't even get the platform amended to
read that American forces would be pulled out of Iraq "when appropriate so
that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no
longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence."
I would say Dean and Kucinich influenced the Democratic party about as much
as I did, which is to say not at all.  (Here is where I'm in agreement with 
the conservative press again, 
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200407290903.asp)

We need a referendum on Bush -- no doubt, but more importantly we need a
referendum on the system that supports Bush.  The Democratic platform
doesn't even come close.  And we shouldn't expect it to.  The Democrats are
loyal to same powers as the Republicans.  We're building permanent military
installations in Iraq.  Make no mistake: permanent.  It doesn't matter who
is in the White House, our troops will stay.  And as long as we stay,
violence will ensue.  So, just as the abolitionists refused to vote for
either of the dominate pro-slavery parties, I refuse to vote for either of
the dominate pro-war parties.

I think most people, and certainly most Democrats, don't want this war --
and they don't want a permanent military installation in Iraq.  The problem
is that they're willing to vote for someone who doesn't share their views.
I think my stance is both consistent and realistic, more so than the
anti-war faction of the ABB-Democrats.  Moreover, it is the *only* stance that 
will lead to an end of the occupation.

David


_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/