The MetroWest Daily News published an interesting column on Sunday, Oct. 21 ("Wither the peace movement?" by Rick Holmes), in which it discussed the lack of a viable peace movement in opposition to the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq.
This has been a much discussed topic for more than four years. Indeed, the question was raised by this columnist back in 2003, in which the question was repeatedly asked "didn't America learn any lessons from Vietnam?"
Indeed, the events of the past four years now suggest that the America government did learn its lessons from Vietnam, but probably not the lessons that most Americans would approve. The "lessons" applied by the Bush administration probably explain the lack of a viable peace movement in the United States today. These lessons are:
1. Don't try to draft middle-class college students - ultimately, resistance to the draft fueled the anti-war movement of the late 1960s. It's one thing to have moral objections to a war, but it's quite another to be yanked from one's life, or to have one's child yanked from one's life, to face death or disability in a foreign war. By fighting the Iraq War with what is jokingly referred to as an "all volunteer" force and an army of thug-like "contractors," the federal government has drained the anti-war movement of its own combatants.
2. Don't make the sacrifice obvious - the Iraq War is not obviously hitting Americans in their pocketbooks. The notion of war spending, when combined with anti-tax fervor, has provided an insidious opportunity for the Bush Administration. Middle class Americans are not feeling the immediate pinch of war financing, or so they believe. This war has been financed by cutting social programs for the poor, by eliminating workplace safety programs in rural communities and by eliminating necessary infrastructure spending throughout the United States.
We only get glimpses of what is transpiring when hurricanes hit Louisiana, when bridges collapse in Minnesota, when miners are lost in Utah, and lead-filled toys arrive from China. But the kind of cuts that would have direct impact on middle class Americans, or war taxes that would hit middle class Americans hard, are absent.
3. Isolate the government from its objectors - Congress and the president are completely insulated from the voice of the people. The president no longer drives around town in his limousine. Congress is an armed fortress which effectively keeps out all but the tourists. The president and Congress wouldn't see protesters even if they were there.
On a recent trip to Washington, I noticed how much post 9/11 Washington resembles an armed camp. In fact, Washington is now more an armed camp than it was in 1862, with rebel troops a short distance away across the Potomac. A new "visitors' center" at the Capitol, when opened, promises to provide a satisfactory alternative to visiting the Capitol, missing the obvious point that Congress is supposed to be open to the people, and its members available to its constituents - the people.
Even if there were an anti-war movement, there are diminished means of petitioning the government. Indeed, ordinary Americans also do not see protests, which further prevents them from joining a groundswell of like-minded people.
4. Smear the anti-war protesters, and do it early. Let's face it - Johnson and Nixon waited too long in red-baiting anti-war protesters. When war was imminent in 2003, the White House and its right wing media allies jumped on anti-war columnists and citizens early, questioning the patriotism of critics and labeling them as anti-American terrorists, or worse. The use of the Internet for this tactic allowed for immediate silencing and chilling of expression in 2003, and that chilling effect has not worn off. Even the column in the MetroWest Daily News called Cindy Sheehan "pathetic," an example of how successful the practice of smear has been.
The fact that the anti-war movement has not been able to gain traction in this country due to the manipulation by the federal government has its own message, of course. The founding principle of our entire system of government is the openness and availability of government by the people and for the people, with a right to the petition of grievances being freely allowed. The type of conduct of this administration, rather than being the military policy of an open democracy, is more akin to the politics of the like of Saddam Hussein.
Not only has the Bush Administration learned that stifling democracy is the best lesson from Vietnam, but it has also learned that the politics and practices of an Iraqi style system is the best way to wage war without that pesky intervention by the people. And it explains why those who have always opposed the war, and who questioned the wisdom of the United States Supreme Court in appointing the president back in 2000, cannot gain traction amongst the rest, who do not see beyond moral objection.
The lesson we have learned is that this country has ventured from the constitutional safeguards that our founding fathers found so wise, and that this is a troubling state of affairs in this day and age.
Rob Meltzer practices law in Framingham.
