The "Death" of the Antiwar Movement

Several times, I have read comments by conservative about the lack of antiwar activity during the Obama presidency. The conclusion they have drawn is that liberals think war is okay if a Democrat does it. On the surface, they do have a point. Identical actions by Obama are greeted with silence while the same actions by Bush would have occasioned howls of protest. I suspect, also, that if Obama is "right" about key Democratic issues like abortion or gay rights, liberals may be more willing to tolerate bad foreign policy. The objection's to Bush's foreign policy may simply have resulted not from war itself but from the totality of liberal disagreement with all of his policies. War simply pushed liberals past the point of toleration. I have often been dismayed by people who opposed Bush because, for example, they disliked his stand on gay marriage but were completely indifferent to the war

On the other hand, the silence of the antiwar movement--the genuine antiwar movement, not the people who wanted to jump on an anti-Bush bandwagon--is not due to approval. The silence is due to despair and confusion. Antiwar sentiment was largely responsible for putting Democrats in control in 2006 and Obama in the White House in 2008. Now that Democrats are in control and the wars seem to be escalating in Afghanistan and Pakistan ( and Yemen and Somalia) it is clear that we have simply elected the liberal wing of the war party.

To stop the war, there is a need for opponents of the war to acquire a more sophisticated sense of political strategy. This is not so easy. I personally don't know anything beyond writing my congressman, demonstrations, tax resistance, and counter-recruitment. The effectiveness of tax resistance is limited by the fact that the government can fund the war through borrowing or through tinkering with the money supply--tactics that war tax resistance does not address. Veteran activists assure me that the way to ending the war lies through Congress as this is the branch of the government most responsive to public pressure. However, I doubt that the antiwar factions can muster the money for campaign contributions to tilt the balance. I am not sure that the oil companies themselves want war--I suspect this may be a leftist canard--but control over oil supply routes and the desire to keep oil away from foreign powers no doubt plays a role. I have also read that nearly every congressional district in the country has either a military base or a place of business tht does business with the Pentagon. This is a powerful economic incentive for war, especially in these tough times.

As a preliminary strategy, may I suggest a boycott of G.E. G.E., of course, owns NBC. G.E. is a big defense contractor and it owns the network that denied the antiwar Kucinich a place in the debates by changing the ground rules after he had qualified under the original guidelines. A friend in Jewish Voice for Peace informs me that G.E. is also involved in supplying goods necessary to maintain the occupation of the West Bank.

But how does one start a boycott of a company as big as G.E.? And would it hurt the little guys more than the CEOs?

Food forthought.