<blockquote>Across the political spectrum, people know that we were right and they were wrong. Yet there has hardly been a peep out of the antiwar movement. There RNC protest was great, but it was basically an anti-Bush protest -- there wasn't even any messaging about the just-concluded offensive against Najaf in which probably 2000 or more people were killed.
There are many reasons for this collapse of the antiwar movement, but I'll focus on two.
First, the drive to get Kerry elected.
If this happens, it will be largely due to the efforts of a wide variety of progressive nonprofits and activist groups to do voter-registration and get out the vote efforts in the handful of "swing states" remaining in the country. Pro-Democratic operatives in key states like Pennsylvania and Florida are claiming a 2, 3, or more to 1 advantage over Republicans in registering new voters.
Massive amounts of resources have been devoted to this; for example, the Service Employees International Union is spending $65 million on such efforts.
Much of the core membership of United for Peace and Justice are doing the same thing, although at a vastly smaller scale.
Work like this is laudable and enables antiwar groups to build links with labor, communities of color, and others.
But this is not antiwar work. And if any progressives, up to and including the leadership of SEIU, think that Kerry will reward them if elected, they are living in the same fantasy world as George Bush. He will credit the militarism of the Democratic National Convention and his promise to go and personally kill every terrorist or would-be terrorist in the world. And, of course, his corporate and military backers. (Rahul Mahajan, "Collapse of the Antiwar Movement," October 4, 2004, <http://www.empirenotes.org/10042004commentary.html>)</blockquote>
Rahul is right to point out that the anti-RNC protest was basically just an anti-Bush protest and that efforts to elect Kerry in particular or even just to raise the voter turnout in a non-partisan fashion are "not anti-war work."
However, the "second reason" that Rahul argues for is questionable.
<blockquote>A second reason is that, with regard to protest actions, we have dumbed down our message to the ultimate demand "Bring the troops home now!"
I have no problem with calling to end the occupation now. But we have to realize that even people who don't support the war don't look to us as some kind of spiritual authority. Nobody cares about our demands. People will listen to our arguments, information, and plans, but no longer to our ultimate demand.
We need responses to immediate political developments and transitional positions and campaigns. Otherwise, we appear out of touch; even now, as they've raided Samarra and started bombing Sadr City regularly, we have no response.
Some groups have tried to imply that transitional demands imply dilution of the anti-imperialist agenda. This is as silly as saying that demands for living wage legislation imply dilution of an anti-capitalist agenda.
Everything that happens in Iraq should build our base. We must mobilize against bombing of civilian areas and build our base. We must mobilize against torture and build our base. Right now, we must mobilize against Bush administration plans to manipulate the January elections in Iraq (and the upcoming election in Afghanistan). Any election held under military occupation is illegitimate. But we can't stop the elections in Iraq. Thus, we have to mobilize to ensure that the elections, while remaining illegitimate, are as free and fair as possible. In the process, we bring into the movement people who believe in democracy but were unsure about the occupation; we may even derail plans to fix the elections.
The occupation of Iraq will be a long struggle. The election will be over in a month, but the occupation is with us for years to come. We can't affect it unless we build steadily over time. Mere repetition of "Bring the troops home now" won't do it. (Rahul Mahajan, "Collapse of the Antiwar Movement," October 4, 2004, <http://www.empirenotes.org/10042004commentary.html>)</blockquote>
Rahul is also one of my fellow steering committee members of United for Peace and Justice, so it's interesting that he forgets to mention that UfPJ, the largest anti-war coalition in the United States, has had a far more detailed set of demands than just "Bring the Troops Home Now" since May 18, 2004: <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20041004/022379.html>. If the new UfPJ official position does not matter to him, a UfPJ steering committee member, it certainly doesn't matter to most activists in the UfPJ member organizations who do not have delegates elected to the steering committee, let alone the broader anti-war movement and the US public in general.
The "transitional demands" of the sort that are now incorporated in UfPJ's official position concerning UN peace-keepers replacing US troops, free and fair elections, etc. in Iraq that Rahul insists on only matter if we are advancing them in a presidential campaign, especially if the candidate whom we support gets to participate in televised debates and holds forth on the demands there. Only then would the majority of the US public notice what our "transitional demands" are.
Organizing a demonstration is another matter. You can't put a position paper on flyers for mobilization or signs and banners at the demonstration. There, you need a simple demand: "Out Now," "Bring the Troops Home Now," "End the Occupation of Iraq Now," "Stop Killing Iraqis," or themes of that nature. Rahul argues: "Any election held under military occupation is illegitimate. But we can't stop the elections in Iraq. Thus, we have to mobilize to ensure that the elections, while remaining illegitimate, are as free and fair as possible" (Mahajan, October 4, 2004, <http://www.empirenotes.org/10042004commentary.html>). How would he sum up his argument into the main message of a demonstration that the media and the US public could easily grasp? "Make Illegitimate Iraqi Elections as Free and Fair as Possible" would be a mouthful, not to mention slightly Orwellian. Besides, I doubt that it will get activists fired up.
Rahul notes that the raids on Samarra and regular bombings of Sadr City and lack of US activists' organized responses to them. The main reason for the lack is the AnybodyButBush focus on the ballot box to the exclusion of nearly everything else. If many activists do not have time for anything other than electing Kerry to begin with, it is futile to debate what "transitional demand" might get them to come to a well-organized demonstration, let alone participate in rapid responses to Washington's new offensives. Moreover, Rahul ought to anticipate a predictable counter-argument of the right: "We are rooting out terrorists in Samarra and Sadr City, so that the Iraqi people can hold elections without fearing being attacked by terrorists. You agree with us that the Iraqi people should be able to participate in fair elections free from fear, but you don't agree that we should kill terrorists and create safe conditions for elections?" I'm not sure if Rahul can answer such a question without resorting to Kerry-like rhetorical contortions and being ridiculed by Cheney-like comebacks ("Mr. Mahajan talks about leading a more sensitive war on terror, as though terrorists will be impressed with our softer side"). -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>