ePluribus Media Community || citizen journalism, for the people, by the people

Will the Left Blow It Again?

Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:20:29 AM EST

[This is an expanded version of a diary that appeared on dKos and BoomanTribune].

Over the past thirty years, the Left in America has found itself fractured and unable to affect the national public agenda. Even Bill Clinton, now fondly remembered by liberals and the Left, was a centrist. Very little of his agenda had even a strong liberal bent, let alone a Leftist one.

Right now, however, the Left has the strongest possibility it has had since its failure to stop the Vietnam War and its success in the Civil Rights movement to return as an effective player on the national scene. We can end this war, and it will be the Left that leads us to its end--if it can get its act together.

If.

commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!

Before going further, let me admit that I come out of the failed Left. I grew up a Quaker: when Norman Morrison (to take one instance) immolated himself outside of the Pentagon, it affected me in more ways than one. First, I knew many friends of his, making the tragedy quite real and not simply something on TV; second, my family and I had recently lived in Thailand, and my school size had doubled right after the Christmas bombings of 1964 and the subsequent evacuation of American civilians from Saigon, so I knew that the war Morrison so abhorred was worse than America (at the time) recognized. I was already strongly anti-war when Morrison died--and I quickly became more so.

I protested and got involved. And loved the movement.

At some point, however, I realized that "we" were not going to end the war. And, in fact, the protesters did not. The war was lost, certainly, but it did not end because of domestic protests. Morrison died in 1965. If wasn't until a decade had passed that American troops finally left Vietnam.

What good did our protests do? Very little. They fractured our country and demolished the Left--but I can't see those as "good" results.

The Left has felt (for almost a century) that it should be a "big tent," that it should welcome almost anyone--as long as their agenda was vaguely related to basic concerns of human rights (taking that, again, in its most broad interpretation) and, particularly, anti-war. Thus, the left has long supported `true believers' in causes that haven't a snowball's chance in hell of becoming viable parts of our national debate (no matter how worthy those causes may be). And, thus, it has diffused its impact and has alienated itself from just those people who would have been best able to make it a success.

The focus on the Left has neither been on strategy nor on comprehensive goals. It has been on a panoply of separate agenda items, some of which even contradict each other. It hasn't mattered if these goals could be realistically imagined as part of the national debate (let alone the basis for real change) or even if they were worth fighting for on moral grounds. What mattered was that somebody supported them, somebody who was also willing to give lip-service to whatever other goals might be under the big tent at the moment. What mattered was that the "right" positions on these issues gave people on the Left a feeling of moral superiority. And that had become more important than developing or reaching achievable goals.

The Left, by taking in all orphan causes, has also given the Right the ability to paint the Left as a bunch of crazies. The media, in response to the Right, have been able to pick out the more `outrageous' inhabitants of the `big tent' for focus, making us all look like laughable Don Quixotes tilting at windmills.

Ultimately, by caring about causes more than success, the Left has allowed the Right to marginalize the Left. We have allowed the Right to make us into a joke.

Sure, there are lots of good causes out there, ones that we should all support. There are changes in our society that do need to be made, and desperately. Realistically, however, not all of those changes can be made. Not now, certainly; not at once. We have demonstrated that by our failures.

Even the ways we have tried to inspire others, these past years, have been shown not to work. When we have called for more bodies and more voices, trying to create a mass movement, all we have done is create cacophony. It's time we stop that.

Until the Left learns to concentrate on meeting goals and starts to impose some `message discipline' on itself, it will continue to lose. Just as it has continued to lose since its last real victories--in the Civil Rights Movement that culminated forty years ago.

Let me repeat: it's not that the other issues are unimportant, but we live in a time of mass-media domination, and have to deal with the realities of that if we are going to succeed. And it's success that I care about.

Right now, we have, for the first time in a long time, a clear and simple message we can present--a message that can succeed. Cindy Sheehan `stumbled' upon it, and it has resonated across the land (witness the candlelight vigils the other night): The war in Iraq is not worth the lives of our soldiers. By asking "What is the `noble cause' my son died for?" Sheehan has reduced the questions concerning the war to something even our media can understand--and something the media (dominated by the Right) are having a hard time corrupting.

If we on the Left can't put aside our other agendas and take up this simply-enunciated cause, we probably will never succeed at any of our causes--and probably don't deserve to. But we can win, and can do it now. We can stop this war (succeeding where we failed in Vietnam). But we cannot do it unless we bring an unstoppable majority with us--and that will not happen if centrist America sees identification with this cause as identification with other causes, ones not so easily presented in sound bites, ones that they are not sure they can support, too.

When there are demonstrations or vigils or any other activities in support of Sheehan, the organizers need to remember this, and discourage speakers and the crowd from getting off topic. "Free Palestine"? Sure. Even Sheehan supports that. But don't invite speakers on that topic to address rallies concerning the Iraq war--as happened Monday night in New York City. People can disagree about the issue of Palestine and get together to stop this war. We should not be driving away potential allies.

What reaching out, what real attempt to expand our supporters have we on the Left really done? Be honest. It seems to me that (for the most part) we simply talk to each other, pretending "the people" will somehow come behind us. When we speak of impeachment, however, we are not reaching out to most Americans, and we shouldn't kid ourselves that we are. For, in fact, we are doing quite the opposite. Even if they oppose the war, most Americans do not want impeachment--they've seen how disruptive it is, and are not going to be convinced that it should be brought on us again. Furthermore, when we call for impeachment, well, we might as well be calling for all combatants everywhere to lay down their arms. Nice idea, yes, but it ain't a-gonna happen (certainly not with a Republican congress--so why not concentrate on changing that instead?). So let's concentrate on what can happen.

Yes, sometimes there are "means and ends" questions... and ends don't justify every means. Here, however, there is a critical need for a particular end to be reached. If the means to getting there requires putting aside other causes (not really a great sacrifice, especially since they have little chance of success right now), then that has to be done.

If we on the Left can't learn to discipline ourselves even to this small extent, then we probably have no business thinking we can succeed at all.

If we on the Left can't learn to discipline ourselves even to this small extent, Americans and Iraqis are going to continue to die as a result of this insane invasion and occupation.

No, the war in Iraq is not an isolated event, but to end it we need support of millions of Americans who are not going to support a broader movement centered on the evils of imperialism (important as that may be). That has to come down the line, some time in the future. For now, we have to focus on doing what can be done. Sure, there are other people dying elsewhere--there are plenty of wrongs in this world. But this is one we can have an impact on right now.

It's not, as some might argue, a question of silencing voices to concentrate on one point, one cause. It's simply a question of whether or not we want to win. You want to keep on concentrating on the little things while the Right destroys the whole world? Well, that's not OK with me. And the only way to stop them, right now, is to find one issue that we can put before the media, simply and elegantly. One issue that the vast majority of Americans could get behind now, and without a great deal of discussion or argument.

Get behind the one cause, people. Forget everything else until this is over. Let's have the sense and power to win one when we need to. We have been losing long enough--it's time to learn from that history and change our strategies.

Perhaps we might even learn something more by doing that, and move on to win other battles later.

Will the Left Blow It Again? | 27 comments (27 topical, 0 hidden)

At the Vigil (5.00 / 2) (#1)

that's what I noticed ... The simplicity of Cindy's question crossed the divide.

There were many "just folks" people -- not "antiwar" leftists, but those who truly saw this war as an invasion and wanted some simple answers.

These were not the majority, but they were there and moved by Cindy, like others.

by Cho on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:52:10 AM EST

Best and Brightest - (5.00 / 3) (#2)

How many of the best and brightest were killed off during the Viet Nam war? And when they tried to tell their stories, John Kerry for example, they were hushed, intimidated.... How many minorities had to fight for simple rights? And now watch those rights taken away........?

I posted this on another node..but it sticks deeply in my craw.......stupidity...hah!

"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience... Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty.

Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running and robbing the country. That's our problem.
--Howard Zinn"

I miss the 60's...what a time that was and I am proud to have been a part of it! We need to start playing chicken again..cause that's the game now!

by avahome on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 12:58:53 PM EST

I Understand (5.00 / 2) (#3)

Recently, I met Staughton Lynd (a colleague Zinn's in the sixties and an extremely influential leftist of that time) for the first time in over 40 years. He galavanized me as I haven't been in years.

The last thing you say, about playing chicken... yes. We have become too timid.

Yes, we failed in stopping the Vietnam War, but we had started moving towards something. Then we lost our will.

Let's get it back again!

by Aaron Barlow on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:39:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: Do you think something like................... (5.00 / 2) (#16)

this would help the juices flowing.....got out my old "Last Whole Earth Catalog" and looked things up! We have to start somewhere! Remember Buckminster Fuller?
How many times has God twiddled his thumbs before he put vertebrates on the Earth?
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=796436
excerpt:
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is the closest guess anyone has been able to come up with. If one breaks all this macro-scale of time down into one 12 hour "midnight til noon" session we get the following timeline:
0:00 - Creation of Earth
...........read on...............
1/2 second to 12:00 - First modern man

by avahome on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 07:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Foundations (5.00 / 3) (#4)

I think we're in the midst of going back to go forward. One part of the problem is precisely the background - institutional knowledge - those of us "older" ones possess. You talk about the "big tent", and because I'm from that generation I understand the concept. My kids don't.

Those of us who have been pushing for a "foundation document" - basic statement of principles - to be produced by the Democratic Party do so in part because too many have no idea what the party stands for. Saying we believe in the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution does not convey a message to a public that may not believe in, or has never read, the Bill of Rights.

Just suggesting that at least in the near-term, we assume the public has never heard of the progressive principles most of us believe in, nor of the party that has historically embraced them. The thing that history teaches is that history should be taught.

We need to remember that, I think, if we're going to gain support going forward to '06 and beyond.

by rba on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 03:09:43 PM EST

Aaron (5.00 / 1) (#5)

dumb me. This is one of the better articles I've read in a long time.

by rba on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 03:13:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's A Good Point (5.00 / 1) (#6)

History has to be taught, if it is to be learned.

by Aaron Barlow on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 04:24:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Aaron beat me to it.. (5.00 / 1) (#7)

wonderful quote:

"The thing that history teaches is that history should be taught."

by Cho on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 04:31:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right! (5.00 / 1) (#8)

Where is that quote from?

by Aaron Barlow on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 04:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is it original to rba?? <n/t> (none / 0) (#9)

by Cho on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 06:35:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it is... (5.00 / 1) (#11)

...cool!

by Aaron Barlow on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 06:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another way of saying (5.00 / 1) (#25)

''those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' [George Santayana]. Had to look it up...

by rba on Sun Aug 21, 2005 at 09:49:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: But I liked the way you said it... (none / 0) (#26)

I dunno...somehow made the idea fresh.
Great line and I am borrowing it!

by Cho on Sun Aug 21, 2005 at 10:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

levels (5.00 / 2) (#10)

We're all in awe of Cindy Sheehan and the response to her. The best metaphor I heard was at our local vigil Wednesday when someone called her the Rosa Parks of the antiwar movement.

But let's not get carried away either. I disagree that the antiwar movement did nothing to stop the Vietnam war. It had political consequences, it ended the draft---and if there was a draft now, the Iraq war would never end.

What is the Left? Is it a political party, a political structure, a state of mind? Where does it operate, how is it organized?

It's easy enough to prove the Left is ineffective when it's such an abstraction.

Clearly, the views and policies that in our time are defined as left of center aren't the ones being enacted in Washington, nor are they assumed as conventional wisdom in the country.

But they are potent in some places and on some issues. We live in a complex world, and there are lots of levels where people work to create the kind of just and compassionate society they want. They work in their communities; they work for NGOs in Africa. They work politically at local and state levels.

In Washington, the "left" issues are supported ad hoc. There are almost no Left politicians; the closest we probably came was Paul Wellstone in the Senate, and there's Bernie Sanders and Barney Frank. We do have some politicians that try to combine some old "left" issues with their own way of dealing with new situations and issues. There is no pure Left nor is there likely to be. The term needs to be redefined or dropped. The Left issues are still important, but not the package.

Actually Bill Clinton began his presidency with acts that were more liberal than the centrist views in his campaign, which was built around the concept of Change, probably more of a left than a center concept. But he underestimated the groundwork needed, and took on volatile issues like gays in the military. Then he came up against the full force of corporate power in the most important legislation of his 8 years, universal health care.

Out of that failure grew the HMO infamy we now have. Universal health care is an even greater need, an even more crucial issue. It's not a Left issue anymore, just as the war in Iraq is not. That's the time to get something done.

by Captain Future on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 06:40:52 PM EST

: Interesting Comment (5.00 / 1) (#13)

I wouldn't quite say that the anti-war movement did nothing to stop the war, just that the war ended for other reasons. Remember: no one had been drafted for some time by 1975... and public outcry against the war had died down.
And your point about "the Left" is well taken: there's little defining it.
I'm not sure I would agree with you about Clinton's "change." After all, the conservatives in power now also claim "change" as their mantra.
Thanks for the comment, though. You've brought up things that certainly should be considered.

by Aaron Barlow on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 06:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
: Good to see your post! (none / 0) (#12)

Welcome and thanks for your thoughtful comments!

by Cho on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 06:43:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

addition: the war (5.00 / 2) (#14)

I should add that the idea of concentrating on a single issue and message is one that everyone can support, but they seldom agree on which message or issue it should be.

It's true that demonstrations bring out everybody with an special issue, but that's a minor problem. When officeholders see their "mail" and messages on a topic, and when voters bring it up on the street, and they hear about it on the media, that's when they take real notice.

How can this war be ended? It seems unlikely that direct pressure on the administration will do it, though you never know. My guess is that pressure from Congress---and therefore pressure on Congress--will be the most fruitful.

Finally, I hope everything I've said honors the feeling and compassion of the original post. And I agree completely that right now the most fruitful activity to end the Iraq war is to support Cindy Sheehan and her message.

by Captain Future on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 06:51:57 PM EST

: Yes, It Certainly Does (5.00 / 1) (#15)

One point you make is related to why I wrote this in the first place: I see an issue that we can agree on (an unusual situation) and I don't want it dilluted!

by Aaron Barlow on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 07:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

(message) discipline and the Left (5.00 / 2) (#17)

i'm so glad for your commentary as it captures several points i've realized the last couple of years.

i've tried to identify the dynamic at work over the last couple of years that seems to have strengthened wingers to the expense of progressive influence. that dynamic seems anchored in the ability of the agenda-setting minority to shape perception and to focus response to that revised perception of the majority of their constituency.

thus my obsession on media and propaganda which have been mastered by practitioners of message marketing. the vastly-resourced corporate wing may not have numbers behind 'em but the power of money to emotionally tweak us average janes and joes through repetitive association of unrelated things is what kills people.

answer the question for yourself, raised back when: just what did well-endowed and beautiful women have to do with cigarettes in ANY context?

despite recognizing liberalism at my philosophical core, the power of the right-wing to tweak the collective American psyche through these associations, (how did a substantial majority of GOPers come to believe Saddam did 911?) made it an audible groan that escaped me when i first heard the soon-to-be-catch-phrase gay marriage hit airwaves in front of the election.

hear me out: Aaron's point about message discipline and focussed power is exactly the issue that concerned me!

the dynamic that crystallized in my consideration of why included the calculation that one of the major differences between right and left could be imagined as a venn-diagram universe (hyperbolic of course, to make the point),

{{control-freak-blind-faither} | {other}}.

with so many important issues diffusing energies of the left, we already were fractured by 'otherness' that i felt was evident in the unbelievable polls showing GOP/War President strength.

so, it's not that i was against the goal, i felt we just didn't need that lightning rod issue sticking so prominently out of the pot pourri of a dissipated lefty message.

bottomline: great post, thanks for speaking so forcefully on the essentiality of message discipline.

by luaptifer on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 02:44:35 PM EST

Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#18)

I've been criticized for this approach, particularly by people saying it is too authoritarian.

However, it's a discipline we can impose on ourselves. It does not have to come from above.

"I will not be distracted into discussion of their program or their depiction of mine. I will stick to my own message, simply put and strongly advocated."

And that doesn't mean that other issues are not important. It simply means that the discipline needed for winning has finally been found.

by Aaron Barlow on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 03:22:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great book (5.00 / 2) (#19)

Power of Persuasion by Robert Levine
cognitive psychologist.

All about how we are persuaded even when we know better...and partially because we think we know better.

Very germaine to this discussion. If any one is interested, I can try to do a write up later.

by Cho on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 04:20:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oh yeah, Cho, i'd love a review because, imho, (5.00 / 2) (#20)

it's their mastery of persuasion techniques over the last decades concurrently with domination of the media through which to adminster them that's enabled so many liars to close the margins at election time.

the ability to tweak the emotions and, so, to divorce decision-making from rational considerations is where i think the lie-wing has drawn their power from.

obvious and non-partisan, denial is a good example of such a divorce.

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
------------
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
--Confronted by political opposition, Bush explains his strategy on promoting Social Security reform. (Washington Post, "The Ostrich Approach," Dan Froomkin, May 25, 2005)

please do cover that!

by luaptifer on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 06:16:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

: Luaptifer -- I did a commentary (5.00 / 2) (#21)

but decided not to complete it.

Not too sure how many people are interested in a chapter by chapter recap. For you, though, here's the relevant info. The Power of Persuasion: Or How We are Bought and Sold by Robert Levine

Note: this book available as hardcover, paperback or digital editions. Link to Amazon PDF of Table of Contents and sample chapter via Amazon

Here's the review from Publisher's Weekly (under 250 words, so I believe I can quote it here with appropriate credit given).

"This valuable and nonacademic guide reveals the extent to which we are surrounded by persuasion, and how we can resist. Levine (A Geography of Time), a professor of psychology at Cal State Fresno, opens by demonstrating that all of us (including himself) can be persuaded under the right circumstances. He goes on to study financial manipulation and the use of the sense of obligation (which exists in all cultures, even if it is most strongly visible in Japan), and then proceeds to a nuts-and-bolts analysis of salesmanship by describing what he learned and did (and had done to him) as an automobile salesman. He offers an admirably concise and unemotional analysis of the famous Milgram experiment, involving the (claimed) administration of ever-stronger electric shocks to test the impulse to obedience. Inevitably, he moves to cults, the Moonies and the ultimate persuasion horror story, Jonestown. Not so inevitably, he avoids hysteria and demonization, even of Jim Jones, and points out that brute force is required at the extreme end of the persuasion spectrum. Levine's final chapter offers ways of dealing with unwelcome persuasion while remaining part of a society in which some persuasion is part of almost any social interaction. The final results are bout as far as possible from the shrill Hidden Persuaders tradition or the cult deprogrammers who become cult gurus themselves-and quite persuasive about the author's credentials, common sense and ethics."

Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

by Cho on Sun Aug 21, 2005 at 12:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Which group is the president supposed to hear? (5.00 / 1) (#27)

i happened to check back at dKos this evening and was drawn to google up the news related to "All Hell Breaks Loose in Utah - 2000+ Protest Bush".

in anticipation, even, the morning OpEd of Deseret News used the expected cacaphony of protestor messages to undermine the protest message:

...It's also a futile strategy. Which among the many interests represented by the above groups is the president supposed to hear? Far from the effectiveness of the anti-war demonstrations in the 1960s, protests today have become hackneyed and ineffective -- an expected accompaniment to any presidential visit, including to his own home in Crawford, Texas. Chances are, the president isn't going to pay any attention. Some people oppose him. He knows that...
- Deseret News OpEd: Welcoming Bush to Utah

ditto from the Daily Herald:

The "advocacy community" means gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals. But Anderson's anti-Bush marketing aims much wider. Here's the shopping list from his e-mail:
"There should be a collaboration of health-care provision advocates, seniors, the advocacy community, anti-Patriot Act advocates and other civil libertarians, anti-war folks, pro-Social Security advocates, environmental advocates, anti-nuclear-waste-shipment-and-storage advocates."
Perhaps we should be grateful for Anderson's lack of focus. With so many causes and advocates tripping and shouting over each other, it's going to be hard for the president to know exactly what's being protested. So he can interpret the noise any way he likes. In Utah, the most pro-Bush state in the country, we suggest he take it as praise.
- In our view: Rocky's protest shames Utah

you may think i'm bs'ing but it was only two OpEds that i looked at, those i quote here, that reinforced the point.

Message Discipline is essential no matter what our inspires our activism!

by luaptifer on Mon Aug 22, 2005 at 10:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

An important post... (5.00 / 2) (#22)

...and one I heartily agree with, as much for us over in the UK.

Maybe its a Quaker thing (there are two of us on New European Times and I guess we can be a bit self-reinforcing in our views at times) but I do like keeping the peace message simple.

Amongst the posters displayed advertising the UK peace demonstration in London, prior to the invasion at our Meeting House, there was one which had a sub-heading at the bottom that read something like "and support Palestine". Whatever one's sympathies, it was a dangerous diversion - it provided an easy target for misrepresentation of what turned out to be a great demonstration which showed how many ordinary people who do not usually attend such events felt about the impending war.

Whilst it is important for us to examine the details that surround the whole event, we must realise that most of this flies past unnoticed by the vast bulk of people who do not read the blogs daily like we do.

Indeed, I challenge anyone to argue that the war is centremost in the daily conversations of ordinary people in your country or mine as they go about earning their living and caring for their families.

It is enough that we try and get the one message across: thousands of our young people and many, many thousands of Iarqi citizens have died and been injured in a war that we must end if many more are not to suffer.

by Welshman on Sun Aug 21, 2005 at 03:28:59 PM EST

: I have to concur (5.00 / 2) (#24)

Whilst it is important for us to examine the details that surround the whole event, we must realise that most of this flies past unnoticed by the vast bulk of people who do not read the blogs daily like we do.
Indeed, I challenge anyone to argue that the war is centremost in the daily conversations of ordinary people in your country or mine as they go about earning their living and caring for their families.

I have pretty much had my nose to the grindstone lately.
The Better Half dragged me away the other day to a street fair and I had this surreal disconnect with all the conversations going on about me. They were chattering about food, children, their dogs, the weather. They were not talking about Rove, Wilson, or Israel.
Most good writers know that the simplist way to hide a point is to lard up with lots of details.

by Cho on Sun Aug 21, 2005 at 04:09:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Leave Iraq Now - Grief is the New Black (5.00 / 2) (#23)

So really, where are we in our thinking...I am confused..add more troops, leave, 4 more years according to Bushco.....I say LEAVE NOW!

www.counterpunch.com/cockburn08202005.html
excerpt:
"Gold Star moms like Cindy Sheehan could be leading sit-ins at military recruitment offices across the country and in the home district congressional offices of Democrats and Republicans. How about Cindy Sheehan moving Camp Casey from Crawford to Hillary Clinton's offices in Washington or New York. Only this time the demand would not be for a meeting but for a reversal of HRC's pro war position which has her putting up a bill to increase US forces overall by 90,000. One of the greatest achievements of the antiwar movement in Viertnam era was to make it untenable for a Democrat, LBJ, to run again for the presidency, or for Hubert Humphrey to run and win on a prowar platform. Question, would the MoveOn operation take the slightest interest in any vigils outside HRC's offices, or those of any other prominent Democrat? Of course not.

Cindy Sheehan frightens the right and stirs them to venom, and she frightens the Democrats too, because she's so clear. Contrast the timeline of Sheehan as against that of even a relatively decent Democrat like Russ Feingold. Feingold calls for a start to withdrawal from Iraq maybe sixteen months from now. How many dead troops and new Gold Star moms can you fit into that calendar. A thousand or more? Sheehan's Out Now call should be the bright-line test for any antiwar spokesperson.

by avahome on Sun Aug 21, 2005 at 03:44:53 PM EST

Will the Left Blow It Again? | 27 comments (27 topical, 0 hidden)

Support ePluribus Media -- Support Citizen Powered Journalism!