A sure-to-be-controversial piece in Salon [subscription] today on the antiwar movement and its self-destructive nature:
The rally was just the latest example of liberal confusion and mixed messages over postwar Iraq, as progressives try to figure out how to oppose Bush's policies in a way that doesn't punish the Iraqi people for the administration's mendacity. Angry at the way Iraq's reconstruction has turned into a bonanza for Bush's corporate cronies, powerful Democrats along with some Republicans have tried to block grants to rebuild Iraq, and progressive groups have adopted nativist arguments insisting that Americans' money should be spent in America. What's lost in such reasoning, of course, is any sympathy for beleaguered Iraqis, whose misfortune it was to live under Saddam Hussein, and be liberated by a president who lied to his own people and alienated the world.
This is a refreshingly candid look at the current state of the antiwar movement. Now that the war is "over" at least in terms of the conquest phase, the makeup of the antiwar movement (as measured by the protesters) has changed, apparently shifting from Joe Public to Stalinist Sue and Anarchist Amy.
I personally don't think we just just up stakes and leave Iraq. That is just not viable. We made the mess, it's up to us to clean it up. We have to face facts, we are running an Occupation. Even if (please America) Bush is thrown out on his ear next year, whoever succeeds him will still have to deal with an American presence in Iraq. That's simply all there is to it. Even if the UN steps in in a significant way, it's still our mess.
But we don't have to like it. And we can't let Bush forget he's the one that got us into this mess.
I have to admit (much to my chagrin) I didn't get involved in the antiwar protests in London back before the war - partly due to laziness and/or scheduling conflicts, to be sure. But I also had a sense of unease at sharing a platform with some of the groups that fell (and presumably still fall) under the antiwar umbrella. I wanted to express my extreme disapproval of the war, but at the same time I didn't want to pick up the paper and see a picture of me standing next to someone burning an American flag or carrying the slogan of some totally irrelevant (to an anti-war protest) activist group.
I've always felt that progressive protests shoot themselves in the foot to one degree or another by not staying on-message and by encouraging every radical with a bongo drum and a whistle to join in the "fun", whether or not it actually advances the cause. I was impressed with the massive antiwar protests in London because it was the everyday man and woman that came out to march, rather than the "professional protesters" that will show up to any progressive protest regardless of the protest's goals. What does Joe Public think when he sees the same group of shrill, screeching radicals show up at every demo? He might actually agree with the message of the protest, but as soon as he sees the Professional Demonstrator he thinks "f*cking hippies" and turns the channel in disgust.
Everyone's obviously entitled to their way of protest, don't get me wrong. When CNN reports that 100,000 people march on Hyde Park or on DC, I suppose the makeup of the protesters doesn't matter that much. But there's no denying that the progressive movement suffers from regular and predictable PR problems. I mean, for Pete's sake, how does International ANSWER, the group behind the protests covered in the Salon article, think it's going to get across to the mainstream public when it's sponsored by the Stalinist Workers Party? That ain't gonna fly.
Now where does that leave us? Well I for one am still going to march against Bush in November, no matter what the placards and banners around me say. My conscience demands it. But I will do so in a manner which best represents my status as an Expat Against Bush: calm, reasoned and purposeful. I hope other expat Americans will join me.
No doubt there will be people marching alongside us whose messages we may not completely agree with. Politics (and protests) make strange bedfellows. You can only represent yourself at the end of the day, just make sure it's done in a way that you're able to live with years down the line. And make sure you're marching for the right cause, and for the right reasons.
UPDATE
Since I first posted this, I've seen this post on the Belligerent Bunny Blog. While I totally disagree with much of Anna's conclusions and it's pretty clear we wouldn't get along politically, you can see the kind of foolishness I was talking about above. It's possible that a backlash against progressive demos could come out of images like this. That's not what anyone wants.
An old family friend wrote to say:
We dealt with that constantly during Vietnam. A half million people could march, and the media focused on the twenty people snake dancing and screaming through the crowd beneath a Soviet Union flag. Still, once you start limiting people's access to demos, you set up ridiculous problems. They end up sniping at you (this back when that meant bad words not bullets), claiming you don't believe in free speech etc., and the conservative columnists leap on that. And they legitimately claim, why do you keep me out and let them in? All you can do is hope that most people get the message about the majority of demonstators, and not the loud and colorful few.
Comments