Allan Johnson . . . held a sign saying "U.S. Troops Out of Iraq. Bring Them Home Now!" at Saturday's "End the Occupation" rally in Washington. In fact, though, Johnson isn't sure he wants to bring the troops home now, or to end the American occupation of Iraq. At least, not yet. "We've made a giant mess," said Johnson, a handsome man who wore his long snowy hair in a ponytail and had a sparkling stud in one ear. "I would hate for the Bush administration to halfway fix things and then leave, and then blame the Iraqis if things go wrong. Once you go to somebody's house and break all the windows, don't you owe them new windows?"Well if you're not a realist, and nothing matters anyway, why should you have a problem lending credence to an organization whose positions you disagree with?
Why, then, was he marching at an End the Occupation rally? "I don't agree with all the people here, believe you me," he said. But his own sign? He glanced at it, startled, and explained that someone had handed it to him. "I didn't even look at it," he said. "I was just waving it."
. . . The conversation turned to the wisdom of the protest's call for an abrupt American pullout, and Lazarus said, "It may sound like an irresponsible thing to say, 'Bring the troops home now,' but it's an attempt to get the dialogue started. Look, the U.S. isn't going to pull out. It's not a part of the national debate."
He had hit on one of the key dynamics shaping both Democratic and leftist demands on Iraq -- the sense that since progressives have so little power, it doesn't much matter what they call for. That's why Johnson, who was surprised by the sentiments on his own sign, could say, when asked what he wants to see done in Iraq, "We should announce to the world that we're going to commit to using our power for good." Pressed further, he said, "I voted for Nader, so I'm not a realist." [emphasis mine - ed.]
. . . the majority of the demonstrators were not Judeophobes or Baathist stooges. They were people who'd opposed the war all along, who felt betrayed and marginalized by their government and the media's failure to take their concerns seriously, and who wanted a new American foreign policy. For many of them, "end the occupation" was a kind of shorthand. They didn't take it literally. But the people who called the protest did.All this reminds me of my friend who was just going to the NYC rally last February because her friends were, but who had no position on the issues. As Michael Totten and others have pointed out, there are no eloquent powerful liberal hawks to rally behind, so people who don't agree with A.N.S.W.E.R. but want an alternative to Bush dispiritedly attend rallies like the one last weekend, in the absence of a movement they can wholeheartedly support. This disaffected population could be a goldmine for a Democratic candidate with both charisma and guts. Unfortunately, Lieberman has the guts and Dean has the charisma.
Unlike many Democrats, ANSWER isn't confused about where it stands on Iraq. According to an ANSWER pamphlet, "Counter-revolution & Resistance in Iraq," "The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance." . . . According to an ANSWER newspaper that volunteers were distributing at the rally, "The ANSWER Coalition promotes the demand, 'Bring the troops home now, end the occupation of Iraq.' Some other groups call instead for turning the Occupation Authority over to the United Nations ... The Iraqis have shown they want no foreign, imperial forces to become the arbiters of their political and economic process ... Given the U.N.'s record in Iraq the last 13 years, why would the Iraqi people agree that this same UN should be the institution to serve as the guarantor in a transition to renewed sovereign control?"
But at the same time this disaffected population is breathtakingly apathetic about the extremism it supports by its presence. It does take time and energy to monitor the news and search out different viewpoints (blogs have begun to fill the gap, but we are not mainstream media as yet); I have certainly been guilty of not educating myself on every issue that affects me. But if you have enough energy to travel to a rally and stand around in the sun or rain all day with a sign (and political rallies of this type are incredibly boring unless you use them as social occasions, and even then), you are not just a good German, who keeps your mouth shut while atrocities are being perpetrated all around you. You have chosen to tacitly condone rhetoric which includes blatant bigotry and lies, rhetoric you claim to disagree with. This is irresponsible beyond belief, especially for mature adults. If you can get yourself to the rally, why can't you create a movement which reflects your values?
<< Home