Home > Backing Democrats has pulled the antiwar movement to the right

Backing Democrats has pulled the antiwar movement to the right

by Open-Publishing - Thursday 21 April 2005
11 comments

Wars and conflicts Parties USA

Backing Democrats has pulled the antiwar movement to the right
Why “inside-outside” is getting nowhere

ELIZABETH SCHULTE explains why the antiwar movement has to remain independent from the Democratic Party.

FOR OPPONENTS of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there was a big question hanging in the air in the wake of the 2004 election. How could George Bush—the man behind the war that so many people protested—be re-elected?

Unfortunately, many on the left have offered answers that are less than useful. For some, Bush’s re-election showed that a majority of Americans bought the snake oil that George W. Bush was selling. Now, goes the most extreme of these arguments, they got what they deserved.

For others, John Kerry was defeated because he ran a poor campaign. The people who actually lead the Democratic Party—like Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean—think Kerry was “too far to the left.” But at least on the question of the war and occupation, Kerry was as close to Bush as he could get.

Contrary to the party establishment’s assessment, a section of the antiwar left now proposes moving the Democratic Party to the left, with antiwar forces taking it over and transforming it.

The strategy is supposed to run on two tracks: inside and outside. “Outside” means protests and actions that put pressure on the politicians to take a position against the war. “Inside” means supporting progressives within the Democratic Party in the hopes of shaping the terms of the debate.

For some, outside can also mean supporting non-Democratic Party candidates, but mainly in the hope that this would pressure the Democrats to move leftward.

Medea Benjamin, founder of the antiwar group Code Pink who helped argue within the Green Party against Ralph Nader in favor of party nominee David Cobb and his strategy of telling Greens to vote for Kerry in swing states, seemed to have a change of heart in the December 20, 2004 Nation. “Many of us in the Green Party made a tremendous compromise by campaigning in swing states for such a miserable standard-bearer for the progressive movement as John Kerry,” Benjamin wrote. “Well, I’ve had it. As George Bush says, ‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again.’”

But the change of heart wasn’t complete. “Let’s stop the infighting, though,” she continued. “Dems, Greens and other progressives must not only respect one another’s choices, we must start using these different ‘inside-outside’ strategies to our collective advantage. A strategically placed Green/progressive pull could conceivably prevent a suicidal Democratic lurch to the right.”

What Benjamin and others haven’t come to grip with is that the Democrats aren’t in danger of lurching to the right—they’re already there. The problem in 2004 wasn’t that the antiwar forces neglected work with the Democrats. It’s that the Democratic Party didn’t listen to them.

At every step of the way, Democratic Party leaders could silence dissent with a simple threat: If you don’t support Kerry, then you are to blame if Bush is re-elected. So progressives like Benjamin did one better than silence—and became loyal attack dogs of the Democratic Party against the explicitly antiwar campaign of Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo.

– - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE REALITY of the inside-outside strategy is that it stops being “outside” when there’s an election going on. So in the months surrounding the 2004 election, there were no national protests against the war—even in the face of widespread disgust over the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

And when supporters of Dennis Kucinich—looked to by many activists as the antiwar candidate among the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination—arrived at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) last summer, they were surprised to find out that the “big tent” of the Democratic Party was a little too small for their antiwar views.

Antiwar signs were immediately confiscated by convention officials—who Kucinich delegate Charles Underwood called “the Kerry enforcers.” “I am just very disappointed that there is no ability to express any hope for peace on the floor of this convention,” Underwood told Amy Goodman in an interview on the Democracy Now! program. “We’ve had our signs confiscated...We’ve had people that tell us to sit down and be quiet. We’ve got no particular points for peace in the platform. This is becoming an extremely narrow Democratic tent.”

He added, “It’s just that we are off message when we talk about peace. It’s that simple.” And this is how the Democratic Party treats fellow Democrats. According to a poll by the Boston Globe, 95 percent of delegates to the convention opposed the war in Iraq, yet the party adopted a pro-war platform.

– - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SADLY, THE lesson of the Democratic Party’s unwelcome mat in Boston hasn’t been learned very well.

Today, the Progressive Democrats for America (PDA) are organizing to bring left-wing and progressive activists into the Democratic Party, with the hope that it can be transformed from within.

But during the election, the PDA tried to keep antiwar voices in line. When Kerry announced during the campaign that he would have voted for the war in Iraq even knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction, PDA board member Joe Libertelli issued a statement counseling silence from the antiwar movement.

“This curious statement infuriates progressives and others who opposed the war, dismays about 80 percent of Democrats who now oppose the war, and surely encourages some to consider supporting Ralph Nader or the Greens,” he wrote. “It’s tempting to issue the usual rallying cry to the effect that, ‘Progressives need to demand,’ and to urge all who will listen to threaten to withhold their votes if Kerry doesn’t change his tune.

“But the truth is, merely demanding that John Kerry change his position will get us almost nowhere. Progressives have been making similar demands for years. And threatening to support Ralph Nader or the Greens will only alienate those who, at our founding conference, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) called ‘future progressives.’”

In other words, the best way to put forward progressive ideas is not to raise them. Just who are these “future progressives” anyway? Is Libertelli referring to the slew of House Democrats who just voted to give Bush another $81 billion for his occupation of Iraq.

And now that the election is over, the strategy continues. For example, the national antiwar coalition United for Peace and Justice voted at its recent convention for a focus on lobbying Congress—read Democrats—to take more antiwar positions.

– - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE TRUTH is that rather than moving Democrats to the left, the inside-outside strategy moved our movement to the right.

Instead of coming to grips with the failure of the “Anybody But Bush” strategy last time, pro-Democrat progressives are focusing blame on the very people who maintained their political independence and their antiwar, anti-occupation stance.

For example, in reaction to Peter Camejo’s recent criticism of the Green Party’s “safe states” approach and the tide of lesser evilism among progressives, Ted Glick, a Cobb supporter with the Independent Progressive Politics Network, leveled a new attack on ZNet earlier this month. “The last thing we need right now is the ‘correct line’ approach, individuals or small groups claiming to have all the answers or quick to jump on other progressives for their supposed failings,” Glick wrote.

If there was ever a time for political clarity in the antiwar movement, it is now—for clarity won’t be achieved if we wait until the next election.

The problem isn’t that the Democrats have gone off course. War and occupation in Iraq are part of their agenda, too. And unlike Republicans, part of their job is to co-opt, soften or squelch the message of the activists and grassroots movement.

We have to build an antiwar movement that not only recognizes the Democratic Party’s shortcomings, but understands that it is part of the problem.

http://www.socialistworker.org/2005...

Forum posts

  • you aren’t reading very much ... perhaps because you made up your mind before the documentation showed up ...
    Kerry did not lose the election ... the real reason you are all moving to the right, is because you think Bush won ... leaving you to dismiss all the investigative results, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 2004 election was stolen ...
    the movement will only march and waste money and time and all other resources when we could be holding a presence in every community across the land documenting the numbers of people that did not vote for Bush or the War ... keep our $ and resources in our home communities ... save on the gas ... stay home and gather and work to support the presence in the streets that can be held by our huge homeless populations ... keep them well fed ... showers and clean clothes .. tents and daily document the numbers at the noon and evening rally’s ..

  • Confused and/or corrupt Democratic ’leaders’ have pulled themselves to the right, but the anti-war democratic base is still right where it needs to be. It is really hard to know who to trust these days, with anti-war Dean’s support of the occupation, Kerry’s support of election fraud... the ’leaders’ are grossly out of step with the people. We just need to ignore these people that put themselves out there as our leaders, and go back to the roots of the democratic party. There is nothing wrong with the democratic party, just the people who have taken it over.

    ’Progressive’ Democrats of America is supposed to be leading the opposition to the Iraq war... but they seem like nothing more than a front group protecting John Kerry.

    "during the election, the PDA tried to keep antiwar voices in line. When Kerry announced during the campaign that he would have voted for the war in Iraq even knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction, PDA board member Joe Libertelli issued a statement counseling silence from the antiwar movement."

    ???? And NOW look what happened! Why didn’t Joe Libertelli issue a statement to Kerry telling him his stance was stupid?

    During the democratic convention PDA threw a counter convention and succeeded in taking away from protests against the democratic party’s stance on the war which completely opposed the democratic base. Instead they gave Kerry the green light to base his entire run on his vietnam experience, which was ridiculous considering he has taken the opposite stance on Iraq. Why didn’t they ask Kerry to tell the truth, hold Bush accountable for his lies, take a stand that represents the people? Instead PDA enabled Kerry to throw the election to Bush.

    PDA is now seeking money from progressive activists under the guise of providing a voice for the anti-war movement...but can they really be trusted?

    • It is going to be interesting to see just how much support the Democrats really will have come election time. I have a feeling that they are going to find their Republican-lite stance on the important issues to be just not good enough. Who needs a Republican-lite when you can do nothing and have the real thing???

      It would be better for those opposed to Bush to just refuse to vote at all, the numbers of voters is only somewhere around half of the eligable. The only way to ensure fair voting in the future is to not vote at all, join the other half since your votes don’t really count anyway why bother? Let Bush have the mess he has made, let him continue to drag the country down, they are all in it together anyway so what would change? They put up the 2 candidates twins and give the news media a few billion dollars to generate some competative contest, its all staged and the outcome is pre-determined so what does it matter that you vote. With write-in candidates a thing of the past there is no choice, only a one party system of "in-house" elections designed to change nothing.....let ’em rot in their own squalor. The only vote they deserve is with your middle finger.

  • Good evening folks. This is Gardis, the voice of Red State America. Yes, I am a supporter of President Bush and his war on terror. However, I like to "swing both ways" and keep up with the opposition. I couldn’t help but to have some thoughts on the comments regarding "Backing Democrats has pulled the Antiwar Movement....."

    Firstly, when are you so-called antiwar activists going to wake up and realize the Iraq War is over, and Iraq has an independent government, that is now making the decisions? Do you realize that 60% of the Iraqi people voted, a higher percentage perhaps than that in the United States. You are living in the past with your heads in the sand. So be it, if that’s what you want. President Bush and the conservative movement are eating your lunch, and you don’t even know it. Then again, you’re all suffering from the ravages of a Stage 4 disease that’s called "liberalism." You’re about to enter STage 5, which is terminal and extinction. Dan Rather is paving the way for you.

    Let me give it to you in plain english. We voted for the President because he means what he says, and he says what he means. We are not going to have a Useless Nations making our national security decisions for us. Liberals basically have the same position as Jacque Chirac: whatever they can do to thwart US interests, is a good thing. But the American people are on to you now, that game is over. We are going to put John Bolton in there, no matter the dissension in the Judiciary Committee over it. Don’t worry, Bolton is going to be confirmed. He will tell the Useless Nations, shape up, say something and mean it, or the US is OUT of the UN. Period. Richard Holbrooke already has warned Kofi Annan about this, in a report from the New York Times a couple of months ago, if anyone read it.

    Here’s the thing folks: You people on the left despise our country the way it is, you have opposed US military action against the communist adversary (well to you, they were not adversaries) from the times of Truman and Eisenhower. You just don’t like America the way it is, you don’t like it’s institutional structures, you feel uncomfortable with religions and patriotic expression. Well folks, patriotism is where the rubber hits the road, and when our men and women are in harms way, its time to get with the program and support, and that means in words and deeds. The full scale internal war that you have waged against this administration during wartime, to weigh in with libels against the President; to have Whoppi Goldberg stand on a stage, waving a bottle of wine, comparing the President of the USA to an intimate female sexual organ, is beyond despicable. It’s outright treason that should have the lot of you placed in front of a firing squad, or at the very least, sent to a cell in Guantanamo Bay. Freedom of speech is one thing, sedition is quite another. Sure, you can say what you want, that’s free speech alright. But there are consequences to speech. Ask Hanoi Jane Fonda, if you don’t believe me.

    We have liberated 25 million people, LIbya is now joining the table of nations, Egypt had some type of elections, ther eis some progress between Israel and the Palestinians, and AFghanistan is now well on its way to becoming an independent nation. NO THANKS TO THE LEFT. iF YOU PEOPLE HAD YOUR WAY, SADDAM HUSSEIN WOULD STILL BE IN POWER, MURDERING, AND TORTURING PEOPLE.

    We are now going to join the culture war, folks. And we are going to win that war. WE are not going to have acountry where a woman, 7 months pregnant, decides "I don’t feel like having this kid" and walk into a hospital and demand an abortion, OK? That’s wrong. It’s immoral. And if the left doesn’t agree to some controls on this holocaust, we are going to overturn RvW once and for all. You see, you are afraid because young people admired PJP 2. You don’t like that. Hey, can’t have these kids start thinking that abstinence is good, abortion is bad, right?

    Thanks, for listening, and good luck. I see you are about to nominate another candidate who cannot win an election: Hillary Clinton. That’s the best news we Republicans could hear. Thank you Whoopi Goldberg, Brabra Streisand, and Susan Saranwrap!!

    • Oh puke, grandpa the Nazi is back....he sure knows how to tow the party line doesn’t he? His Bush talking points are perfected and he thinks someone is impressed that he can remember them all. The thing about the OLD Liars for Bush is that they are so narrow minded, they never speak outside their little list of topics and their loyalty to the Fuehrer is hilarious. As to the comment "I like to swing both ways" this is the funniest thing he has ever said....as if.

      Grandpa the Troll, they need you at military.com, or GOP.org. where you can sing to the choir, your disinformation talking points are as old and tired as you are, now get along with your get along, we’ve had our laugh for the day.

    • It never ceases to amaze me how Bush can come up with the most disgusting and perverted candidates for every position. Someone should take John Bolton aside and tell him to send his rug out to the dry cleaners it is starting to look like a cockroach nest. And that revolting gob of hair above his lip looks positively infested, it should be boiled or gotten rid of.

      My guess is that this caliber of person is the only kind that Bush knows, it fits right in with those other freaks he surrounds himself with. Shitbirds of a feather........

  • Typical Democrat. You have nothing to add to the discussion except hatred and personal, ad hominem attacks. You have no solutions, except to keep screaming louder and louder about how much you hate the President. We already know that. What else is new.

    If is quite fine to have differences with John Bolton, or to think he is wrong for the job. Why must you attack his personal appearance. What if that "rug" as you charitably cal it was real hair? And moreover, would you make those remarks if he was a homosexual? I’m betting you sure wouldn’t.

    • Typical Republican! You disparage anyone whose Rapture Index Reading isn’t as high as yours. You expect to ’high five’ girlie Bush while you’re both on your way to the seat on the Right Hand of God.............but it’s really too bad that you and all your ’true believer’ hypocrite buddies will all wind up in hell with the Antichrist you so staunchly support. God may have mercy on you. Righteous liberal Christians won’t!

    • um, we are probably all mature adults here...can we stop the bickering and insults?

      I am sure everyone has noticed the paid disinfomationalists that roam the net. Most have found it helpful to ignore these people. It is nice for them that they have a job, but what will they do when the Bush Administration crashes and burns and they realize they have participated in aiding the most evil criminal cabal known to mankind? I think it is important to have these disinfomationalists documented here at bellaciao, so that people all over the world can see the tactics the US administration is using to squash dissent while pretending to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq.

    • Jeez folks you’re not getting it. So there for they win.

      If you fight to be a repub or dem, that is the ideal and was put into place over a hundred years ago.

      Get out of their parties and see the light.

    • I have to go along with the poster who suggested to NOT VOTE in any elections. If you don’t vote, you are not accountable to any party. You are free to make your own choices. Live within the law, break the law, ignore the law, it’s up to you. When less than half the poeple vote - which is the case in most US elections, the politcal parties have no mandate. Our parties have at best a 35% plurality. There are at least as many people who pledge alliegance to NO PARTY as there are for either Reps or Dems.

      Essentially, the two party system in America is bankrupt and voting in elections only serves the interests of those who wish to perpetuate the intellectually vacuous positions of both.

      Want to stop the war? Stop voting for anybody. Stop paying attention to mainstream media. Stop paying taxes. Get on with your life and ignore those who wish only that you pay homage and tribute to them. When nobody shows up at rallies, nobody goes to the polls, nobody wins. We’re well on our way to becoming another Nazi Germany, and there’s really little anybody can do, and that’s been proven by the absolute inattention to the stolen election, the abuses in Iraq, the phoky leadup to that war and the continued excesses of the Congress which rubber stamps bankruptcy "reform", tort "reform", repeal of the death tax, massive budget deficits, etc., etc.

      Your choice as a PERSON, an INDIVIDUAL, is to care for yourself and your family. There are still places in Europe, South America and the Far East (Canada’s not bad either if you can handle the weather) that are not under American influence. Fight or Flight. Fighting against the current government is a waste of time. Leaving the country to the dolts who want to live under the dominion of fascism is the correct, intelligent choice.

      I used to say that I’d die for my country. Well, since 2000 (actually, this has been going on since the 60s and I’ve been fighting in my own ways, to little effect, obviously), MY country has fallen into the hands of thugs. I wouldn’t spill a drop of my blood to support this country today. Those who wish to stay because they think their life is ’good", well, good luck to them. There are choices for PEOPLE and individuals have to make up their own minds. I’ve made mine up and I’m out of here within six months (still need to put my personal and financial life in order).