OK, folks. This is the last time we're going to discuss this here. I am sick -- and tired -- of having every substantive discussion here turn into an anti-anti-war-protestor screed. Case in point. It's happened so many times over the last few weeks that I'm beginning to loathe to talk politics here, knowing that it'll devolve into an off-topic back and forth over protests. I know some of my fellow Ishers have already slacked off posting for this very reason. And so, by grand fiat, I declare this the Last Ishbadiddle Discussion on the Morality, Legality, Political Efficacy, and Fashion Sense of Anti-War Protests. No further posts on the discussion. All comments to be made here; comments that creep into later posts will be deleted. Anything else you have to say on the subject, you can start your own blog. Be my guest.
First, WTF? Like, we're fighting a war here, and probably changing the course of American foreign policy and the global strategic balance for the next century. I'd like some discussion of how and why we're doing this. (Did anyone read this?) Instead the right seems obsessed with trashing the anti-war movement. (It's not just here. I'd go and find links but -- oh, just go read Andrew Sullivan or something.) Now I'm not going to address here any of the actual meritorious arguments for or against war. Those are still fair game for later posts and comments. But herewith, I logically and methodically demolish each of these anti-protestor arguments. (Those of you who read Ish comments regularly will notice I'm repeating things I've said before, but in the interest of ending this nonsense, here it all is:
Protestors are in the minority. (Related: "the war is increasingly popular"; "Bush is popular"; "an increasing number of people disagree with protests.")
Irrelevant. First of all, of course the war and the President are popular now. Look at the numbers referenced here. You can see Bush's numbers spike after 9/11, gradually slide throughout the permanent War on Terror and the buildup to Iraq, and then spike again when the invasion starts. Usually the war spike is an average of 3.8 points. Far from an unthinking public, the evidence shows that people tend to support wars that go along with their beliefs about foreign policy. I'd say that Bush has done a good job convincing the American people that the war on Iraq is somehow connected to the war on terror. (You know, the 60% of Americans who believe that Saddam and not the Saudis were behind 9/11.) Personally I don't think it's true, but that doesn't really matter now, does it? However, it'd be interesting to compare the numbers on the war in Afghanistan, which clearly was related to 9/11 and had broad international support.
Secondly, just because the anti-war message hasn't convinced a majority of the public doesn't mean they shouldn't occur. We must stand up for what we believe in, regardless of the popularity of our cause. A protest is not a public opinion poll. It's not like GWB cares if 65,000 people or 150,000 people showed up somewhere to protest. A protest, IMHO, does two things:
a) Gives the protesters a chance to make their voice heard. Cf. the First Amendment. Whether this has any effect on politicians is highly debatable. The media never covers them anyway. Personally, I believe that marching doesn't matter (in the practical political sense), but I believe that you have to do it anyway (in the moral, stand up for what you believe in sense.)
b) Shows the strength of an organization. An organization that can deliver 100,000 people to a protest may be able to deliver votes. If politicians believe this, they'll act accordingly. This is why some of the most interesting organizing work I've seen is through the Industrial Areas Foundation. But that's a discussion for another day.
Oh, and there's c) civil disobedience, an attempt to actually prevent something from happening. But that's not we're talking about here.
What I don't think a protest does is attempt to convince the undecided. I mean, maybe some people believe that, but I seriously doubt that anyone's mind is going to be made up on an issue because of the number or presence of protesters. And yes, protests are about slogans. "No Blood for Oil" fits on a poster; a 15-point plan for dealing with terrorism, Iraq, North Korea, and the UN does not.
So the unpopularity of their position is evidence, at most, that protests are ineffective in changing people's minds, when I don't think that's what they're for to begin with.
And lastly: opposing the war was a lost cause before the invasion. It's even more so now that we've almost won. Do we really the majority to identify with a lost cause?
Anti-war protests give "aid and comfort" to the enemy. (Related: "Protests undermine our troops' morale "; "Protests lengthen the war because they bolster the enemy's resolve"; "Protests put our troops at risk"; "Protestors are traitors")
False. Do you really think that our soldiers' morale is lessened because of what happens on the streets of New York or San Francisco? I doubt it.
Do you really think that Saddam (if still alive) believes that Bush's resolve to press this war will be any diminished because of protests, and thus refuses to surrender in the belief that Bush will cave in because of domestic pressure? Evil, yes. Stupid, no. Saddam knows that Bush is unswayed by protests, the UN, and the French.
How about individual Iraqi soldiers? Are they less likely to lay down their arms because they see American protests on TV? It's possible I suppose. Let's review the cost-benefit analysis of the Iraqi soldier who's considering surrender. Pro: Get on winning side. Don't die. Con: betray my duty and my country. Possible reprisals if Saddam stays in power. Now, most of this analysis hinges on his perception of the liklihood of Iraqi defeat. If he's fed Iraqi propaganda that includes American protests he might think it less likely. However I'd guess that seeing our actual military strength would overcome this misperception. However history abounds with examples of folks preferring Fox News propaganda to reality. The logic, though, is streched. He'd have to believe that there are overwhelming protests that threaten to remove Bush from power and that our military is about to retreat because of it. So far, the evidence on the ground seems to be against this logic taking hold.
As to the assertion made in comments here that the sight of Bush being burned in effigy on the streets of the US (where did they do this?) is likely to recruit suicide bombers, I'd say that the sight of rockets raining down on Bagdahd is much more likely to do so. As evidenced by actual suicide bombers.
Protestors have no substantive arguments. (Related: "Protestors are just Bush-haters").
False. See above on sloganeering at protests. Plenty of substantive arguments, relating to the strategic wisdom of this war, have been made here and elsewhere. If you haven't heard them, you're not paying attention. In fact, I would say that the level of debate has been pretty poor on the pro-war side too. An amusing example. Anything I've heard that makes sense on why we're going to war has come from outside the Administration.
Protestors turn people off with their silly antics and turgid rhetoric.
Irrelevant. First, I'd argue that this stuff isn't representative of the feelings and style of most protestors. Case in point: that idiot DeGenova at Columbia, who wished for "a million Mogadishus" in Iraq. Six hours of teach-in, and what gets reported? You got it. It plays well on TV.
Reminds me of the protest against Gulf War I we went to in DC. Most of us are marching along, chanting and holding signs. Then the black-clad anarchists show up and start throwing M80s. Man, those are loud.
Secondly, are people turned off the pro-war side because of the rabid rhetoric of a few violent bigots?
Thirdly, well, I think that it's a marketing problem for the anti-war movement. Think Michael Moore (the Left's Rush Limbaugh!) at the Oscars vs. Adrian Brody. Doesn't mean they shouldn't march.
Protests make us less safe, because they drain police resources away from anti-terror / anti-crime duties.
Silly. Of course the police have to ensure safety at these rallies. It's their job. Well, what of it? They have to ensure safety at pro-war rallies too. I don't hear people saying that pro-war rallies should be stopped because they "make us less safe." Come to think of it, the police have to ensure safety at other large public gatherings -- like St. Patrick's Day Parades, 9/11 Vigils, or July 4th Celebrations. The same argument should logically extend to them. If you want to take this all the way, we should stop driving, because police then have to patrol the highways, and doesn't that drain police from their anti-terror duties? Every time you speed, you aid and abet terrorists!
Of course, we're not going to stop driving; we have no choice. But to argue against anti-war protests in this way is to argue against our right for public assembly for any purpose. And shouldn't we lay the burden of police costs on those whose violent responses to protests make such protection necessary?
It's fine to protest before the war starts, but once the war starts it's our duty to support the President. (Related: "... support the troops.")
False. I mean, if it applies now, shouldn't it apply always? Tell it to Tom DeLay. And the rest of the GOP.
Let's try this gedanken. Bush decides that the way to end Muslim extremism is to put an end to Islam. So he invades Mecca. Now, I think we can all agree that this would be an extraordinary mistake. Would it then be fair to say that once he committed to the invasion we should just shut up about it?
Protestors can't claim to oppose the war and support the troops. (Related: "...love their country.")
Interesting, but wrong. I first saw this argument expressed over at Jane Galt's blog, where she said:
Everyone to the right of Professor DeGenova has been lining up to declare their support for Our Brave Boys and Girls on the Front. The speaker may be against the war, we are solemnly told, but they still Support Our Troops. My question is, why? This is not Viet Nam, the war whose mistakes both sides seem grimly determined to avoid. All of our troops are volunteers. From what I can glean, a landslide majority of them support this war. In essence, they are going over to a foreign country, bearing immense personal hardship to do so, in order to fire deadly weapons at perfect strangers. If you think this is the kind of horribly wrong thing that most anti-war protesters, to judge from the signs, do, why on earth would you declare your support for the people carrying it out? It's like saying that you're against murder, but simultaneously declaring your "support" for the DeGenovese foot soldiers whacking errant customers. Which, considering the overlap between the anti-war and the "Free Mumia" movements, may not be all that surprising.
Ninety comments later.... here's a slightly edited version of my reply:
Look, I can't speak for all anti-war protestors or anything. Heck, I haven't even been to any protests. I'll just try to explain how it is that I can oppose the war and "support" the troops.
My college roommate is in the Army. He's currently stationed in Germany. He might get sent to the Gulf; he's not sure. I respect his decision to join the Army -- we both come from military families. And I believe that serving your country in any capacity is a noble thing. Even nobler if it involves putting your own life on the line.
It's his job to do what the the army tells him to do. I would hope that he would refuse to do his job if he were called on to do something immoral, or commit what he knows to be a war crime. But he doesn't believe (and I know this from asking him, not telepathy) that this war is immoral or a war crime. For the record, neither do I. I think it's a bad idea, for reasons of diplomacy, global security, and sure, my own personal safety (As a New Yorker, I personally believe that this war increases the possiblity of another terrorist attack here.)
But it's not his job to set policy. The strength of our democracy stems, in part, from a de-politicized military. The military does not decide whether or not we go to war; that's the job of the Senate and the President, last time I checked. So I think it's logically consistent to say that you disagree with military policy, without disparaging those who are called on to carry out that policy.
So, what does it mean that I "support the troops"? Well, in the case of my roommate, I want him to be OK. I want our other soldiers to be OK, too, because they are doing their jobs, and they are risking their lives for us, and because they're Americans, damnit. I want them to win, and win quickly (which is why the "they'll-just-lay-down-their-arms-and-welcome-us-as-liberators" strategy is so enraging.) I support their decision to volunteer for the job of protecting our nation.
"Supporting the troops" doesn't mean "I believe that everything they're doing is a good idea." Because I recognize that it's not their idea to be there, it's Bush's idea. Sure, if everyone in the military decided to quit rather than fight, then we wouldn't be in this war. I think that's what you're getting at with the Wermacht example -- that to claim that our troops are "just following orders" violates the spirit of Nuremburg. But we're fighting a war against a foreign army here, not rounding up our own citizens in camps. And would we be really better off as a society if our ability to wage war were dependent on the agreement of every solider? I think not.
And, to quote GK Chesterton: "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'"
9/11 changed everything.
Irrelevant. You can invoke 9/11 until you're blue in the face. If you're talking about going after Osama, then sure. But Saddam? Reasonable people can disagree over whether this war makes us safer from terrorism. I think it doesn't. So protesting the war isn't trumped by 9/11.
Neither is the notion that we have to "cut back" on our democratic institutions, like the right of assembly, because of the threat of terrorism. Walking onto a plane without being patted down is not protected by the Constitution. Assembling in a public place is. Ask any strict constructionist on the bench. It's the law of the land, and it's what makes this country worth fighting for: democracy.
There are communists / America-haters / anti-Semites / Frenchmen in the anti-war crowd!
Irrelevant.
See, this is the part I don't get. I mean, there's no "Left" organization for me to join or anything. It's not like they hand out cards or something. I could belong to a specific group, like the ACLU or Greenpeace, that's on the left end of the spectrum. And if I didn't like the way that group was going, then I could make my feelings known, and resign. But what, exactly, am I supposed to resign from here? The Democratic party? I suppose I would withhold my vote from someone who was a bigot or an anti-Semite or who had policies I really didn't agree with. (Hence, I didn't vote for Clinton because of welfare reform.) And if I belonged to an anti-war group (which I don't) whose policies on Israel were out of line, I would leave that.
I mean, I'm against the war on Iraq. So is some Jew-hating, Gauloise cigarette smoking Frenchman. So is Pat Buchanan. Does that mean I have to give up my opposition to the war because I don't like what the Frenchman thinks? Or because I disagree with Pat Buchanan on many many other issues?
Let's turn this around. You're for the war on Iraq. So is David Duke. (I presume for the sake of argument.) Do you ask yourself, "Do I even belong on this end of the spectrum anymore? It is so polluted from within, I can no longer stay?"
The presence of anti-Semites, anti-Americans, communists, etc in the anti-war movement is no reason to oppose the war itself. It's especially important that we don't betray our principles by making strange bedfellows of those we might otherwise despise. But I don't see how abandoning our principles makes much sense either.
The anti-war movement really wants us to lose the war. (Related: "... American soldiers to die")
False. See above, really. I mean there may be some who do, but there are probably also anti-war folks who believe that aliens control the Senate through the Trilateral comission. Fringe is fringe. Let's get to the meat of the matter: should we have engaged in this war? Now that we have, we should win it, quickly and decisively. And then: how do we win the peace? Let's stop talking about the size of protests, or how effective they are, or the popularity of the war. Let's talk about the real issues. Now.
| War | Anti-War Movement | George W. Bush | 9/11 | Saddam Hussein | Civil Liberties |
"Bravo"? More like Postcard from the Fringe. You guys seem to blame "the right" - and I don't take it personally because I'm only "the right" in a certain far left context - for the fact that 75% of Americans didn't listen to the protesters, and 65% approve of Bush - war or no war. Moreover...
-In citing the poll re how many people think Saddam did 9/11, Mike also advances the unfortunte and highly elitist argument that the people are dumb for not agreeing with the left.
-"of course the war and the President are popular now"? The Prez has been popular since Spring 2001. I ask you and Shurkin, is this the dumb 65% and the enlightened 25% (allowing for Bush's occasional 75% numbers)?
-You really don't think protesters are trying to change minds? That would be news to many of them I've seen in media interviews.
-Contrary to what you write, I've seen soldiers and their stateside families interviewed who said they were most definitely bothered by protests. Perhaps you missed the news about the families-of-soldiers protest at the WTC - they said they were bothered. Did the New York Times leave that part out?
-Protesters antics don't cost them support? Huh? Maybe someone needs to hit the suburbs more often - the "in-play" demographic for the 2004 election.
-An SFPD officer was quoted saying protests were in fact diverting manpower from anti-terror deployments. Hardly "silly."...
2...
-Sorry, but 100,000 "voters' in the streets don't mean jack. Especially in "blue states". You guys never seem to get realistic about the quantitative essentials in electoral politics and public opinion.
-"You can invoke 9/11 until you're blue in the face." Ouch. Here's a fact: The left has consistently downplayed the meaning of 9/11 because it rendered their philosophical approach to foreign policy irrelevant. That's why the moron Paul Krugman predicted that Enron would be more important than 9/11. He wished. If you don't think 9/11 changed EVERYTHING in foreign policy, national security and American history, you've been reading Howard Zinn - i.e., you're not paying attention.
You counter "anti-antiwar" critiques with a dearth of facts and relevant testimony, singular opinion, tenuous associations, and irrelevant and extreme examples. "David Duke"?! Surely you jest.
And why does this 1st Ammendment stuff keep popping up? I never said protesters don't have a right, I'm just saying that in view of their stated objectives, they're stupid. Weeks ago you ran my post challenging them to rise to the level of debate (not that I expected them to listen), and before and since many others said the same thing. But while saying they want to "stop war", antiwar protesters have profoundly failed to undertake the means necessary to impact public opinion. And you can be sure that public opinion impacts Bush.
In critiquing antiwar punx, I cite numbers. In defending them, you cite your opinions. Far from "methodically demolishing" arguments that anti-war protesters are foolish, self-destructive, irrelevant and somtimes dangerous, you leave those arguments standing as tall as Old Glory over the rubble.
I, for one, thank you.
Now let's talk about those pictures of celebrating Iraqis handing flowers to GIs....
Hm. M-----, if I understand you correctly, it's dumb to state what you think is right in the face of majority opposition.
Doesn't that mean you should quit posting your minority opinions here?
It's quite ironic that you're exercising your right to dissent on a board where most people disagree with you AND welcome your right to dissent--but you're not willing to do the same in society at large. This is why rights are rights irrespective of the situation and who is exercising them.
I'm not suggesting that you actually stop posting, just pointing out how inconsistent your opinions are.
"In citing the poll re how many people think Saddam did 9/11, Mike also advances the unfortunte and highly elitist argument that the people are dumb for not agreeing with the left."
I don't think it's a "leftist" perspective that Saddam Hussein was not behind 9/11. It's fact. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda perpetrated the attacks. If you've got proof otherwise, please, don't tell me, forward it to the White House. If insisting on the truth makes me an elitist, then call me a giraffe. The fact is, the administration has been attempting to link 9/11 and Saddam in people's minds. It's marketing the war, and this poll shows that it works.
"-"of course the war and the President are popular now"? The Prez has been popular since Spring 2001. I ask you and Shurkin, is this the dumb 65% and the enlightened 25% (allowing for Bush's occasional 75% numbers)? "
Well, let's look at the numbers. From 1/01 to 9/01, Bush's approval rating stood between 50 and 60 percent. Comparing him to recent past presidents in the same period of their administration, he's beaten by, or tied with, everyone execept Clinton. W's number's spike to 90% after 9/11, then slide to 60% until the invasion, when he goes back up to 70. You can count on a 3.8 point spike, on average, with the onset of war.
These are the numbers. These are the facts. You can draw your own conclusions. My interpretation of W's popularity is that it's a reaction to 9/11, and more recently, to the war against Iraq. That doesn't mean that folks who approve of him are deluded or stupid. It's just the psychology of politics.
I'll get to the rest later.
DB, I don't grasp how you misunderstand my words. I never said it was "dumb to state what you think is right in the face of majority opinion." It's that more and more we see those on the left who find their views rejected by a majority calling - or infering - that the majority is dumb. That's perhaps why Mike often quotes the poll wherein a majority of Americans think Saddam did 9/11, and Michael Shurkin employs a Marxist theory to speculate as to why upstate New Yorkers disdain Hillary Clinton. Shurkin basically admits he doesn't "get" upstaters - i.e. the prolitarian masses who fail to grasp that loving Hillary is in their best interests. Surely, this reflects the confines of being an "intellectual."
Part of my reply to the left has been to point out that while some on the left consider themselves "aware" and the majority oblivious, the majority in fact has a different awareness that is no less legitimate than leftists' awareness. But the left can get very pious about their version of what is "awareness", and tend to negate a majority's "awareness" as pedestrian or whatever. And herein, the left - ostensibly those who fight for "the people" - are actually patronizing and elitist toward the people, especially when the people disagree with the left, which is just about all the time.
In the face of shrinking public support, some see their only recourse as claiming they're smarter than the public. That's why the left's final bastion of institutional occupation is the tenured confines of academia. Ivory, yes. Towering, not really.
Mike, I'm even more surprised by your misunderstandings. Of course it's not elitist to say Bin Laden was behind 9/11. What is elitist - I'm repeatig myself here - is your continued citing of the Saddam-9/11 poll as a means of undercutting the majority numbers in other polls, such as those for war support. You and I both know you're saying, "The public is dumb enough to believe Saddam caused 9/11, so of course they're dumb enough to support the war in large numbers - as well as Bush."
As to the 3.8% spike - this is your 3rd mention of it, I think, since you dug that one up. I haven't replied to the spike revelation because to anyone who studied quantitative political science for a few hours the war spike is old, old news. Even NS pointed this out to you.
Assassination-attempt spikes are also old news. Once when Reagan saw his numbers plummet in a slowing economy, he said to his advisors, "Maybe I should go out and get shot again."
But you fatally undermine your argument if you interpert Bush's numbers as being a result of 9/11. I know this helps explain why the people like the president you loathe, but the fact is Bush has had above-average numbers since the first months of his term - and at least 6 months before 9/11. That's why I said - just as the far left New York Times said - "Americans are having a love affair with their President", 9/11 or no 9/11, war or no war, bad economy or bad economy.
Do I venture predictions it'll last? I only get into the prediction business during football season.
Back to the topic of anti-war protesters, here's from today's LA Times:
"Protests Continue, But With Smaller Crowds"
"PARIS, April 12-Tens of thousands of people marched in dozens of cities from Seoul to London today to protest the war in Iraq, but the crowds were significantly smaller than in past demonstrations."
"In London, where more than 1 million protesters gathered in Hyde Park two months ago, police estimated today's number at perhaps 20,000."
I've been saying the "movement's" failures are causing its demise. I've been saying it's a shrinking kinda thing. You guys doubted me...
As to the cerebral capacity of protesters, here's this:
"At a march of about 11,000, protesters carried a large banner reading, "Ceasefire. Withdrawal of Troops. Justice, Peace, Democracy.""
Do they think an immediate withdrawl will lead to "justice, peace and democracy"? Did they think there was any in the Middle East before the invation?
As to the brain power of a specific protester:
""We are chagrined that the rest of the world is forming a very negative impression of the U.S.," said Mark Cramer, 58, a freelance writer whose voting residence is Gaithersburg, Md."
Uh, Mark? Ever heard of national interest? Do we act to be loved, or to pursue national interest? Read your Machiavelli - and your history - on the value of being loved.
And give the world's negative impressions some time. Talk to them in a year. For now, you might be better chagrined that the American public is forming a very negative impression of... you.
I see. "The public is dumb enough to believe Saddam caused 9/11, so of course they're dumb enough to support the war in large numbers - as well as Bush" is how you're characterizing my argument. That's not what I'm saying at all, you misunderstand me. If that's what I was saying, I'd say something like "well, 2/3 of Americans also believe in angels and 60% believe in ESP. So we know that we can't really depend on the public to know what's what."
But I didn't say that. I cite the poll numbers about Saddam and 9/11 to make a very specific point. The point is this:
1) The public supports actions we take to prevent ourselves from terrorism, because we fear another 9/11 and hate those who perpetrated it.
2) Bush has repeatedly sold this war as a war against terrorism.
3) Even without tangible proof, the Administration has sought to link Iraq and 9/11 in the mind of the public.
4) The polls show that W et al. have been successful in doing that (hence that
5) Line up 1,2,3 and 4, and you get popular support for this war.
It's not that the public is stupid; it's that the war has been successfully marketed to them. More successfully than the anti-war movement has marketed opposition to this war. On that, I think we can agree. (At least, I think.)
As to Bush's approval ratings -- well, there's the facts, and then there's the interpretations of those facts. The facts are, pre-9/11, his numbers were average. Between 50 and 60%. Carter beat him during the same period; so did Reagan; so did his Dad; so did Kennedy; so did Nixon. He beats Clinton.
Bush's popularity is not something that's actually very important to the argument here, but you're talking about it, so shoot. I won't reiterate my interpretation of Bush's popularity post-9/11 -- you can just scroll up. Is every single approval point due to 9/11 and Iraq? Of course not. The man is President, and millions voted for him. It would be stupid to argue that. What I am arguing, if you'd actually bother to read what I wrote, is that his numbers above the baseline (around ~55%) are pretty much 9/11, anti-terror, and Iraq-related. I mean, look at this. How else do you explain these trends? And my citing of the "rally round the flag" effect was to give some context to the debate. It's not a "revelation" or intended to be one. It would have been simple for me to say, "well, people always support the President during a war", and dismiss the 15 point jump as just another RRTFE. But you like numbers and facts, don't you? I thought it would be interesting to look at the quantitative side of it. Why is the spike 15 points, when the average is 3.8 points? It doesn't bolster my argument, but it does make for an interesting discussion. You can dismiss it as "old, old news" if you like. I thought you'd be more interested in the facts than that.
Perhaps I should state: this is a very specific post, countering arguments put forward here (and elsewhere) by many people. These arguments hinge on two points:
1) Anti-war protests are ineffective (see "the war is popular", "no substantive arguments", "turgid rhetoric".)
2) Anti-war protests are somehow dangerous (see all the other points) to our polity and our safety.
The third point of this anti-anti-war-protesting syllogism is:
3) Anti-war protests should be curtailed.
You, MD, might claim that you believe 1 and 2 but not 3. (Although if they are "somtimes dangerous" then doesn't that imply that they should not occur?) That's not my concern. Nor is it my concern to "prove" the case against the war. I merely defend the right of protests to occur, by showing that 1 does not imply 3, and that 2 is incorrect. Or, that the implications of saying 3 are vastly more dangerous to our country than the use, say, of police forces to patrol anti-war protests. After all, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
You really don't think protesters are trying to change minds? That would be news to many of them I've seen in media interviews."
Not what I said. I think that protests are an ineffective means of changing people's minds. Probably why I haven't been to any protests. What are protests good for? See above. Do protestors think they're going to change people's minds? Probably they do. Not my concern.
"Contrary to what you write, I've seen soldiers and their stateside families interviewed who said they were most definitely bothered by protests. Perhaps you missed the news about the families-of-soldiers protest at the WTC - they said they were bothered. Did the New York Times leave that part out?"
The question isn't whether soldiers, their families, or their 2nd grade teachers are bothered by protests. The question is, does it effect morale of our troops in Iraq, and hence give "aid and comfort" to the enemy. (That's the argument that has been put forward, as a reason against having protests at all.) Gosh, I doubt our soliders are really thinking about stateside protests over in Iraq.
"An SFPD officer was quoted saying protests were in fact diverting manpower from anti-terror deployments. Hardly "silly."... "
One officer! Oh boy!
Seriously, though, the use of police isn't "silly" and neither is the cost. What's "silly" is the notion that anti-war protests are somehow different from any other large public gathering, in terms of their effect on our ability to police terrorism.
""You can invoke 9/11 until you're blue in the face." Ouch. Here's a fact: The left has consistently downplayed the meaning of 9/11 ...."
Not what I'm arguing here. I'm only making the point that 9/11 does not trump the right of anti-war protestors to protest, as others have so argued.
"You counter "anti-antiwar" critiques with a dearth of facts and relevant testimony, singular opinion, tenuous associations, and irrelevant and extreme examples. "David Duke"?! Surely you jest."
It's not a jest, it's a a point. David Duke was used as a reductio ad absurdam. If, as some have argued, the presence of "undesirables" in the anti-war movement renders their arguments moot, you can make the same point about "undesirables" on the pro-war side.
"Far from "methodically demolishing" arguments that anti-war protesters are foolish, self-destructive, irrelevant and somtimes dangerous, you leave those arguments standing as tall as Old Glory over the rubble."
Nah, you'd never wrap yourself in the flag, and exploit tragedy to make your little points, would you?
No, but I thought people might enjoy the apple pie symbolism, as my long ago statement here that "America is the most powerful, alluring and successful mass society in history" was met with much shock and derision. No one said it wasn't true, per se, they just implied it was a bad thing to say - or think. It's like, patriotism is frowned upon. Not the case in other places I go.
As to the 1st Ammendment part of your recross, I do not have the power to make protesters stop (unless they're in my face, and I've done that). So if I imply I wish they'd stop, it's just me expressing my 1st rights, like people calling for the firing of that Columbia prof are expressing their 1st rights, and like Columbia would be expressing its rights if it found some clause in his contract by which to fire him. I'm not stifling free speech, rather I'm using free speech against those who also use it. There's nothing fascist about me saying, "I sure wish they'd shut the hell up." But there is something fascist about protesters, frustrated that The People aren't listening, committing civil disobedience. If they stop me from driving (my SUV) to where I want to go, if they disfigure my public spaces, if they preoccupy my cops, they're being little fascists. One violation of the law, and they should be arrested and maximally prosecuted. Like Rachel Corrie, and the English guy who took some lead the other day, they don't seem to understand there are consequences to their actions.
Here's from todayÂ's Washington Post:
Â"Even here in San Francisco, the heart of the antiwar movement, the public seems to be wearying of protests, especially those that disrupt their daily lives and cost the financially ailing city millions of dollars in police overtime.Â"
Not to mention anti-terror protection.
As to the rest of your recross, I like it, it clarifies differences in perspective, and I appreciate its specificity. Just two things:
I may have had you wrong in your quoting the Saddam-9/11 poll, but where do you draw the line between Bush selling the war as anti-terror, and the public simply perceiving it that way? How much of the "market" already existed before the "sales job"? This has been a question in previous wars. FDR was never able to sell WW2 - Pearl Harbor did it for him. In today's case, the attack came first. And if I'm not mistaken, your Saddam-9/11 poll was done long before Bush gave the UN and Iraq an ultimatum. Pro-war poll numbers were high, then down, then high again. The dip coincided with strong opposition in the UN, then the public - hardly aided by Bush's PR skills - lost patience with the UN. And the public - believe it or not - was quite aware of Hussein's envoy's meeting with Atta in Prague, summer 2001. Put that together with Hussein's previous transgressions, hostility toward the US, the regional volatility, and the fear factor - you have a war that had broad support in spite of a muddled sales job.
I'd put "in spite" in italics if this was Word.
On Bush's pre-9/11 numbers, the point is that he has polled 55%-plus almost since January '01 - two months after he won, what?, 40-something of the vote and less than Gore? And frequently, his post-9/11numbers have been no better than his pre #'s. And 9, 12 or 18 months after 9/11, it's tenuous at best to tie his numbers to 9/11, especially given the economy. My conclusion - and the conclusion of others - is that people just plain like the guy and many but not all of his policies.
One more thing... in your original post on this, you wrote:
"Like, we're fighting a war here, and probably changing the course of American foreign policy and the global strategic balance for the next century. I'd like some discussion of how and why we're doing this."
Yo, I think it was me who tried to initiate just that discussion back with the "Rise & Shine" post you graciously ran. And honestly, judging by the comments I remember, people weren't ready for the "global strategic balance" or "Bush strategic vision" conversation. The comments devolved, well, a tad.
But, yo, how 'bout a lil' back slap where it's due?!!! We want the same thing!!! ;)
Well, you may be using your 1st Am rights to tell protesters they're being 'little fascists.' And I can similarly use my 1st Am rights to tell you that I think your view is moronic to the max. Fascism is a state-sponsored totalitarian system that would crush any such public demonstrations. Protestors are exercising democratic freedom. It may be inconveniencing your morning commute. Well gosh we all have to make sacrifices in order to live in a democratic society. Yeah, civil disobedience is so fascist. You know, Gandhi and MLK were real fascists.
You may think you're in favor of democracy, but your comments reveal an antipathy to the democratic political process. Real democracy is messy. It doesn't just happen in a voting booth. Then, anyone who studied political science for a few hours could tell you that.
Goodness, what's with the tone? I realize antiwar protesters have been drowned out, thinned out, and hopelessly out-shone by events, and I realize that even in S.F. people are sick of them, but what up?
FYI, and tuition-free, here's 2 minutes of Webster's and poli sci class:
Fascism does not require anythng to be "state-sponsored." It requires only "a tendency toward or actual exercise of stong autocratic or dictatorial control." If protesters illegally sieze control of a public street or bridge with the intent to hinder the free movement of the general public, protesters go from exercising 1st Ammendment rights to exercising "autocratic control." That is, the public - having made available appropriate channels for assembly permits - did not give their permission. Hence, by illegally placing their interests over the public's, the protesters are, quite locally, exercising fascism. Democracy is often messy, sure. Just look at the 1960 election, among others. But unless you've got the public's permission to take control of and shut down their thorofares, you're a fascist.
Now, should you still think my view "moronic", you might want to petition the publishers of Webster's, as well as the US Supreme Court, to have the meaning of "fascism" conformed to your needs, and the rights of municipalities to issue assembly permits declared unconstitutional.
On the issue of post-war, this is kinda fun. The headline in MondayÂ's Daily News might be:
Not All Actors Spout Before Thinking
A piece on John Malkovich reads:
Â"The actor is the first to admit that President Bush could have handled the diplomatic end better. At the same time, he believes President Jacques Chirac's opposition to the U.S.-led coalition is Â'highly cynical and arrogant.Â'Â"
Â"Â'Why should America listen to what France now has to say?Â' Malkovich asked.Â"
"Â'The French say that everybody else has a self-interest [in Iraq] but none is more obvious than theirs. And they're absolutely blind to it. Sometimes ignoring other countries is the right response.Â'"
"Â'I don't really care what a lot of European countries say. I've lived in Europe for years. I have a lot of dear friends there. But if you talk about politics, I want to say, if they're so smart, why Franco? Why totalitarianism? Why fascism? Where is your humility? I just think they should be curious about their own regimes.Â'"
"Â'My father was a soldier. My uncle was a soldier. And the reason - and one can't say this enough - that our parents fought and died for things is so that people can get up and shoot off their mouths about things they don't know f---all about. About things they don't know the end result about, where they're just guessing.Â'"
Guessing, indeed.
Which reminds me, whenÂ's Garofalo bringing roses to the White House, as she promised Bill OÂ'Reilly sheÂ'd do if Iraqis welcomed American troops?
Martin Sheen still wearing that duct tape?
The misuse of the word "fascist" is pretty widespread. Here's the complete Websters on it:
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Fascism is a specific political ideology. It's often used as a proxy for "totalitarianism". And also often used by those of many political stripes to describe anything they don't like.
Oh, and let me know if you need help looking up "autocratic" or "dictatorship".
Comment #21 :: link :: April 16, 2003 09:00 AM
