LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth |
CAMPTalk: "Out Now" Isn't Always About Closets |
by Bill Sievert |
"Whatever happened to the anti-war movement?" asked the agitated editor of a magazine to which I frequently contribute. "As we spiral inexorably toward war with Iraq, I am constantly amazed at the lack of any kind of vocal opposition to what will surely become this country's next Vietnam; especially on the part of young people who are the ones who will be coming back in body bags." Because I wrote a book, All for the Cause, a few years ago about the Vietnam-era anti-war movement and other pivotal social campaigns of the 1960s and 70s, the editor figured I would share his disappointment that large numbers of Americans aren't already pouring into the streets to oppose the bloodthirsty urge of George Bush the younger to avenge his father's failure to eradicate Iraq more than a decade ago. But, while I'd like to see a lightning-fast reaction to Bush's misguided push toward war, I'm not ready to count out the younger generation, or the likelihood that a coalition of people representing all age brackets can and will build an influential response. The problem is that, while the presidential bully pulpit allows Bush to spread his deadly agenda as quickly as a poisonous weed can strangle a garden, a viable peace movement must arise from the grass roots and requires considerable cultivation before it can blossom. Some people today look back at public opposition to the war in Vietnam as if it had simply sprung up from the ground (sort of like Yippie leaders Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin who once tried to levitate the Pentagon). In fact "The Movement" of 1960s' lore was a long-time-coming. During the early years of that decade, very few Americans (even students) protested their government's military escalation in Southeast Asia or participated in such budding groups as Students for a Democratic Society. Only a small number of scholars and traditional pacifist groups noticed Lyndon Johnson's buildup of military advisers in 1963. In early 1965, the first major teach-in on Vietnam at the University of Michigan was attended by 3000 people; that's about the same number who rallied in Washington last month against Bush's warmongering. In the spring of 1965, as Johnson was committing 180,000 combat troops to Vietnam, SDS organized the first national march on Washington, demanding that the U.S. government allow the people of Vietnam to decide their own destiny. Some 20,000 showed up for that protest, approximately the same number who participated in a recent peace rally in San Francisco. During the 1960s, it took years of college teach-ins, coffee-house discussions and small demonstrations, plus a lot of national organizing, before the movement became influential enough to draw half-a-million protesters to the Washington mall in November, 1969. By that time, the movement had important structures in place to coordinate mass protests. Such groups as the Student Mobilization Committee and the National Peace Action Coalition gradually had raised enough money to rent offices in Washington, New York and Los Angeles, where they recruited countless volunteers to coordinate the giant "Moratoriums" and "Mobes." It's never easy bringing together hundreds of thousands of people for a single event, and the biggest anti-war demonstrations required a huge effort to come up with affordable housing, meals, transportation and even parking for the masses. In addition to logistics, debates about political tactics always make forming a broad coalition difficult. In the 60s, there were strong divisions between the "peaceniks," folks who simply wanted to "bring our boys home," and more militant activists who linked our presence in Vietnam with U.S. imperialism worldwide, urging radical changes in a system led by greedy corporations and their military-elite. There were rambunctious debates among those who favored non-violent candlelight marches or passive acts of civil disobedience and those who were angry enough to wreak havoc in the streets. Organizers found ways to incorporate the approaches of all the divergent groups, allowing each to make an anti-war statement in its own way. The process of building a peace movement took a lot of time, perseverance and patience. So, as much as we need another huge peace movement, we can't expect a sizeable coalition to spring up overnight. Unfortunately, a President (even if he is only a Supreme Court-appointed one) with massive firepower at his disposal is in a much better position to make war than the people are to stomp out the flames. But that's no excuse for not stoking up the engine of the old peace train. It would be foolish to wait, as too many Americans did in the 60s, until planeloads of body bags are returning home to Dover Air Force Base. It also would be sad not to consider the loss of lives Bush's war would certainly bring to the people of Iraq even before our own soldiers begin to fall. So we must begin building a new anti-war alliance however and wherever we can. We can start with those old warhorses of protest: letter-writing and phone calls to our elected legislators. We can educate ourselves about Iraq and organize teach-ins in our schools and universities. We can spearhead new groups for peace in our local communities. Thanks to the wonders of the Web, it's easier than ever to communicate with people who are forming anti-war organizations in other cities; for example, we can link up with peace groups from Boston to Naples, FL, at www.globalizethis.org. We can add our names to a growing list of Americans who oppose war in Iraq, at www.peacepledge.org. And, whenever we learn of a peace gathering or rally in our area, we can show up and be counted. Finally, we can choose to vote next month only for candidates who say they will oppose the war. And we should thank those statesmen and women in both houses of Congress who have stood up to Bush's bullying. If only Jimmy Carter were president again. The best news of the past month is that the most admirable president of my lifetime has received the Nobel Prize for his lifelong dedication to peace. When this wise elder statesman speaks about war, the current occupant of the White House ought to listen. And Carter says that, at this point, Congress should not have given Bush an endorsement to attack Iraq. As the Nobel committee noted in announcing Carter's selection, he has "stood by the principles that conflicts must be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law, respect for human rights and economic development." And, as Kenneth Roth, director of the Human Rights Watch campaign, said, "Carter has done more to integrate human rights into U.S. foreign policy than anybody else. Before Jimmy Carter, human rights and U.S. foreign policy were like oil and water." Unfortunately, the grease is back on the White House burner, and a hunger for control of an oil-rich nation has us at the brink of tragedy (again). While we might not be able to build up enough pressure to stop Bush immediately in his tracks, each of us had better start doing something. For much of the last three decades, the chant "Out Now" has been used most frequently to call people from their sexual closets. Suddenly, it's appropriate to recall the slogan's original message. If you really want to stop a war, come on out and stand up for peace. Bill Sievert, a regular contributor to Letters from CAMP Rehoboth, can be reached at AllfortheCause@aol.com. |
LETTERS From CAMP Rehoboth, Vol. 12, No. 14, October 18, 2002. |