--- Nathan Newman <nathanne at nathannewman.org> wrote:
What's your argument for why
> someone should go to a
> rally against the war? What is the plan? What will
> it accomplish? In
> what way will such a rally cause Bush to change his
> policy?
-Nathan, these are good questions. I agree that very -often demonstrations are nothing but a symbolic -gesture...perhaps they give the participants the -illusion of making change. On the other hand, I am -sure that Yoshie would argue that the same is true of -voting for Democratic candidates. Often, not always, -she would be right in my opinion.
You can argue that voting for Democrats won't make the changes desired, but there is actually a plan and a strategic argument. Two-thirds of Democrats voted against the war in the House. Add another one-third plus a few more and you have enough votes to block the war. Whether it would work is a debateable question, but there is no articulated strategy of any kind on how putting even a million people in the streets would change a damn thing that the Bush administration would do. He has the votes in Congress, so he can do what he wants regardless of people marching in the streets.
-However- and this is just my opinion- I cant help but -think that those huge rallies we had around the -beginning of the war encouraged or forced Democratic -politicians to take some kind of stand against the -war.
No, the votes against the war happened in 2002, long before the really large rallies and marches. In fact, the antiwar marches preceded an INCREASE in support for the Iraq War. The antiwar movement can point to almost nothing they accomplished. I've argued that since they had no alternative vision, but merely a negative message, they were doomed to failure. Folks were skeptical of the Iraq War-- and remain so -- but Bush at least has a clear vision. The antiwar movement has no articulared vision for creating a better, more democratic world. They've ceded that to the far right, unbelievably.
Nathan Newman