Strategic organizing to end the war.
By Mike Edera of Scappoose, Oregon. Mike is a landscaper and an activist with the Rural Organizing Project.
"Strategy-free activism" is a term coined by the late-great activist Judy Bari. The worst example of strategy-free activism I have ever seen was provided by a band of mask-wearing 'revolutionaries' carrying an 'F the Troops' banner in a big Portland peace march.
By contrast, the best recent example of strategic activism was Cindy Sheehan's protest outside of Bush's Crawford dude-ranch. Before a national press corps stuck covering the President's summer vacation, she contrasted her condition as the grieving mother of a soldier-son killed in Iraq with Bush's feckless month-long West Texas siesta. Her example galvanized peace vigils across the country, re-launched the anti-war movement, linking it to the suffering of soldiers and their families.
The wave of peace vigils and local anti-war activities inspired by Cindy Sheehan has rolled on for over 80 weeks, though you'd never know about it from the mainstream media. The Rural Organizing Project compiled a list of over forty vigils happening regularly in rural Oregon alone - who knows what the number is nationally?
A year ago Rural Organizing Project activists began thinking about how to leverage the local peace work happening in small towns across the state. How could these individual actions combine to create a bigger effect, and what was the most appropriate target for activism? Out of many discussions came the ROP's Cost of War campaign.
We decided to include a common demand in our local activities: that our Congress people and Senators give an accounting of the real costs of the Iraq occupation. We reasoned that elected federal officials had the means and a duty to make sure all their constituents understood how much the war has cost, and what services were sacrificed to pay for it. As part of the Cost of War campaign we called on our Congress people to hold Iraq Town Halls in their districts. We made this demand via petition, and also in person whenever we could attend a meeting with a Representative or Senator.
We soon noticed that, while none of the Congressional delegation agreed to hold special Iraq Town Halls, they did became more vocal on the occupation and began to include the term 'cost of war' in their public statements.
However, by August of '06 we were tired of waiting for the politicians to act. The ROP staff formally invited the Congressional delegation to Iraq Town Halls that we would organize ourselves in each Congressional District. In December, after elections that brought Democrats to power in DC on a wave of anti-war sentiment, we set Town Hall dates for the February Congressional recess, anticipating the upcoming vote on a massive $240 billion appropriation to continue the Iraq occupation. No Representative or Senator agreed to attend, but Reps David Wu, Darlene Hooley, and Peter DeFazio committed to send staff.
Town Halls happened in four of five Congressional districts between February 16 and 24:
In Redmond (Rep Greg Walden, District 2), 175 people crowded into the Redmond Community Center. In Lincoln City (Rep Darlene Hooley, District 5) 125 people attended. In Roseburg, 125 people turned out (Peter DeFazio, District 4). At all the meetings, military families and returning vets spoke, including the mother of Suzanne Swift, who refused orders to return to Iraq.
I attended the Forest Grove Town Hall (Rep David Wu, District 1), where 200 people filled Taylor Auditorium on the Pacific University campus. Former Air Force photographer Tina Bean, recently returned from Iraq and suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome addressed the crowd:
"I haven't seen a single one of my friends since I've been home, because I don't want them to see me like this," she said, fighting tears. "I can't look at myself in the mirror without feeling disgusted. I feel like I'm broken into a million pieces. I'll never be the person I was."
By organizing these assemblies we achieved the first goal of the campaign: to bring local anti-war groups together in coalitions centered in Congressional Districts and focused on community outreach as a means to pressure elected officials.
Each Town Hall was organized by the local ROP Human Dignity Groups and allies. Testimonies were solicited from within the communities where we live. This met our second goal: to expand the outreach of local groups and highlight the cost of war for our neighbors, bringing in new people.
Did we meet our third goal of influencing our Congress people and Senators to vote against the Iraq appropriation, and to take the lead in explaining the cost of war to their constituents? None of them attended. Some held their own pre-screened events to coincide with our grassroots assemblies.
On the other hand, all Representatives and Senators are now aware that anti-war activists are creating coalitions in each Congressional District, that we are including into our protests the type of targeted political action that has historically succeeded in re-shaping the political landscape, whether to the left or the right.
We are in for a long struggle to get Congress people and Senators to vote down funding for the occupation - a vote that will effectively end the war. We will need to be imaginative. The goal should be to create a relentless, non-violent political force capable of rewarding friends and punishing enemies.
As someone explained to me during the Town Hall in Rep Wu's District: 'We need to push hard - even on those who agree with us - to make sure they keep coming our way.'
For more information, or to get involved, visit the Rural Organizing Project.
|
March 22, 2007 |
guest column | Comments (68 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Mar 22, 2007 2:51:27 PM
Normally I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. Given the choice between assuming brilliancy on the part of would-be conspirators and absolute idiocy beyond all belief (think Bush ignoring all the 9/11 warnings) - you really got to go with stupidity every time.
But I'm wondering. Who exactly are these mask-wearing jokers, anyway? They couldn't have more effectively punctured the efforts of the 200,000 other protesters if they'd tried.
So does anybody know who they are? Where they hold their meetings? What they were thinking?
Just asking.
Posted by: Joe12Pack | Mar 22, 2007 3:15:09 PM
Here's one explanation:
Anarchists
Don't knock 'em. They're just doing their part to keep Portland weird. See Portland Indymedia to further familiarize yourself with this bunch and some of their cohorts.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 22, 2007 3:33:31 PM
Normally I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories.
But you would do well to consider the probability that conspiracies by the military-industrial complex to promote war are valid.
Who exactly are these mask-wearing jokers, anyway? They couldn't have more effectively punctured the efforts of the 200,000 other protesters if they'd tried.
I'm normally not that enthused with theatrics at protests, but they do occasionally wake up otherwise comatose people. And, on a number of occasions they were spreading a message that some of us were too slow to recognize.
Posted by: Schizzle | Mar 22, 2007 3:33:33 PM
"Strategic organizing to end the war."
I don't see an end to this war because it's based on Islamic Fundamentalism.
Time will tell. We'll see when a Dem is POTUS, if the 'war' stops. I don't think it will, as the hatred is rooted in Islamic Fund. religion.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Mar 22, 2007 3:42:08 PM
The worst example of strategy-free activism I have ever seen was provided by a band of mask-wearing 'revolutionaries' carrying an 'F the Troops' banner in a big Portland peace march.
That was actually exceeded when the same group burned an American soldier in effigy on the South Park Blocks, images of which have been widely circulated on the Internet.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Mar 22, 2007 4:03:33 PM
Bill I'm normally not that enthused with theatrics at protests, but they do occasionally wake up otherwise comatose people.
When, pray tell, do they ever do that? Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second, are you persuaded by gigantic grisly photographs of aborted fetuses? Or Anne Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot?
Do you feel "woken up" or utterly repulsed?
The larger point that Democrats have been able to make over the last two weeks with the Coulter thing was that it wasn't just Coulter herself. When she spewed her bile, hundreds of Conservatives cheered. She leads a movement that all Americans should properly revile.
Don't let us be the people making excuses for burning an American flag and an American soldier in effigy.
Posted by: YoungOregonVoter | Mar 22, 2007 4:41:23 PM
The war will not stop because the current Democratic majority in Congress is afraid of being branded in the same light as George McGovern was in the Vietnam War. This is evident in them going after non-issues such as the 8 political appointees that were dismissed by GW.
The fact that Dems are going after Gonzales because of the 8 political appointees who serve and leave at the President's beckon call shows just how scared they are. They don't want to be branded as soft on national security, hence they divert the media's attention from mountains to molehills.
If I was a liberal Democrat right now, I would be steaming at this failure of a Congress lead by Pelosi. Where is the change that you said the American people voted for in November 2006 Pelosi?!
All I see is the same ole' political posturing while the real issues such as the War in Iraq, Social Security, Medicare, health care, and a host of other issues take a back seat to trying to embarass Bush because ya'll don't have the balls to shut down the Federal Government by not passing a budget to end the Iraq War.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 22, 2007 4:46:09 PM
It's "beck and call," and I don't exactly call obstruction of justice by Members of Congress, the Justice Department and the White House to be a non-story.
Hard to argue that the House isn't currently falling short of their mandateon Iraq, though.
Posted by: Amy Dudley | Mar 22, 2007 5:17:22 PM
Rural Women Arrested While Waiting for Walden to Commit to End Iraq War Funding
Photos, Full Story, and Media Links
Posted by: pedro | Mar 22, 2007 5:19:51 PM
youngvoter,
i am not here to defend the democrats handling of the iraq war issue (though the blame primarily goes to the blue dog caucus, and steny hoyer, not pelosi), however, it's a mistake to simply write off the the whole fired justices issue as simply an excuse to hide from 'the real issues' (interesting that you include the social security non-issue in that category). bush has made very clear that he is going to do whatever he wants, no matter what congress passes. this is not about embarrassing bush, it is significant step forward in our current constitutional crisis. today the senate approved the subpoenas, and the white house is claiming that the executive branch "is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability". so you still think that's just about embarrassing bush?
Posted by: YoungOregonVoter | Mar 22, 2007 5:43:35 PM
Torrid,
How can the Democrats carry out justice when they are not watchdogging themselves? Lets not forget about that waste of space called William Jefferson, Democrat Representative from Louisiana, who was found with 90k in his freezer. How about going after good ole' William Jefferson? Once their house is in order, then I agree full heartedly with you in going after Bush for obstruction of justice.
Pedro,
First, how is Social Security a non-issue? As far as the oversight issue is concerned, how will Democrats respond to the charge that they cannot issue a subpoena for Gonzales or White House officials because they are "national security advisors" in the War on Terror? Lets not forget that executive privilege applies to national security and bet your bottom dollar Bush will raise the issue of national security and designate Rove and his other advisors as "national security advisors." That is where the water gets murky.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 22, 2007 6:08:56 PM
From Steven: Bill I'm normally not that enthused with theatrics at protests, but they do occasionally wake up otherwise comatose people.
When, pray tell, do they ever do that? Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second, are you persuaded by gigantic grisly photographs of aborted fetuses? Or Anne Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot?
Steven: You seem to have ignored the word "occasionally" in my comment and chose to convert my statement to "anything goes" which is a gross distortion. I find your suggested examples just as offensive as you apparently do. If I recall correctly there were theatrics in Seattle prior to the WTO conference a few years ago. They did not go overboard like some anti-abortionists or Coulter, but they were ahead of many people who weren't paying attention then but are now. Prior to Seattle, theatrics were used reasonably well in anti-nuclear parades. To use your "shoe" metaphor, theatrics don't come in one style or size. They have varying degrees of quality - some good, some bad.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Mar 22, 2007 6:29:08 PM
The only practical strategy for ending the war is to elect a President in two years who will end it. We elected Bush in 2004 (at least nominally) and we are stuck with the results.
It should come as no great shock that Congress is not willing to shut off funding and in the process take the blame for the outcome. The real danger is that any Democrat who gets elected will have that same political dilemma. Withdraw and get the blame or, as happened with Nixon and Vietnam, continue the war while trying to negotiate some sort of withdrawal.
The focus needs to be on vetting the Presidential candidates not on their position - all of them will want to end the war - but on their willingness to actually make the decision to pull the plug.
What is needed now is to portray the current "surge" as a last ditch effort to create a stable country capable of defending itself before Bush leaves office. And then elect a President who will pledge to start bringing the troops home the day they take office.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Mar 22, 2007 6:47:21 PM
You mean the people who rioted and vandalized a bunch of Starbucks, Bill? That kind of "theatrics"?
And why do you think that would be viewed more favorably by the public than Coulter's tantrum, which despite all her hate filled bile, boiled down to mere juvenile namecalling?
Someone needs to get a message through to these "anarchist" jackasses that they're not welcome to associate themselves with progressive causes. Because they're not helping any of the causes they pretend to support. They're hurting them. Badly.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 22, 2007 8:27:50 PM
Steven:You mean the people who rioted and vandalized a bunch of Starbucks, Bill? That kind of "theatrics"?
No, I don't mean the people who rioted and vandalized. My understanding from people who were there was that was caused by people out for trouble which was a very small percentage of the protestors and that some people performing theatrically were completely innocent.
Since you appear determined to label all people participating in theatrics according to the behavior of some practicing unacceptable behavior, I find further discussion on this topic pointless. Having attended an event in Salem organized by some very nice people in the Rural Organizing Project that used theatrics in a non-violent and legal way, I resent your implication that all people using theatrics are some form of uncivilized creatures.
Posted by: mik edera | Mar 22, 2007 9:39:35 PM
Ending the Iraq war will be complex because, unlike Vietnam which was about NOTHING, Iraq is about OIL. The US energy policy is to put boots on the ground in the Middle East, and Democrats and Republicans know this.
The purpose of my above piece was to argue that the first step is to create an independent anti-war movement, not tied to political parties, but effectively organized as an implacable force. The ROP suggests that Congressional Districts are good templates for this independent force, because it allows peace activists to think in terms of politics and political action, instead of personal witness, moral indignation, and anger (as important as those emotions are). An independent anti-war movement will need to intervene in elections, local, congressional, presidential. But we should not fold ourselves into campaigns as part of the Democratic Party. If Democrats want our help, we need to make them deal with us like they deal with the labor movement, or the GOP deals with the NRA.
To those who argue that electing a new President is the way to end the war - can you say "Salvadore Allende'? Without an independent force, a peace president would be meat.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Mar 22, 2007 9:40:56 PM
I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, but it was very easy to do. This topic is about about a bunch of bratty anarchists - who effectively destroyed the messaging of all the other Peace marchers. Then you bring up the Seattle WTO marches where a nearly identical thing happened - bratty anarchists screwing hundreds of thousands of people out of their messaging. What was I supposed to think you meant?
But even if we're talking about street-theater, I really don't think it's persuasive to people who aren't already persuaded. Mainly for the reason that they're not looking. I just wish half of the people who go on a peace parade would do the hard work of going out canvassing with their local Democratic party, or Getting On the Bus. Conversations on people's doorsteps have been proven to change minds. Dramatizations that nobody but the already 80% Democratic Portlanders have a chance of seeing, don't.
Posted by: GT | Mar 22, 2007 11:40:12 PM
[Rant deleted. Greg Tompkins, you are no longer authorized to access this blog. Violations of the Oregon Computer Crime Law ORS 164.377 will be reported to the authorities. We're not kidding. -editor.]
Posted by: ws | Mar 23, 2007 12:09:55 AM
"our way or the highway". That never worked for me, but I see a lot of that kind of thinking in comments above. People do all kinds of things with the flag, yet the principle survives. It might be nauseous and offensive to some people, but burning flags, effigies, or parading cruel photos of aborted babies always tells something important to those who do not retreat to self-indulgent ignorance.
I don't know too much about Rural Organizing Project, but grass-roots response outside of conventional political formats are very important, and at any rate, inevitable. They may not appear very effective from certain points of view, but that's no surprize.
You can be all polite and politically PC going around door to door, obeying police orders to stay in the little cage they set up to contain you in your own city during demonstrations, but who do those kinds of actions really wake up? In D.C. things just grind away the same as always.
That's when your little friends with the masks come out of the woodwork. They're weary of the inert nature of political officiaries, wounded and outraged at the inhumanity that this body can acclimatize itself to. Their efforts may be too easily dismissed as juvenile antics of troublemakers representing a very small minority of U.S. citizens. Better keep checking. The handwriting is on the wall.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 23, 2007 6:09:11 AM
self-indulgent ignorance ...
...is one of the best ways to describe the cowardly acts of masked attention-seekers who are afraid to take responsibity for their silly acts of vandalism and angst-driven defiance, which are not only completely and wholly innefectual, but counter-productive to boot.
They can delude themselves into thinking they're doing something for society, but for the masksed marauders, it's all about feeding their own damn egos and delusions of grandeur.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Mar 23, 2007 7:54:45 AM
Great to see you out here on Blue O, Mike. Hope that you keep posting occasionally and thanks for the more "in depth" look at the ladies in Bend.
************
When this happened a while back with the Smith office in Portland, some commenters thought that protester refusal to observe the normal routines that our servants have set up for access to their August Personages, negated protester efforts.
It's my understanding that the Bend Gurlz did in fact go through a bunch of rigamarole to no effect, and so took action.
Good on them............
Posted by: Garrett | Mar 23, 2007 7:58:17 AM
If I was a liberal Democrat right now, I would be steaming at this failure of a Congress lead by Pelosi. Where is the change that you said the American people voted for in November 2006 Pelosi?!
Lets see...the 110th Congress first met on Jan. 10th. They've been in Washington for a little over 2 1/2 months and you've already branded them a failure? You certainly are a young voter. Yes they have a mandate on Iraq but I've said this before. They can't defund the troops. It will not happen. You don't want them to defund the troops because if the Democrats do it then the Republicans will win in a big way come 2008 and all this change we all fought for from 2004-2006 will have been completely wasted. I could get into details here on why the Dems would get wiped if the defunded troops in a theatre of war but I think it should speak to itself. We're in a 2 party system and the green party or whatever 3rd party has virtually no chance to win. Its a big worthless fight because no matter what the Dems don't have a super majority in the Senate to override Bush's veto. Won't even see the floor of the Senate because the Repubs can filibuster it. I don't know if blaming the Congress for not wasting their time on something THAT HAS NOT A PRAYER IN THE WORLD of passing is fair. Please take a govt. class so that you understand how our govt. works.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Mar 23, 2007 7:59:05 AM
Political movements have always struggled with the question of how to escalate tactics when existing methods have seemingly failed to yield intended results. Mike is arguing for a more strategic and deliberate focus on building power, while others are justifying the tactics of the “anarchists” as a necessary wake-up call.
Though it’s possible to explain the anarchists’ tactics as emerging from frustration, that doesn’t in and of itself make them any more strategic or effective. Polls show that the large majority of the country is also fed up with Congressional inaction. But how do these tactics cement that frustration into effective action? Are people watching supposed to be spurred themselves to rush out in the streets and trash their own local targets? To what effect? Mass insurrection?
In the past, groups demonstrating such tactics in the U.S. have been very heavily infiltrated by Federal agents, who have played the role of provocateurs precisely to undermine social movements and produce just these kinds of fissures. That’s not invoking “conspiracy theories,” it’s history.
What the contemporary movement has not yet produced at any real scale is the strategic use of the tactics of nonviolence. I’m speaking here of tactics that, like those of the anarchists, are ultimately intended to reveal the violence of the state or the opposition and provoke an outraged response that galvanizes the movement’s potential allies into action. Not, however, by provoking that violence by outlandish behavior, but by demonstrating the fundamental dignity of the cause in the face of the callous violence of the opposition.
It’s one thing for the armchair viewer to see the full force of the state or hate mongers brought on by people just doing what any human being has the right to do: sit down at a lunch counter to have a meal; ride a bus; go to school; walk across a bridge; attend a prayer service or a funeral; get married. It’s another to see police going after people running through the streets throwing rocks through store windows. The former provokes an intended moral crisis for those who may have been on the fence. The latter leaves those fence-sitters further alienated, thinking the protesters got what they deserved.
Posted by: Phil Jones | Mar 23, 2007 8:51:45 AM
The masked protesters who burned the soldier in effigy and the U.S. Flag at last weekend's peace march should not be thought of as representative of the rest of the marchers any more than the U.S. Soldiers who murdered the Iraqis in Haditha represent the rest of our armed forces.
This point should be made every time someone tries to lump all war protesters in the same group as the anarchists.
Posted by: BOHICA | Mar 23, 2007 8:57:20 AM
What the contemporary movement has not yet produced at any real scale is the strategic use of the tactics of nonviolence.
-Dan Petegorsky
Exactly! There has been some small activities using non-violence e.g at the Bangor sub base here in the NW. In Portland there are no military installations that could be targeted for similar action. All we have are Senator's offices in secure buildings and recruiting offices. If there were some place that was of importance here in PDX maybe organized sit-ins etc. could happen.
The black block advocates violent tactics, something I can never support. They always want to strike back. If they just laid down and refused to move they might get more support. But they have to carry pipes and such.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 23, 2007 10:06:21 AM
Dan Petegorsky and Phil Jones: Well said.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Mar 23, 2007 11:02:55 AM
The former provokes an intended moral crisis for those who may have been on the fence. The latter leaves those fence-sitters further alienated, thinking the protesters got what they deserved.
If there were some place that was of importance here in PDX maybe organized sit-ins etc. could happen.
This point should be made every time someone tries to lump all war protesters in the same group as the anarchists.
The difficulty here is that there are plenty of people who think breaking the law is wrong, whether the protest is violent or not. You will hear the same "they are doing more harm than good" argument from people who believe that lobbying and electoral work are the only legitimate or effective methods of changing public policy.
As I said above, at this point the effort to end the war ought to be focused almost entirely on the 2008 election. The issue is well beyond the point where civil-disobedience or even non-violent protests are appropriate tactics. They serve a useful purpose primarily as morale boosters for the real work that needs to be done.
The other difficulty is that I doubt the anarchists are just trying to end the war. They see the war as just the current manifestation of a larger problem. And that problem, as they define it, is not going to be fixed by persuading middle-class folks in their armchairs to support the cause. And, like the people who are marching, they are using their tactics as both a public statement and a morale booster for the real work they think is needed.
Now, as a practical matter, you can disagree with their politics, doubt that they will succeed or just be frightened by the prospect of both. But complaining about their tactics is just a way to avoid engaging in a real discussion.
I doubt if the same tactics were adopted by brownshirted neo-nazis I doubt anyone here would be tut-tutting about how counterproductive their tactics were. So it is not entirely unfair for people to see the anarchists as a manifestation of one political and tactical strain of a larger movement.
Posted by: Phil Jones | Mar 23, 2007 12:21:27 PM
"I doubt if the same tactics were adopted by brownshirted neo-nazis I doubt anyone here would be tut-tutting about how counterproductive their tactics were. So it is not entirely unfair for people to see the anarchists as a manifestation of one political and tactical strain of a larger movement."
Every time I see neo-nazis and their swastikas, I can't help but think how totally counterproductive their tactics are to their cause of racial segregation. The swastika invokes revulsion in most thinking American adults as a symbol of oppression and mass murders. It's not just the jewish community who can't stand nazis and what they symbolize.
Likewise, just as it did in this recent Portland war protest march, the image of the anarchists wearing facial coverings and burning the U.S. Flag and soldier in effigy have seriously undermined all the good the march may have accomplished. These offense, while quasi-legal, tainted an otherwise civil display of 15,000 citizens exercising their first amendment rights to protest an immoral war.
Anyone who can't see the harm done to civil discourse by extremist groups that offend the masses is not using the cognitive skills they were taught to use.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Mar 23, 2007 12:47:18 PM
that problem, as they define it, is not going to be fixed by persuading middle-class folks in their armchairs to support the cause
Ross - I'm confused by this. Are you suggesting the anarchists' tactics are actually directed at poor and working class people so it's irrelevant if they alienate the middle class?
If that's what you're saying, are you really thinking that these tactics are in fact effective in building power for the poor? How?
Posted by: Phil Jones | Mar 23, 2007 1:18:13 PM
Lars Larson and all the other conservative talk show hosts are currently making great use of the photos taken of the most offensive actions in the antiwar march. Now it seems there is a picture taken at the march showing one of the anarchists defecating on the flag.
There was nothing gained by the extremists last week. In fact, the images left behind are doing a huge amount of damage to the peace movement. Anyone supporting the anarchists should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Mar 23, 2007 1:29:12 PM
Some call in questions for Lars:
Do you think that we should call our troops in Iraq murderers because a few troops have been convicted of murdering Iraqi civilians?
Do you think that we should call the Minutemen racists because Nazis have showed up (uninvited) to their demonstrations?
If a member of a Democratic Administration revealed the identity of an undercover CIA operative that headed up WMD investigations to the press, would said Democratic operatives be guilty of treason?
And so on.......
Posted by: ws | Mar 23, 2007 1:43:09 PM
"Likewise, just as it did in this recent Portland war protest march, the image of the anarchists wearing facial coverings and burning the U.S. Flag and soldier in effigy have seriously undermined all the good the march may have accomplished." Phil Jones
Sorry, Phil, I must respectfully tell you that is just nonsense. At best, on the part of anybody that places substance to such a notion, it betrays a critical weakeness of confidence in the fundamental principles upon which this country is based. In this country, more people than not are smart enough and believe strongly enough in their country's principles to know that a small band of conspicuously outrageous demonstrators acts do not represent the sentiments and beliefs of all those others who oppose the war.
Humanity can be very contradictory. So much hoopla is directed towards proprietry notions of diplomacy and political process that mostly requires years of experience and skill to utilize effectively, and yet it's almost a reflexive response to throw the young, poor, less experienced into the flames of war with little thought. The kind of person that might be inclined to engage in an outrageous act of political demonstration for the purpose of affecting positive change is one who has likely come to the realization that existing approved diplomatic and political process is effectively, not available to them for the aformentioned reasons and more.
Anybody offended by the burning of an american soldier effigy ought to attempt setting aside their righteous indignation for just a little while to try and analyze why any american citizen would be so conceive of doing that and to what purpose. If you can't do that, maybe this is the wrong country for you.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 23, 2007 1:50:53 PM
The question whether we should have theatrics or civil disobedience or not is the wrong question. The questions should be "Should we engage in such practices?" and, if so, "What form should they take?" If any proponents suggest that it would be fun, then that should be taken as a rule of thumb to forget it.
We have many examples in addition to those mentioned above that have shown such activities to be counter-productive. On the other hand others have had the opposite effect with civil disobedience by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. being among the more obvious examples.
Posted by: Phil Jones | Mar 23, 2007 2:12:44 PM
ws -
I have no intention of leaving the country of my birth and your suggestion that I or anyone else disagreeing with you is offensive just as much as when the right wingnut crowd used the "America, Love It or Leave It" phrase so many years ago. No, I'd rather stand up to apologists such as you who encourage the repulsive actions of the anarchists who defecate upon and burn our Flag. While I support their legal right to do so, I abhor the actions that tarnished an otherwise civil gathering.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Mar 23, 2007 2:53:03 PM
(parts of this respond loosely to Steve M. and Garrett, another more directly to Garrett)
Too bad we're not talking about Mike's excellent column, which seems to me to link the demonstration/mobilization elements of the movement with the electoral elements and also raises the issue of organizing. I'm going to be forwarding the URL to someone I know in California who is in in touch with the national level of United for Peace and Justice, which has been struggling with resource issues in trying to build a movement that can both mobilize big demonstrations at central places and have an organized local presence and then link the levels.
The levels DO connect. It is not an accident that Earl B. addressed the rally at some length, that Tom Potter did so briefly, & that several state legislators put in appearances.
There were lots of organizations with presence there, & rallies are called that because they have a morale boosting effect. There was a tent where you could write letters to the congresspeople and senators, and another where you could sign up to get involved in civil disobedience. There were various groups trying to get people to engage the political system, including a group against attacking Iran that earlier this week successfully got the Portland City Council to take a stand against such an attack, and tangentially-only related groups like the No Sweat Portland campaign that is trying to produce anti-sweatshop pressure by changing city contracting policy on uniforms. Even the police chief, Rosie Sizer, was walking around calmly & doing good work to dispel Kroeker legacy.
Who wasn't there? Anyone trying to recruit people to work for the DPO or (perhaps more plausibly) Multnomah County Dems. Or perhaps even more plausibly, maybe some of us who are anti-war and also believe in electoral work should have had a tent to build an anti-war caucus within the DPO and MCD's, to put in energy & on that basis ask for or demand a voice.
Of course if we did that, we'd have to deal with the criticisms of representing the ideologically activist part of the base pulling the party away from the center. That's life, I guess. But dissing people for not doing door to door canvassing to elect people who you say won't, can't and really shouldn't do what the people in question want to see happen, out of commitment to political tactics that avoid the other hard work of trying to change people's minds, because getting elected on any basis NOW is more important than anything else, is pretty lame. Or to put it another way, why should people who want to see something happen do hard work for folks who really don't?
One thing I like about Mike's piece is that it appears that the ROP really *is* organizing and sees a piece of that work as *persuasion.* The problem with the political operative/ political insider perspective too often is unwillingness to engage in persuasion. Sometimes this reflects a different form of self-indulgent worldliness, self-congratulatory pseudo-realism, or cynicism. Sometimes it's just failing to include in the political task not just the art of what is currently possible, but that of working to change minds now to redefine what will be politically possible down the line.
You may not want to engage in THAT hard work. But if you want people who do to join you in the canvassing kind of hard work, you need to treat them with more respect.
Garrett wrote: "don't know if blaming the Congress for not wasting their time on something THAT HAS NOT A PRAYER IN THE WORLD of passing is fair. Please take a govt. class so that you understand how our govt. works."
Actually seems to me to exemplify how our govt. doesn't work. Garrett, if I accept this reasoning, why should I bother to vote at all? Damn right I want them to try, and will blame them if they don't.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Mar 23, 2007 4:12:12 PM
If any proponents suggest that it would be fun, then that should be taken as a rule of thumb to forget it.
Yea, we all know that politicians never hold parties to make money. They wouldn't want to be seen having fun. What the h*ll difference does it make whether they are having fun or not?
I can't help but think how totally counterproductive their tactics are to their cause of racial segregation.
Those tactics worked pretty well in Germany. Do you really think they would make more progress on the extermination of Jews if they advocated it politely? A petition perhaps?
Are you suggesting the anarchists' tactics are actually directed at poor and working class people
I honestly don't know how anything I said would indicate that. I doubt class really has much to do with it, but I think this part is pretty clearly true:
it's irrelevant if they alienate the middle class?
the image of the anarchists wearing facial coverings and burning the U.S. Flag and soldier in effigy have seriously undermined all the good the march may have accomplished.
What good was that? Would we have been closer to overthrowing the corporate militarist state? Is there any reason why people who have that as their objective should care what you think? Do you care what they think?
More to the point, get over it. The whackos and the news media will pick up on the most outlandish things and repeat them over and over. Just stop watching, you are only encouraging them. Nothing that happens on TV is real - its all a phony "reality" show.
Posted by: Phil Jones | Mar 23, 2007 5:00:07 PM
"Those tactics worked pretty well in Germany. Do you really think they would make more progress on the extermination of Jews if they advocated it politely? A petition perhaps? "
You've got to be kidding, right? Do you really believe brown-shirted swastika wearing white nationalists could ever be taken seriously by more than a few hardcore racists? Wow, that's some logic ya got there. LOL!
Posted by: Ross Williams | Mar 23, 2007 6:22:50 PM
Getting this back on track. I think the basic point of the ROP program is on the money. The pressure needs to be maintained for the next two years leading into the 2008 election. They have come up with a way to do that in areas where those opposed to the war have generally been a minority in the past. That is now turning to a majority and that majority needs to be solidified into an effective political force. I don't doubt that some of Gordon Smith's conversion is seeing that happen in areas that are part of his base.
Posted by: sara byers | Mar 23, 2007 6:32:27 PM
I was one of the organizer's of the 4th C.D's Town Hall in Roseburg on February 24. I take exception to saying that Peter DeFazio continues to need to be "pushed" to being anti-war. That's ridiculous, given Peter's consistent record. Peter sent his CHIEF LEGISLATIVE AIDE, Karmen Fore, to the Town Hall, as well as his Roseburg staff person, Chris Conroy and his campaign manager, Jen Gilbreath. This was publicized as a "People's" Town Hall, which it truly, and it was MORE EFFECTIVE that way than if they had been DeFazio's Town Hall. As it was the people had the spotlight, not the Congressperson. I can see staying on Walden's case, and Smith; but DeFazio?? You don't get stronger against the war than Peter. To whine about the members of Congress not jumping when we called shows a political naviete that doesn't get us anywhere except to look like pouting children.
Posted by: ws | Mar 23, 2007 8:44:35 PM
Phil Jones, I'm not suggesting you leave the country, but if you don't like what goes on here, maybe you're the kind of person that will decide this isn't the country for you. That's what I'm saying.
You're supposed to abhor burning flags and effigies of american soldiers. In fact, some of the people conducting those displays do also. So why do they do it? The do so to demonstrate the disingenuous integrity demonstrated by much of conventional political process towards the soldiers and principles of our country.
That's right...from some U.S. citizens perspective, the bush administration, and members of both political parties have been no less disrespectul to troops and the flag than that which the small band at the demonstration attempted to convey at the demonstration with their disturbing act.
I really find it amazing that people fail to recognize that.
I knew somebody that did a bit on first thursday some years back. Shoeshines, buffed with the American flag. Reaction from all the well dressed adult citizens passing by? Ha-ha !! Isn't that chic? No outrage, no expression of concern about disrespect shown. This person also passed on the word that others they knew considered all American soldiers, at least those associated with the Iraq war, to be war criminals. Why would he say that, I asked myself. I thought about it a long time. Didn't agree with the sentiment, but came to understand something about what a segment of this country's citizens think. I much prefer hearing something like this expressed than not for the valuable insight if offers into the general morale of the country.
If you want to understand what's going on in this country, I believe you have to be prepared to witness things that are sometimes offensive and disrespectful. I figure it's easier to do that than face down a bullet in Iraq or a dead Iraqui kid you've just blown to smithereens.
Posted by: Phil Jones | Mar 23, 2007 11:01:12 PM
ws -
You still don't get it, do you? Like I said earlier, I defend the right of someone to burn the Flag and even a soldier's effigy, but that Peace March was really the wrong time and place. Don't you realize it gave the right a ton of ammunition to use in their arguments to continue the war? It made the entire effort the talk of the nation. Portland received another glaring black eye nationally and the local peace movement was made to look like a group of irreverant buffoons.
If you wish to be associated with the low-class of people who would publicly defecate on the Flag, that's your privilege. I, however, won't support it in any manner. I marched in the Peace Parade a few years ago in Portland and it had a lot more class than this one. I'm very glad I didn't attend the one last week. I'd hate to have my picture grouped with the cowards who hid their faces. I don't think you realize the damage to the left these idiots caused.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Mar 24, 2007 6:16:22 AM
I take exception to saying that Peter DeFazio continues to need to be "pushed" to being anti-war.
"Push" is probably an unfortunate way of saying it. But I don't care what the personal views of a politician are, they need to be supported by their constituents who agree with them. They are after all only representatives of the will of their constituents. The stronger their constituents, the stronger they will be. And for people whose representative supports the war, the stronger they are as constituents in opposing the war the weaker their representative's support will be for Bush.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Mar 24, 2007 6:42:42 AM
If you want to understand what's going on in this country, I believe you have to be prepared to witness things that are sometimes offensive and disrespectful.
If I go to an anti-war rally, to protest the war, I don't want my reason for being there to be hijacked by cowards hiding behind masks pushing a different agenda. That's offensive and disrespectful to me. Want to pull those stunts, do it at your own friggin' rally...or maybe anarchists aren't so good at organizing stuff.
I have to say I'm reminded of an earlier time, back when I was helping put together a rally in NYC against the Vietnam War, and this guy from "East Side Up Against the Wall Motherf**kers" (no, I'm not making this up) at our "coalition" meeting kept arguing for a more "militant" rally than the rest of us wanted. As a group we rejected his plans.
Sure enough, come the rally, he and a handful of supporters seized the platform momentarily, waving a Vietcong flag...and, hey, guess what part of that rally with thousands of people in attendance made the news?
And, hey, guess what? Later he outed himself as a proud member of the City's "Red Squad" playing undercover agent provacateur.
Lesson learned.
Posted by: ws | Mar 24, 2007 10:56:06 AM
I'm not particularly concerned with convincing everybody that I "get it". I'm not associated with the masked band, black block or whatever derivation of that mentality chooses to present itself in whatever form to the public eye for whatever reason, yet I know something of them.
I know something of them because I listen to what they say and do and try to understand why, because like it or not, they'e American citizens, at least some of whom, just like some of their right wing reactionary counterpoints, believe what their doing is for the good of the country. In this case, there is an additional reason to pay attention because they would seem to be mostly younger people destined to change like all young people, and are in that respect to a certain extent, the future of this country.
I respectfully and strongly disagree that this band of 30 paranoid, desperate and naive people successfully hijacked the message of 15,000 peaceful demonstrators despite the fact that right wing idiots eat up the flag-effigy burn thing like candy. Dismissing them all as agent provacateurs is just foolish and not true. Those acts are not just the efforts of people out for trouble.
Who is really prepared to self-police the expression of political viewpoints in a 15,000 person rally spread over dozens of city blocks? What was anybody that objected to the act that was present when it was going on, doing to prevent it? Answer: Nothing. And why not? Most likely because even though they abhored what they saw, they believed allowing it to take place was the right thing to do.
This is the United States, not taliban Afghanistan, Iraq, Soviet Russia, repressive China, Libya, Darfur, or any number of other repressive countries. Citizens in this country make the statements they believe in and we, the people that support the principles the country is founded on, respectfully listen to what other citizens say and do even though we might abhor the substance. Then, we respond as we see fit in accordance with those principles. That's what I'm doing. That's what I imagine people making comments here consider themselves to be doing.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 24, 2007 11:26:44 AM
There is an interesting commentary on the whackos at the Portland Parade and their counterparts in the looney right-wing fringe at Talking Points Memo
Posted by: Phil Jones | Mar 24, 2007 12:05:41 PM
Here is the Portland Tribune article with some interesting commentary following.
Posted by: ws | Mar 24, 2007 10:50:29 PM
Based on Mike Edera's article, the ROP seems like a good means for coveying the concerns of grass roots people about the war to the congressional delegation. As he describes the ROP, it would appear that the ROP staff have a fairly solid sense of political process and protocol on both local and national levels that is important to know and be able to use in order to effectively communicate with people from congress and the senate.
That should make a unified anti-war effort more accessible to Oregon citizens, and aparrently already has accomplished a certain degree of that. Despite this success, I suppose my own cautionary thought would be that even this relatively approachable grass-roots effort is probably out of reach of a great many people, not for geographical, but cultural reasons. Except maybe if you live in a political household, politics and local politics just isn't very citizen friendly. Sure, most people like to B.S. about high profile political figures or shenanigans, but the day to day process? No.
I believe many people for the most part, dismiss considering personal political involvement, feeling it's over their heads. The word "activism", just plain scares many others.
If I wasn't following things here on blueoregon, I wouldn't have any sense at all that average Oregonians are particularly aware of the political process, especially how local politics works and how officials can be effectively communicated with. My impression from this site is that awareness that exists isn't that common. That's part of the reason the direct action people are doing their thing.
Maybe ROP's outreach will waken that awareness. I'd say it would be very important to tweak the outreach just a little bit to really grab that part of the constituency that this well intentioned effort probably passes over. Get yourself a website with some MP3 downloads, or make some sew-on patches. Enclose coupons with pizzas. Get the McMenamins to host a Town Hall. Something like that. Seriously.
Posted by: BOHICA | Mar 25, 2007 7:14:53 AM
Posted by: Phil Jones | Mar 24, 2007 12:05:41 PM
Here is the Portland Tribune article with some interesting commentary following.
-------------------------------------------------------
Interesting isn't the word I would use. Unhinged is more like it.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 22, 2007 2:35:28 PM
Greg Walden, representing the agriculture and timber industries in Oregon's 2nd District, refused to meet with six women from Code Pink, so they held a sit-in at Walden's Bend office. The story is at http://www.ktvz.com/story.cfm?nav=news&storyID=18883