Wanted to give a brief report -- and hopefully launch some discussion -- on progressive messages that people are finding effective in their anti-war organizing (i.e., not just your *personal* opinion, but actual feedback from teach-ins, rallies, etc.).
Last week, we organized a 500+ rally in Chapel Hill, NC, and have what will likely be a larger rally in Durham, NC, planned this Sunday. These are building blocks for a larger, state-wide rally in Raleigh soon. Our events have gotten very good media coverage, and have drawn praise from a lot of people for their message and approach.
Here are some observations out of this experience:
-- People have really resonated with the theme of our rallies, which is: "Stop the Cycle of Violence." A broad coalition of groups (faith, community, student, left, etc.) have been able to get behind this call -- that military retaliation will only lead to a loss of more innocent lives, and will likely provoke more retaliation against us. Rep. Barbara Lee has also used this as a signature piece of her statements when defending her vote against giving Bush full war powers. We've called our group "The Coalition to Stop the Cycle of Violence" -- which, while sounding a little too much like a handgun control group, has been surprisingly succesfful in keeping the media on-point about issues of retaliation, war, and innocent deaths, rather than vaguer concepts like "peace."
-- Contrary to what Nathan has been saying, it seems the media -- and much of the public -- are VERY interested in the question of why -- it's often put in the question, "why do 'they' hate us?" This is the theme of a huge section in the Raleigh News & Observer tomorrow (Sunday). It has also been raised on CBS, NBC, Fox, etc. Sadly, the debate has been ceded to the right, which of course is arguing that "they" don't like us because "we are a beacon of freedom," etc. At a seperate teach-in in Chapel Hill (800+ people), this was the part of the discussion that the audience -- which included both lefties AS WELL as hawks and those in the middle -- wanted to delve into the most. They see a connection between U.S. foreign policy and what happened on Sept. 11, but lamented that right-wing explanations are dominating. (With notable exceptions, such as ABC's decent piece on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.)
-- In North Carolina, we've used a 4-part platform at our rallies, which has gotten a very good response:
1) Retaliation is Not the Answer [NOTE: using word "retaliation" instead of "war", to include things like covert operations, sanctions that would kill innocent people, etc.]
2) Islam is Not the Enemy -- Stop hate crimes against Arab-Americans and Muslims
3) Bring the Attackers to Justice -- use international law [NOTE: many have applauded us for this statement, which answers the question of, "well, what would YOU do?!"]
4) Work for Global Peace and Justice [NOTE: this allows the larger context of Middle East policy to be part of the discussion]
I'm sure there are strengths/weaknesses to our approach, but we have been gratified by the positive response it has generated, while sticking to what we see as a fairly solid progressive position.
I'm curious to hear other people's reports on messages/approaches that have worked, haven't worked, etc. Yoshie? Others?
Chris