Oliver, in a post on the apparent ineffective nature of political protests, writes:
Successful social actions have the advantage of being easy to roll of the tongue. Civil rights marchers demanded that all men be created equal. Yes, they had various issues – some people were more concerned with getting decent wages than being considered equal citizens – but the message from the protesters were simple: I Am A Man.
Yes, I know what he meant. Yes, I am the last person to be pointing out imprecision in writing.
I still found it humorous.
BumperStickerist
For Democrats, life imitates Life of Brian
Right. You’re in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People’s Front.
Blogsy McBlog
Actually, Oliver once again is wrong. Political protests occur because conventional routes for political efficacy are closed. In the case of anti-Iraq war protesters, this is easy to demonstrate. The Democratic party essentially voted for the war. They have constinually voted to spend more and more money on this war. The democratic party nominated a candidate who voted to give GWB the power to conduct the war. However, a substantial portion of our population was against the war then (35-40% depending upon the poll), and a majority thinks that it was a mistake today. Thus, for most anti-Iraq war protesters, voting was probably an ineffectual way to protest the war, while protest could serve a signalling function through showing large amounts of the population that the actions of Democratic politicians were not in concert with the feelings of the populace. The next (and more efficacious) way to affect politics is through money. Many of the anti-Iraq war protesters may not have the capital to have their voices heard. This is just a guess, but if its accurate, yet another door to political efficacy is closed. Knowing Willis, I would guess that he hates political protest because he is a lazy centrist who doesn’t have firm beliefs about much of anything. But, once again, that’s just a guess.
Zifnab
Protests are a symptom, not a cause or an end result. I’ve got to agree with Blogy, the reason you see protests in the streets is because there are no protests on Capital Hill. Protests are a way for the public to vent its frustration at a government that does nothing. They are rallying points and spontanous public forums where anyone can shout his or her opinion. This doesn’t exactly make them fine edge political weapons. Certainly a few million dollars in the right campaign coffer goes alot farther than a few hundred people showing up outside the Crawford Ranch. But the general public does not have a few million dollars to toss into every pet cause. When a thousand people show up to protest something, and you support their cause, you effectly garantee yourself a thousand votes.
So protests do mean something. In fact, they mean a whole hell of a lot. More than an AP poll or a census or a demographic chart, protests tell you who cares about what and it opens the door for any politician ready to capitalize on those beliefs.
ppGaz
A fine post.
I did some reading just recently which strongly criticizes moderates for … a lot of things, but especially the breathing room that religious fanatics need to work up terrorism and disruption.
While the material focussed on terrorism and fanatacism, I am coming to believe that something I believed for years might be flawed, namely, that the great middle with its inertia was a steadying and necessary political force.
I am not so sure any more. There are times when the great middle needs to get moved off its great middle asses and establish a position and apply pressure to the extremes, to push back, as it were.
All demagogues detest grassroots action unless its their approved or sanctioned action. Nothing is more predictable than watching politicians who sing songs to “the people” run away from the people when the people stop buying their bullshit and start pushing back.
Doubt or outright opposition to prolonged war in Iraq is now the majority position in this country. Whether this manifests itself as action remains to be seen. If it does nothing else but force the politicians to revise and review their canned litany of platitudes and slogans and deflections, it would be a huge plus. On these very pages within the last 48 hours, one can be dumbstruck by the relentless repetition of the same pro-war pro-Bush diatribes that have been standard now for almost 3 years. Despite the flood of evidence to suggest that the policy is on the wrong track, and the freefall of public support, these people just keep saying the same things over and over again as if nothing had changed.
Unless this administration turns itself around, 2006 is going to be a very interesting year. And if change does not come in 2006, then 2007 and 2008 might make the late Sixties and early Seventies look like a tea party.
KC
I used to think protests were pretty ineffectual. Working here in Sacramento, across from the capitol, they’re like par for the course. However, seeing how effective they’ve been at helping destroy the once kick-ass image of California’s current governor has sort of changed my mind.
Defense Guy
You don’t advocate violence as an acceptable means of political speech do you? This is not a suggestion, just a question.
Also, I belive that the same mass of moderates are responsible for Clinton and Bush. They are not easily fooled or swayed by calls to become more extreme.
Steve
“The ballot or the bullet,” Malcolm X said. Although he claimed he was not advocating violence, his fundamental point was that disenfranchisement can justify acts of violence. I guess when you put it that way, George Washington might agree with him.
I would hope we all agree that when legitimately elected political actors make a decision we don’t agree with, violence is not an acceptable solution. Although some might disagree if the target is one of those durn “activist judges.”
Defense Guy
Malcolm X also said that all white people are the devil. He was just another in a long line of people who cannot argue for something without first having an enemy to argue against.
MLK felt no such need and was far more succesfull.
TallDave
What a coincidence, I just filed a lawsuit against Michael Jordan.
It is so unfair he can play basketball better than me. I demand that I be created equally! Or, failing that, that his basketball skills (and everyone else in the NBA) be limited to the level of mine.
Equality good, inequality bad, forced equality best.
TallDave
Despite the flood of evidence to suggest that the policy is on the wrong track
I’m continually amazed that public support for Iraq drops despite the avalanche of evidence the policy on the right track.
But since the media agrees with ppGaz, I guess their message gets out more. Oh well, Bush doesn’t govern by polls, thank God.
TallDave
Oops, my other link didn’t make it.
Zifnab
TallDave, I’ve read the report. I assume the above post is sarcasm. Maybe I missed the part of the report that explained how Iraq was improving or that safety and security was increasing. There have been a number of spikes in the data but still a steady stream of casualties. Iraqi police deaths are on the rise – which seems to imply we’re just pouring more into the field to get shot down rather than training up experienced troops. Civilian deaths are climbing. Bombing fatalities are climbing. I’m not seeing any improvements. Doesn’t matter how you skew the numbers.
Steve
Here is a more representative Malcolm X quote, on the topic of whether white men are the devil:
TallDave
Maybe I missed the part of the report that explained how Iraq was improving
Yeah, apparently you did. How about the hundreds of newspapers, millions of phones, dozens of TV stations, 170,000 Iraqis defending their new demcoracy, increased electricity, the amazing number of Iraqis who say Iraq is on the right track… I’m wearing my fingers out here.
Outside the report, how about the 50% economic growth? The elections?
I think the problem is people are redefining success as “no violence.”
TallDave
Oh, and Iraqi police deaths are on the rise because there are more police, and those police are increasingly doing their jobs rather than running away or just not showing up.
Also, something else not mentioned in the report is that not a single Iraqi police station has been overrun by insurgents this year. They are standing, fighting, and winning, not getting worse.
Blogsy McBlog
Sadly, TallDave, no. Those “170,000” (Snicker, wheeze, snicker) troops are primarly concerned with defending their ethnic side in civil war. Don’t take my word for it; listen to the Basra police cheif, the former Prime Minister, and countless other sources. The Shiite militias control many of the police and a fair amount of the armed forces. Those Shiite militias are by no means the benevolent democrats of the “new” Iraq; they recently approved hanging as a punishment, women are petrified to go out in public without a veil, and liquor store operators are being murdered in the streets. All of this is happening during a time of incredibly high political violence. If American insurgants murdered Jennifer Granholm or Tom Vilsack, would you crow about “50% economic growth?” The old economic numbers are distorted by sanctions, anyway. If we wanted to have 50% growth without creating a fertile training groud for terrorists, losing 1800+ US troops, injuring 13,000+ more, spending 200 billion dollars+, and killing 20,000+ Iraqi civillians, we could have just eliminated the economic sanctions and supported democratic movements economically, like we did in Eastern Europe. But that didn’t work well at all, right?
jg
Pure fantasy. There’s about 10000 total and barely half of them can fight a battle without US support.
The south vietnames army didn’t want to fight their countrymen either no matter how hard we trained them(and we reported back they were very well trained and numbered in the thousands).
Its amazing how people can disbelieve everything they hear in the MSM but at the same time trust, absolutely, every word that comes from the people who say ‘don’t trust the MSM’.
Andrei
THIS is the post John Cole needs to respond to in the rolling “why did we fight the Iraq war” exchange where ppGaz has been looking for some concerte Cole answers. IMHO.
ppGaz
Oh, absolutely. The new government will purr along despite the hourly bombings, bloodshed, highways that are no-man’s-land death traps, blown power facilities, oil production facilities, police facilities, hospitals. Entire squads of police wiped out in one fell swoop.
You know, just like they would anywhere. All in a day’s work. Not to worry. Last throes. Democracy on the march.
ppGaz
.
Well …. John is in the same coffin corner that the administration is in. Their problem is that the pressure to stay and try to get a good outcome is huge. Even I am a supporter of that concept. Meanwhile, their credibility falls with every passing month. Their pronouncements grow less and less apparently congruent with reality. They’ve squandered the trust and confidence of the people by constantly trying to appear infallible, when in fact, they were and are eminently fallible.
Now they need the support of the people more than ever, and they cannot get it unless they get real. That’s all they need to do, get real. But they have no idea now to be real. They live and die by leaks and attacks on opponents and spin and manipulation and obfuscation and deflection. That’s what got them here. They don’t know how to change.
John is not a spinner and manipulator, but the government that is carrying this burden is those things. It’s a helluva spot. John is between a rock (Iraq?) and a hard place. To prop up the government is impossible without resorting to their BS to do it. It’s anti-RINO to say the least. To call the government on their fuckups and gaffes is embarassing and tough to swallow. In this regard, John’s spot is tougher than Bush’s. Bush could get twenty points in the polls by just standing in front of the people and say, look, we’ve made some mistakes, and we’re learning, and we are in a tough spot. Christ, I’d even root for him if he did that. But he probably won’t because he doesn’t have that in him. If John were president, he could do that. John is an honest man who will put what’s right ahead of his own ego and his own self interests. The people in the White House are not that sort of people. That’s how they got here, and that’s what is going to ruin it for them if they don’t wise up.
Once the people sense that the noise coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is more about the people at that address than it is about the reality of the world and what is best for the country …. as they are now sensing that very thing …. when they tire of the self-justification and the useless platitudes, then at that moment, then Bush’s campaign, whatever you think it is, good or bad, is over. How many times can they insert feet into mouths and have the people look the other way?
And just to clarify, my question to John really is, how does the government get the support it needs to go on fighting a war that it has done so poor a job of managing so far? The alternatives are mostly bad. More stonewalling? More slogans? More “hard work” speeches? More “Freedom God’s Gift Democracy on the March” pep rallies? George Bush couldn’t sell a drink of water to a man dying of thirst right now. Against a weak opponent, he barely won reelection with that line of baloney. The late shows hammer him with jokes about the feckless nature of his administration five nights a week. His attempt to sell his Social Security snake oil drove the enthusiasm numbers from low to microscopic in just a few weeks. If he made a speech tonight about the sun coming up tomorrow, the country would have a run on flashlights.
The great thing about the people is, they don’t have to understand why something is messed up, to know that it is messed up. This gang of spuds has polished the art of appealing to their base. Unfortunately, their base is not enough any more. The middle is losing patience.
TallDave
It’s nice to see how some people support our troops by mocking their estimates of Iraqi military capabilities. Thanks for making it clear where you stand.
Oh, absolutely. The new government will purr along despite
They seem to be managing. Again, that’s according to Iraqis. Tell me again why you know better than they do?
we could have just eliminated the economic sanctions and supported democratic movements economically, like we did in Eastern Europe. But that didn’t work well at all, right?
Ask the hundreds of thousands of Shias still being dug out of mass graves how that worked out. Sheesh.
TallDave
It’s amusingly ironic how many people who call themselves “Democrats” are doing everything they can to undermine the real progress toward democracy in Iraq.
Sad, too. I feel sorry for those like ppGaz who hate Republicans so much they spit all over such a noble enterprise.
Zifnab
I wish that were true. OH-02 proved that a Democratic candidate can take 48% of the vote in a Republican stronghold just by saying he opposes the war. But it also proved that a Republican automoton could take the seat just by showing up and parroting the party line. We’ve got over 50% of the population opposed to the war, but we don’t have over 50% of the population opposing Bush. There are just too many diehards out there that won’t make the leap from Bad War to Bad President. And the right wing smear campaigns prove you don’t need to convince people your candidate is good, just that the opponent is a million times worse.
We live in an age of weak and ineffectual leaders on all fronts. It’s very frustrating.
Steve
I must be losing my passion. I can’t even get worked up to criticize the “why do liberals hate freedom?” argument any more.
TallDave
We know why they hate freedom: because a Republican is behind it. And Republicans are the source of all evil.
John S.
This is pure nonsense, unless you can somehow explain in what way people voicing their opinion has derailed the democratic process in Iraq.
Perhaps invading a sovereign nation and then
forcingguiding them towards ‘democracy’ was where any real progress toward democracy in Iraq was undermined. A government ‘by the people and for people’ has never been successfully created through the intervention of an external force.Republicans are a noble enterprise? Put down the kool-aid, man. There is nothing noble about politics or political parties. If you could name one thing that the Republican party has done that even verges on ‘nobility’, I would be extremely impressed.
I feel sorry for people that have such an intense loyalty to a brand that they don’t even care about the quality of the product their brand peddles.
John S.
Correction:
A government ‘by the people and for people’ has never been successfully created through the exclusive intervention of an external force.
TallDave
unless you can somehow explain in what way people voicing their opinion has derailed the democratic process in Iraq.
Calling for our troops to abandon Iraqi democracy isn’t undermining it? Guh?
Republicans are a noble enterprise?
No, Republicans are a self-interested political party, not better than Dmeocrats. Democratizing Iraq is a noble enterprise.
TallDave
s/b no better than Democrats, sorry
TallDave
A government ‘by the people and for people’ has never been successfully created through the intervention of an external force
Japan? Germany?
jg
How does this have anything to do with supporting the troops? Where do you people get off turning everything around and drawing an irrelevant conclusion.
The troops aren’t the ones saying there are 170000 Iraq soldiers trained. Its the CIVILIAN leadership thats saying that.
WHAT?! Why do you keep saying troops? Are you a Luntz disciple or something? No matter what the opposition is saying throw it back in their face and say they don’t support the troops.
Last week a trucload of marines was killed when the truck they were riding in hit an IED. The truck was from the Vietnam war and was never meant to go more than 100 yards from the beach the marines landed on. WHY THE HELL ARE TROOPS RIDING AROUND IRAQ IN THESE OLD UNARMORED TRUCKS? Who hates the troops. Me or th eidiots who put them there and three years later still haven’t given the troops proper armor. Still trying to blame that on ‘I voted for it before I voted against it’?
John S.
No it isn’t. People in the US can call for whatever they want (and it is usually to bring our troops home). The bottom line is only the Iraqis can derail their democracy. How you manage to equate two completely different notions is beyond my comprehension.
You really think WE ‘democratized’ Japan and Germany? Germany is a Federal Republic that is heavily socialist and Japan is a Constitutional Monarchy. I don’t where you get your information from, but you had better check it again.
TallDave
People in the US can call for whatever they want
No one’s arguing that (at least not me).
How you manage to equate two completely different notions is beyond my comprehension.
Yes, espousing actions most deem likely to destroy Iraqi democracy is totally different from undermining Iraqi democracy. I don’t know how I got those confused. Please forgive me.
TallDave
You really think WE ‘democratized’ Japan and Germany? Germany is a Federal Republic that is heavily socialist and Japan is a Constitutional Monarchy.
Ahhh, I see. So you’re defining “a gov’t of the people, for the people” so narrowly it excludes Japan and Germany, widely considered model democracies. In that case, you’re not wrong, you just lack any point re Iraq.
TallDave
How does this have anything to do with supporting the troops?
Those estimates came from our troops. Do you think civilians are just plucking numbers out of thin air? Who’s training the Iraqis again? Now, maybe you think mocking and belittling one of our troops’ most important accomplishments while also implying they’re lying about it is somehow “suppporting” them, but I disagree.
WHAT?! Why do you keep saying troops? Are you a Luntz disciple or something? No matter what the opposition is saying throw it back in their face and say they don’t support the troops.
Calm down and read the actual comment (I suggest green tea and deep breaths). In that instance, I said “Calling for our troops to abandon Iraqi democracy isn’t undermining it? Guh?” “It” refers to Iraqi democracy, not our troops.
jg
Those estimates did not come from the troops. It came from the leadership. The troops told them the reality and they made up numbers so they can say things are going well.
I knew what ‘it’ was. I was commenting on the Luntz like way you have of throwing the word ‘troops’ into every sentence even though the troops aren’t at issue.
Just because you’ve convinced yourself that anti-war means anti-troops doesn’t make it true. Its a fallacy you’ve invented (or that was put upon you) so that its easier for you to feel disgust at war protesters.
Andrei
For TallDave, just cause I know you’ll think I’m some moonbat from Kos, and I want to hear what you have to say in retaliation.
Ahh, the good ol’ days
In case the link isn’t working:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/17/144732/740
TallDave
The troops told them the reality and they made up numbers so they can say things are going well.
LOL Well, I don’t know how to debate that kind of self-evident lunacy, esp when Myers and Petraeus are on TV every week.
TallDave
Andrei,
I think that supports exactly what I said earlier:
Republicans are a self-interested political party, no better than Democrats.
I supported the action in Kosovo.
TallDave
Just because you’ve convinced yourself that anti-war means anti-troops doesn’t make it true.
Good, since I didn’t say that and don’t believe it. I know lots of people who manage to oppose the war without slandering our troops.
Zifnab
You know you can fit all that stuff in just one post, right TallDave?
Cyrus
TallDave,
Japan and Germany really aren’t good examples of democracy being created exclusively from outside. Not for the reasons John S. gave, but for others. First, we didn’t create democracies whole cloth. Both of them had had democracies before to at least some degree. Prewar Germany and Japan weren’t very democratic by today’s standards, but still, fascism was a step backwards from a place they had already been. Their fascist episodes were so brief, relatively, that there were still plenty of Germans and Japanese who remembered what a good government was like and were able to rebuild it when the desire and need came together again.
Also, in both cases, the country was obliterated by our armies, bombed back to the Stone Age. It could just be that when an entire country goes nuts the wake-up call has to be very big. At the time, there was little or no choice. But in today’s situation, I don’t think anyone more moderate than Ann Coulter would say that the most ethical choice available to us would have been to nuke Baghdad and hope the rest of Iraq took the hint. Especially since, again, Iraq didn’t have the history of democracy to wake up to.
“A government ‘by the people and for people’ has never been successfully created through the exclusive intervention of an external force.” Every time it has happened, it happened by winning a war of ideas first, to use a tired phrase, and creating an internal force.
John S.
Sorry I couldn’t make an ironclad case for you in the 5 minutes before I left the office, but I think you haven’t a very good leg to stand on in all the posts you have had a large amount of time to ruminate over.
I thank Cyrus for stating in finer terms my intent:
jg
Aren’t they both generals? I think its been shown that certain generals tell Bush what he wants to hear or they get shown the door, (naming a successor while you’re still in the job is ‘showing you the door’, the people under you will now report to the successor, Bush will ask questions of the successor, you’ve been marginalized). Again the civilian leadership is saying we have trained all these troops but we haven’t. Most don’t show up, most have no weapons, they can’t fight on their own.
You have way too much trust in our leadership. I may be too skeptical but you’re a puppet.
RickW
From ppgaz:
From a CNN article today on peace vigils last night:
Oh yes, the times they are a changin’. I don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowin’.
Kidding aside, as long as the war effects primarily only those who volunteer to go, I just don’t see a replay of the 60’s or 70’s. The concern people had for the downtrodden of SE Asia evaporated when they we’re no longer in personal jeopardy.
Mike
“TallDave Says:
A government ‘by the people and for people’ has never been successfully created through the intervention of an external force
Japan? Germany?”
Kosovo?
All of these by Democratic Presidents. I guess you have to be a Democratic President in order for Democrats to support you creating governments through external forces. The hypocrisy is stunning.
Mike
“A government ‘by the people and for people’ has never been successfully created through the exclusive intervention of an external force.” Every time it has happened, it happened by winning a war of ideas first, to use a tired phrase, and creating an internal force.”
We won the battle of ideas with Germany? Japan? Kosovo?
Funny, I don’t remember that history lesson.
Mike
“Oh yes, the times they are a changin’. I don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowin’.
Kidding aside, as long as the war effects primarily only those who volunteer to go, I just don’t see a replay of the 60’s or 70’s. The concern people had for the downtrodden of SE Asia evaporated when they we’re no longer in personal jeopardy.”
There’ll always be protesters, mainly clowns with little sense of the world and lots of time on their hands, students fall into this category quite well.
The rest of us will just continue to go to work each day, paying our taxes and supporting their government subsidized educations so they can continue to stand around carrying signs, shouting silly chants and calling us fascists.
Cyrus
Mike,
I wanted to make a jab about you admitting that only Democratic presidents have successfully created democracies, but that’s not the point. And about the “war of ideas” thing, I used it because it was the cliche rather than because it was appropriate in this case. My incompetent writing. But the point is that the desire for democracy, and probably more importantly its principles, existed in Japan and Germany before and independent of our occupations.
And again, the bombing was important. Matthew Yglesias wrote this, http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/10/102155/390, (sorry about doing it like that, but when I tried to embed it I couldn’t see anything from the link on in the preview) around the anniversary of bombing Hiroshima. Money quote:
We could vaporize Falluja, Ramadi, and all the rest tomorrow if we wanted to without any real difficulty. But we don’t. Because we don’t want to. Because it would be wrong.
And good for us. But people need to seriously consider the possibility that such moral constraints place real limits on what can — and should — be accomplished through force of arms. The methods morally available to us are very good at destroying an enemy’s weaponry, but not so good at utterly wrecking his country, his worldview, his spirit.
That is the debate our political leaders would have had in the preparation for the war, if they were honest and informed. “Getting a good outcome from an invasion, if it’s possible at all, will require utter devastation. Is that the safer, more moral, etc. option than working economically or with internal revolutionary movements?” If they had confronted the fact that reforming Iraq would require far more blood than merely beating Saddam, I think support for the invasion would have been much less, and rightly so.
Blogsy McBlog
Tall Dave, “supporting the troops” is such an overbroad and simplistic slogan that it does you no favours to espouse it. The military leaders have been deceptive numerous times in Iraq about our success/failures; they have denied shooting an Iraqi cameraman until video proved them wrong; they denied murdering 40 people at a wedding until video proved them wrong; they denied losing Fallujah, Mosul, etc. until evidence proved them wrong; and they consistantly underestimate the strength and power of the insurgency. Why should I immediately defer to their public statements when their public statements so often turn out to be wrong? Even Chris Matthews said (today) that his military/DOD guests espouse a different line in private than they do in public.
As for your argument about the Shiites who have died, I am in agreement about one thing; Sadaam sucked. He was a pig headed tyrant who did a whole lot of nasty things during his reign, including during the time that we supported him. Obviously, the gas attacks at Halabjah are indicative of his rule. However, replacing him with “Taliban light!” isn’t much of an improvement. For women, its simply a trade off; instead of constantly worrying about having loved ones run afoul of the tyrant, they now get to worry about being beaten in public for not donning the habaj, or for walking about with non-familial men. Is that really an improvement? Why was there such urgency to invade if “democratisation” was the motivation? Wouldn’t it make more sense to wait until the conditions were right; in other words, until there was a nascent and viable alternative to the tyrant’s rule? And shouldn’t the American people have been consulted about this? It seems like they were given a different rationale; something about WMDs. The economic sanctions crippled the small amount of non-religious civil society present in Iraq. That gap was filled by rather extreme religious movements or rather extreme nationalist movements. Those movements are not the kinds of entities that can effectively govern a multi-ethnic state, or a multi-religious state. They just can’t. If you look closely at Kirkuk, the south, the Sunni Triangle, and the over-reliance upon oil, you will see the beginnings of a nasty three sided civil war. That civil war could train and produce thousands of terrorists, many of whom may have beef with the US (illegitmate beef, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have it). Look at Afghanistan today; an IED that was identical to those used in Iraq killed two of our soldiers. Iraq is currently like a gargantuan “Devry Technical Institute” for terrorists; they get hands on experience fighting the US and its allies. This was what many anti-war protesters feared; we aren’t all idelistic pacifists, you know. We just thought that there was more risk in this venture than reward. Those trained terrorists could (I have no idea if they will, and I certaintly don’t want them to) make our lives miserable for the next century; we have more danger now than we did before we invaded Iraq.