Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/24/antiwar-movement-no-one-can-see
The biggest barrier to a new peace movement is the Democratic Party and its MSM stenographers.
It’s rather obscene to leave the whole right-wing off the hook for their incessant war mongering, expansion, and involvement in the plan for a “New world order.”
There are a large number of CD commenters that pay little attention to the horrid right-wing, but have plenty of disgust for the democratic left.
Generally, people that are that set against government are voting old fashioned right-wing, and/or Libertarian.
The Greens have great candidates, just not enough support to elect, making third party politics a suicide mission.
But it’s supposedly a free country, except for influenced politicking.
Tulsi Gabbard is by far the most vocal anti-war candidate for president and you barely gave her a passing mention. Most other MSM journalists are totally ignoring her, and the pollsters leave her out of their polling specifically because of her anti-war and other seriously progressive policies that are viewed as threatening to the status quo. I suggest that you investigate this further and write an article exposing this bias toward her and her anti-regime change wars policy.
It appears that the fear doctrine still holds sway throughout much of the media, especially on the right.
The issue I have with her approach is trying to equate all of the voices listed with one another. Trump would have been deemed “Anti-war” in his own campaign.
I do not see Warren , O’Rourke, or Buttiigeig as authentic anti-war forces at all.
If one is not willing to seriously go after the Pentagon budget, and I am talking massive cuts and not just “we will increase military spending by only 10 billion” then one can not be deemed an “anti-war” voice and is instead a person trying to milk a few votes from the anti-war voters , just as Trump and Obama did.
Definitely “the glass is half full” assessment, but the strategy of linking endless wars with all the many issues it affects is a good one. Would hope to see candidates push this one with much more force and emphasis, but, sadly, it’s still politically risky in this country for a candidate to appear soft on defense. Not confident that any candidate will push too hard on this issue as a result.
Then, too, as we’ve seen all too often, talk is cheap come election time. Both Obama and Trump campaigned on putting the brakes on the war machine and we’ve seen what that got us. It’s now a valid question to ask whether the government is running the Pentagon or the Pentagon the government.
Still do not understand why anyone would trust the words of any politician. The definition of a politician includes one who speaks with forked tongue.
I suppose we should be happy that finger-to-the-wind types like Warren, O’Rourke and Buttigieg are climbing on the ati-war bandwagon. I’d prefer someone like Gabbard whose anti-war stance appears to be genuine. But we’ll have to take what we can get.
Of course, there is always the chance that the finger-to-the-wind types will forget they were ever anti-war once they get in office like Obama or Trump.
Thanks for sharing this very positive info. Gives hope.
Yes. This really blew my mind, as Gabbard is by far the loudest voice of anti regime change wars. It is the very centerpiece of her campaign, and she brings military and war experience to the game.
I’m not sure the other candidates would even be talking about it if it weren’t for Gabbard’s insistence that we consider the topic.
How could the author leave out Tulsi Gabbard? It’s incomprehensible.
Thanks, Dolgen, for your reply. I agree wholeheartedly that the other candidates wouldn’t even be touching the subject if it weren’t for Tulsi making an issue of it.
I’m anxious to see how she is treated in the debate coming up.
“…a large number of CD commenters that pay little attention to the horrid right-wing, but have plenty of disgust for the democratic left.”
You are of course, correct, but doesn’t that go without saying?
Thanks for saying.
I suppose it should go without saying that repugs are the bane of the country. But it sounds bad not to mention that periodically. And the “all dems are bad” suggestion that hear quite often is also repulsive.
“… a national poll shows that more Americans think we’re fighting a war in Iran (we’re not) than a war in Somalia (we are).”
Are you certain you want to cling to that parenthetical “we’re not” at war with Iran position?
But the Right is not a barrier to the peace movement. It’s because people think that the Dems represent the “left.” They don’t. They represent the center-right. Historically, the role of the Democratic Party is to cage, divert or otherwise suppress left social movments. That’s why in the 1930’s they became known as the “graveyard of social movements.”
Go to 12:50
I don’t think the antiwar movement has ever been dead, but it certainly has becone more prominent recently. I think it is because the taunts the US has been giving semi-nuclear Iran through our last few regimes got louder.
Some other reasons antiwar sentiment is rising:
- American people are listening to its veterans and a large number of Is war veterans are strongly war.
- War clearly does not make our soldiers stronger.
- The Trump voters to a large extent were voting antiwar. They are a force.
- War is expensive and politicians and the public are all trying to reslice the monetary pie.
- Climate activists are correctly blaming War for energy waste in fossil fuels, as well as wasted unfrastructure that must be redone.
- War is getting more press for being cruel and less for being glorious.
- War is getting more press for being stupid and less press for being smart.
That’s because you don’t need to convince people that the GOP are corrupt beyond redemption - people got that figured out. Problem is, the same is true of the Democrats, they are just as corrupt. They cater to same donors for god’s sake: Wall Street, the MIC, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Ag…
Bernie didnt drop the War question for “more familiar topics” as Allegra suggests. Bernie has topics that are vetted, and War wasn’t, at that point. Both Bernie and his audience were very “familiar” with War.
Allegra also is very politically correct with her coverage of this topic. She gives homage to the Parkland students who are antiwar, but fails to note that the Parkland community’s attempts to sort out is own terrible terror resulted in sudden deaths of more that one after that event.
Why did the Iraq War protests end War protests? Were, Allegra, in my town, after the first but protests was over,
- No protests were announced after to first one in the media. Internet media was not yet well-established.
- Permits to protests were not isssued after the first protest.
- Further protests were directed down streets with out sidewalks. Protesters were arrested for walking in the road.
- Protests were beaten by police.
- Some violent people were inserted in with peaceful protests to cause trouble.