SOMETHING SERIOUS TO PONDER
...about the varying nature of those who oppose this war. In the most broad terms, there seem to be two signifcant categories of people against the war (though they do overlap to form a third). The first group are straight-up pacifists, peaceniks in the most complimentary sense, and I identify strongly with them. They'd oppose this war no matter whose idea it was. The second group is more pragmatic and composed of moderate Dems and some conservatives. Their thought is that removing Saddam Hussein from power would be a great thing for Iraq and the world, but that the way Bush is botching our foreign policy clearly signifies that he ain't the guy for this war. And of course, the third category would be people who not only oppose this war on the merits, but also know that Bush would fuck it up.
I fear that there's a disconnect between the opposed-no-matter-what camp and the I-like-it-but-Bush'll-fuck-it-up group. Personally, I am much, much closer to the first group than the second group. Yet, I think the cause of the first group wont really get fully over the hump until that second group is incorporated. Part of the protest movement is to influence the opinions of middle America. As a non-brainwashed longtime Bay Area resident, I know that there's a difference between my perceptions of the world and those of some people between the coasts. The government has spent 13 years flogging the idea that Saddam Hussein is Darth Vader incarnate, and that's a hard thing to get over. So if someone in the chewy nougat center of America starts to think that Bush will fuck this up -- regardless of whether they think armed removal of Saddam is a good idea in general or not -- that development is a good thing for the antiwar movement! There is a greater good to be found, and in terms of each group, it may involve teaming up with people who arent 100% like you.
2000 is a good example. If the Gore camp and the Nader camp reconciled a little more back then, then Gore would have received 52% of the popular vote and won in a walk. The end result? Greens would have ended up with around 70-80% of what they wanted in terms of policy, which is 70-80% more than what they're getting right now (to the extent that Republicans would have tried to block Nader's agenda too, you know).
I guess this is my emotional appeal to the protest movement: be inclusive! For what it's worth, the outright pacifists want us not to go to war just as much as the midwestern housewife who's been trained to hate Saddam but thinks Bush would fuck it up! I'll probably ponder this more in the coming days/weeks/months?
...about the varying nature of those who oppose this war. In the most broad terms, there seem to be two signifcant categories of people against the war (though they do overlap to form a third). The first group are straight-up pacifists, peaceniks in the most complimentary sense, and I identify strongly with them. They'd oppose this war no matter whose idea it was. The second group is more pragmatic and composed of moderate Dems and some conservatives. Their thought is that removing Saddam Hussein from power would be a great thing for Iraq and the world, but that the way Bush is botching our foreign policy clearly signifies that he ain't the guy for this war. And of course, the third category would be people who not only oppose this war on the merits, but also know that Bush would fuck it up.
I fear that there's a disconnect between the opposed-no-matter-what camp and the I-like-it-but-Bush'll-fuck-it-up group. Personally, I am much, much closer to the first group than the second group. Yet, I think the cause of the first group wont really get fully over the hump until that second group is incorporated. Part of the protest movement is to influence the opinions of middle America. As a non-brainwashed longtime Bay Area resident, I know that there's a difference between my perceptions of the world and those of some people between the coasts. The government has spent 13 years flogging the idea that Saddam Hussein is Darth Vader incarnate, and that's a hard thing to get over. So if someone in the chewy nougat center of America starts to think that Bush will fuck this up -- regardless of whether they think armed removal of Saddam is a good idea in general or not -- that development is a good thing for the antiwar movement! There is a greater good to be found, and in terms of each group, it may involve teaming up with people who arent 100% like you.
2000 is a good example. If the Gore camp and the Nader camp reconciled a little more back then, then Gore would have received 52% of the popular vote and won in a walk. The end result? Greens would have ended up with around 70-80% of what they wanted in terms of policy, which is 70-80% more than what they're getting right now (to the extent that Republicans would have tried to block Nader's agenda too, you know).
I guess this is my emotional appeal to the protest movement: be inclusive! For what it's worth, the outright pacifists want us not to go to war just as much as the midwestern housewife who's been trained to hate Saddam but thinks Bush would fuck it up! I'll probably ponder this more in the coming days/weeks/months?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home