Daily Kos -- Cindy Sheehan resigns as "face" of anti-war movement:
"I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party," wrote Cindy Sheehan, but became a target of attacks from liberals when [I] "started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party."
Today, Cindy Sheehan announced in her blog that she is giving up her role as an anti-war protester and going home.
It seems to me that Cindy Sheehan is beginning to understand the dysfunctionality of politics.
Advertisement
Hopefully, she'll rest a bit and get back to work. It was hard protesting Vietnam at first, because both political parties supported it. Eventually, the US got out. It can happen in this situation also, but only with a massive ongoing anti-war movement.
Tom
May 29, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the interest of getting out of Iraq, and proving the Administration's rape of the Constitution, I hope she goes home and stays there. Tom, you and I totally disagree about the impact of the protest movement against Vietnam. I believe we got out of Vietnam when the electorate got sick of it, much as there is getting a critical mass with, for example, families of National Guardsmen.
I remember the counterattack memes against Vietnam protest, and how well the labeling of "hippie radicals" resonated with middle America. I remember how much mileage Nixon got from the "Constructive Workers".
Cindy Sheehan was a living poster for the Administration spin doctors to claim only irrational radicals opposed the Bush policies. With Watergate, with Vietnam, and in all probability with the present mess, the eventual thing that brought it down, in real terms, was Congressional investigation. When Waxman had Valerie Plame Wilson testify as to what could be the foundation of an impeachment of Cheney, WTF did Code Pink want when they cavorted with "Impeach Bush Now" T-shirts?
Bush is a spoiled child, but I find those protesters that must be the center of attention in a process that can them exactly what they are asking for are equally spoiled children.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 29, 2007 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Tom, you and I totally disagree about the impact of the protest movement against Vietnam. I believe we got out of Vietnam when the electorate got sick of it, much as there is getting a critical mass with, for example, families of National Guardsmen."
Not really. I don't disagree with what you said above. However, I think the real anti-war movement which included millions of things such as co-workers discussing the real history of Vietnam as opposed to the stuff Rusk and LBJ were passing off helped to end it. The stereotypical mass media created crazed hippie obviously turned off many people, but that was only a fringe element (and some of them were agent provocateurs - sp).
"Cindy Sheehan was a living poster for the Administration spin doctors to claim only irrational radicals opposed the Bush policies."
I personally have met Cindy Sheehan. I can assure you that she is not irrational. She's a very upset mom who is trying to end this senseless war, just as you and I are. You may not agree with her tactics but I don't think it's accurate to say that she's acting like a spoiled child.
Her son was a victim of Bush's dishonesty, and she wasn't aware of that until it was too late to save him.
Tom
May 29, 2007 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that those discussions were key. Let me propose something: the MSM reporting from Southeast Asia, over time, gave a better and better picture to the American public. By 1966 or so, there was starting to be some question over the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but the much more important material was the reporting from South Vietnam. The draft was another factor that led to discussion.
By real history of Vietnam, do you mean what was happening at the time, or the full context? It was fairly obvious from the Pentagon Papers that McNamara's advisors knew nothing about the Trung Sisters when they came up with theories about Sino-Vietnamese relations.
In fairness, I was living in DC at the time, and may have gotten very jaded about demonstrations. I can say I had a lot of crazed types in my face, with the understanding that when such are as common as rain in Seattle, the impact changes.
I was at the largest demonstrations as a reporter, but, to be honest, I simply didn't see them having the effect on Congress that the demonstrators would want. Petitions and the like were far more effective.
Let me accept that Cindy Sheehan is a very upset mom. In my experience, it's the cold, not emotional, types that get things accomplished. However good her motivation, I do not see her as changing the minds of anyone not already convinced. Documenting and publicizing the move of Halliburton headquarters to Dubai is, I suspect, much more likely to trigger action.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 29, 2007 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're inference is that "petitions" are more affective in writing policy than "personal testimonies." If this is true, then why does Congress waste its time holding hearings? Why should Deanie Mills, Andrew J. Bacevich, and I waste our time, sharing our pain, anger and disappointment?
Perhaps all those years as a reporter in Washington, D.C. DID make you a little jaded, putting you out of touch with what was happening OUTSIDE of the political epicenter we call Washington D.C. There’s a REASON Congress has an even lower approval rating than Bush; and it’s not because they’re paying heed to all those petitions. It’s because D.C. has come to mean Disconnected Congress.
It seems that as soon as an elected official enters the land of Oz, I mean, D.C., they become disoriented and start behaving like all the others. Maybe it's something in the water.
Whatever it is, they're disconnect is not going unnoticed to the American public.
There's a saying I've used to describe my perception of some members of law enforcement I've worked with that many in the profession have confirmed is accurate: Sometimes, the only difference between a cop and a criminal is the badge. That's not meant to be an insult, it's meant to convey how important it is for a cop to understand how criminals ACT and THINK in order to catch them.
But when cops find themselves ACTING as well as THINKING like those you're supposed to be catching, they’ve crossed that thin blue line and have put the entire force at risk of being perceived as corrupt. A smart cop would ask to be reassigned before crossing that line.
If one of the reporters I'd worked with started glossing over the facts in order to stay in good graces with his sources, he'd be reassigned to another beat before crossing the line.
America's voters sent the policymakers in D.C. a strong and clear message -- but many in Congress chose to act on their OWN behalf, instead. And if a majority of voters share this judgment in '08, then you can be sure those legislators that “crossed the line” will be "reassigned."
Until then, there will be all sorts of public displays of democracy at work: in letters to newspapers, in posts on Internet blogs and in demonstrations on the streets.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 29, 2007 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Several reasons.
First, testimony before Congress is under oath, and, in principle, deals with the substance of an issue. Obviously, there is a long tradition of grandstanding in Congressional hearings, but there is also a long history of getting to the facts. Getting to the facts can produce results, sometimes in a painfully slow way.
Would Nixon have resigned purely due to demonstrations? Civil War historians are always trying to find subtle reasons for things. A contemporary historian asked George Pickett why the South lost at Gettysburg. Was it Stuart's absence? Was it Longstreet's caution?
Pickett scratched his head and observed "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it." So it was with Nixon, and so did the change in majority parties send a message.
Second, Congress can compel testimony. Demonstrations may or may not be heard in the right places, or reported upon. Would a demonstration have gotten Alberto Gonzales in the trouble he's in, or did the repeated "I can't recalls", while under oath, have a result?
Through its power of subpoena, Congress can get both witnesses and documents. It has the ability to demand access to classified material. It can bring in rebuttal witnesses.
No one is stopping the displays. I am suggesting, however, that there may be far more effective means of protest than some that are being used. I believe testimony such as yours and others is meaningful, especially when presented to Congress.
Please note that my main criticism is of guerilla theater and traditional large demonstrations. In no way do I say that rational presentation of very emotional matters cannot be important. Once a process has begun, however, I see no place for guerilla theater intruding into hearings.
I also suggest that technology gives us a way to have far more focused demonstrations, more timely, and logistically easier.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"When the enemy attacks we retreat, when the enemy camps we harass, when the enemy retreats we pursue." [A quote attributed to many, from Sun Tzu to Che Guevara. This is the strategy of the true guerilla]
May 29, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a place for all forms of political discourse, including political theatre in senate hearings. I've sat through a lot of city council meetings (Washington's meetings are only bigger), and I've seen how passionate demonstrations have turned dry testimony into suspenseful deliberation. I've seen how some council members have sat mute, believing their voices were outnumbered by more prominent council members, come alive at the sight of a group of people nodding their heads in support for the few with the courage to say what they couldn't -- and vote accordingly.
Democracy isn't what happens in the courts under oath -- it's when passionate people give voice to their vision of how America should be. Congress and the courts and the testimony under oath are the underpinnings of that passion.
What you call "guerrilla theatre" was called "penny theatre" in Shakespeare's day.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 29, 2007 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been thinking this through overnight, and want to make several observations. When you speak of
There is no doubt that eloquent testimony can have this effect. There is no doubt that when a committee is refusing to accept testimony on a given subject, a demonstration sometimes may be the only way to draw attention to the matter.
Neither one of these, however, applied to Waxman's hearing taking testimony from Valerie Plame Wilson. The witness gave dramatic testimony on how White House personnel had harmed both her and the country. Given there had been one felony conviction in the matter, there was little reason to assume dirty linen wasn't being watched.
While there is no absolute definition for impeachable offenses, I have found it useful to categorize them as offenses that could only have happened if the power of an office was involved in the offense. For example, assuming Nixon did not have prior knowledge of the Watergate breakin proper, it was not an impeachable offense even if being done in the name of the President. The coverup, as well as the operations of the Plumbers Unit, were very definitely intertwined with Presidential authority, and, had Nixon not resigned, been key to an impeachment and likely removal for office.
In like manner, Bill Clinton may well have been guilty of the felony of perjury regarding Monica Lewinsky, but there was no special Presidential twist on his lying in office.
Going back to the Waxman committee, I fail to see how Code Pink's urging "Impeach Bush Now" was speaking for those who could not speak. The specific hearing subject was a quite likely building block in the foundation of an eventual impeachment of Cheney, which, in the minds of many, is a practical prerequisite for the impeachment of Bush. Valerie Plame Wilson was an impressive witness, and the committee questioning was focused. What was the committee failing to do that Code Pink was correcting? Procedurally, that committee could not have heard an impeachment resolution, and, even if it could, the Nixon experience showed that the case had to be build from a solid foundation, such that even loyalists recognized he had to go.
What was the passionate message of the demonstration that was giving a vision that the committee was not addressing?
I'm afraid this is incorrect. "Penny theater" would have had to intrude into the deliberations of Parliament to be equivalent. "Street busking" was closer, but there's no clean reference because the concept of nonviolent demonstrations really hadn't developed by then. If you want to make a historical reference, do consider the Court of Star Chamber from Shakespeare's time, as the equivalent of being hauled off to Guantanamo. That the protesters were not taken to a secret court shows progress since the days of the Bard.
Shakespeare is a true immortal. Nevertheless, drama has advanced. We may not have the equal of his words, but the visual themes and scopes are greater. "Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war," by a trained Shakespearean actor in Klingon uniform, may well have been more impactful that the same words in a lamp-lit theater in Stratford-on-Avon.
When speaking of the role of demonstrations in modern discourse, it is only fair to consider additional means of communication, and the rapidity with which they develop. One of the best examples took place over about 3-4 years.
Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech was part of a major demonstration in 1963. In 1963, there were scheduled and short newscasts, principally depending on a relatively slow film process for production. By 1966-7, it was technically easier to have actual battlefield footage from Vietnam in regular newscasts. Given the time difference to Vietnam, there would have been little point to having real-time coverage, but it was technically possible.
Since then, there have been quantum jumps in what we would call MSM coverage. In addition, however, the Internet and other technologies have broken the MSM monopoly on electronic news gathering.
There is an accurate replica of Shakespeare's Globe Theater in Washington's Folger Shakespeare Theater. It isn't the only way we present drama, with alternatives ranging from big-screen productions such as Branagh's Henry V to Romeo and Juliet adaptations such as West Side Story.
And the people who truly get on recognize when their message is making points in one venue, and turn their events to different venues where they will make a difference rather than distract.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 30, 2007 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with you, Howard. One of the basic fundamentals of democracy is the right for every single citizen to stand on a soapbox in the public square to voice their opinions not only to the general public but also to their leaders. Trivializing, minimizing and ridiculing Cindy Sheehan and Pink Ladies and any other form of public protest is collaborating with the neocons, the GOP and any other fascist regime to TAKE AWAY THE VOICES OF THE PEOPLE.
You may not like the color of their shirts or the length of their hair or the fact that they are drawing attention to themselves, but my son went to Iraq to not only defend the rights of the Iraqi PEOPLE to speak their own minds and to choose their own government -- HE'S DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS, TOO.
And as for Henry Waxman ... he understands the basic principle of every marketing executive who sells services to the general public: for every unhappy customer who walks in and complains, there will be 10 more who didn't make the effort to complain.
In Cindy Sheehan's case ... there are hundreds if not thousands.
Telling Cindy to go home and get some rest is the same as saying, "There, there little lady, let us men handle this."
And look where these "men" have gotten us now.....
Instead of complaining about her efforts, you should be thanking her and volunteering to take here place in the public square. It takes more courage to be a TARGET of suppression than to hide in your home and bitch in the dark. Unlike most people on these blogs, you've at least had to balls to put your bio and mug shot out there to give a face to your thoughts.
So, did Cindy Sheehan.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 29, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I simply will not agree with guerilla theater being a viable way of getting Congressional action.
I am not saying "let the men handle it". I am saying "let the people who can get things through Congress handle it." To use the old cliche, honey works better than vinegar with politicians.
Is there a role for demonstrations? Yes, but I don't believe of the traditional kind of mass marches and the like. It's too easy for a Congressman to look out at a couple of hundred thousand demonstrators and rationalize there's no one from the home district.
What I feel would be immensely useful is simultaneous demonstrations and/or presentation of petitions & white papers at every Congressional district office. Even if there were just 100 people in each of these demonstrations, the simultaneity would send a targeted message that a mass demonstration could not.
In a number of technical areas, the concept of "swarming" is useful to describe a natural or planned effect. Simplifying greatly, the human immune system swarms mobile defenses against intruding infections. In the military, there is intense emphasis on communications between units on the same level as well as up the chain of command, so that highly mobile forces can adapt and move against a target.
This isn't theoretical when it comes to politics. In a recent return to democracy of the Phillipines, the government was puzzled as to how demonstrations, at the appropriate ministry or the like, would happen sometimes within hours of an action. What was actually happening was a political version of "flash mobs." When an act took place, there was fast, high-volume text messaging to the phones and pagers of local people willing to demonstrate. This swarming approach was incredibly effective.
If taking Cindy Sheehan's place in the public square means endorsing her tactics, find someone else. I'll work to deal with the effects of the Constitutional rape through means that I believe are more effective.
Sorry, but I don't agree that a pink T-shirt with a cliche represents me, any more than a Rove cliche about "family values" represents me. The people I respect are those that have actual plans of action. For example, working out the impeach-Cheney-first approach, as well as identifying areas for Congressional investigation, are more fruitful.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 29, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"To use the old cliche, honey works better than vinegar with politicians."
So, what is the color of your "honey"? Dollar-bill green seems the color of money, I mean "honey," most politicians are willing to "work" for.
Well, I don't have the money to spare nor am I close enough to Washington, D.C. to "swarm" around the "infections" there.
So, I guess I'll just have to settle for wearing a pink t-shirt with a cliche the next time my congressional representative rolls through town on a fundraising appearance. Or, I can stay home and watch "the people who can get things through Congress handle it."
Oh, right!! I did that -- last week! They did one heck of a job!!
Where's my piggy bank? I gotta go to town and buy a pink t-shirt and some felt tip markers.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 29, 2007 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honey, in this case, is not money, but what the most effective lobbyists always have done: focused research and focused protest. I suggest that rather than appearing in a T-shirt of any color when the Representative rolls by, a far better use of time would be in grassroots organizing.
That organizing can put together constituent petitions indicating that people will actively work against an incumbent unless the will of the district is followed. That organizing can connect grassroots groups all across the nation. I suggest that hundreds or thousands of small demonstrations in front of district offices is far more appropriate than trying to get MSM attention in a drive-by. Guerilla demonstrations, as far as I can tell, is an example of an unholy affair between the media and the protesters, both sides bringing out the worst in one another.
I never said people in general should stay home. I said I was happy to see Cindy Sheehan going home, since she only seems to know one means of protest. I would be delighted to see effective protest, but I see the most effective way of having physical demonstrations, given modern capabilities, being in the districts, not at Congressional hearings.
There are many ways of expressing democracy, and I certainly am not going to say that wearing a purple and green T-shirt and calling yourself Barney is not Constitutionally protected speech. I am going to say that I am singularly unconvinced that it will do much.
I am sorry that my comments seem to cause so much anger, but I am a person who wants much the same goals as you do. Karl Rove is going to take every option he can to "frame" and discredit. Is it not potentially useful to hear alternate views on tactics from people friendly to your goal if not the method -- and I was speaking specifically of mass demonstrations and guerilla theater at Congressional hearings, not free speech in general.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 29, 2007 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. I'll settle down. And what you say makes sense as you detailed it. And, of course, I agree that "focused" grassroots initiatives -- and demonstrations -- are far more affective than media focused political theater.
But I believe that with a little research we would find that these "gorilla" events, in part, WERE organized at the grassroots level.
MoveOn.org, through the Internet, has given those who can afford a computer a place to get organized.
But all that organizing and meeting and talking takes lots of LEISURE time ... and after putting in a 60-hour work week just to pay the bills, who has the energy? How do these people find each other with the purpose of getting organized? Much of that kind of organization falls on the shoulders of the local political paries, and then only during election years.
But what about the poor, the elderly and the homeless? How do you get them organized?
Michael Moore does a better job of speaking out on issues than the "professionals," who won't even TALK about them let alone tackle them.
I'm glad Cindy is going home too; she's done her duty and she's earned her rest -- just as our troops who are on their second, third or fourth tour of duty.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 29, 2007 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm glad Cindy is going home too; she's done her duty and she's earned her rest -- just as our troops who are on their second, third or fourth tour of duty."
... and we all keep the cause (getting of Iraq) going in our own way as I'm sure Cindy will.
Tom
May 29, 2007 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
There have been several threads, at least some started by Nathan Newman, on what activism means in what I'll loosely call marginalized, as shorthand for your reference to the poor, the elderly, and the homeless. To some people,
"organizing" means showing people the techniques and then letting them choose their own targets, while others believe the organizer must lead.
Of those groups, the elderly are actually one of the most promising groups. They are often underestimated. Coincidentally, I was just sending off some emails on a medical device mailing list, with data that elderly people, in some samples, are quite willing to use computer-based home medical monitoring. There's too much stereotyping of the elderly as computer- and organizing-averse. I used to work in a research lab, where our CEO, a sixtyish retired three-star general, happily emailed everywhere, while our younger VP of engineering, used to European data entry services, had to dictate his messages. He could barely type.
With the poor, it's going to be a question of time with long workweeks for the employed poor, and also where to meet. The latter will be case-by-case, with community centers, churches, and even popular restaurants as possibilities.
You are helping me realize that one of my frustrations is that the people who do many of the media focused events could be doing local organizing. With at least some of those people, they don't want to work behind the scenes, but part of their motivation is the spotlight.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 29, 2007 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I'm listening.
I reacted so strongly, because I do not think anyone should criticize Cindy Sheehan for what she is trying to do. Everyone deals with grief in their own way and she was just trying to make her son's sacrifice mean something more than fodder for Bush's Oil Empire. If she was exploited, then shame on them. But to those who condemn her for trying to bring valor to her son's death, shame on them. I hope history is much kinder than her critics.
And as for the political "professionals," the first that come to mind are the Democrats that I have supported. When I read Andrew Bacevich's letter, I wept. But this really set me off:
Admittedly, I have an emotional bias that your posted comments are going through -- rage. I'm mad at Bush et al, I'm mad at this Democratic Congress for caving in, and I'm mad at the folks who sucked up all that BS and continue to turn their backs on our troops.
The sooner Congress stops blaming each other for all the problems, the more time and energy they can give to solving the problems -- no matter who is to blame.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 29, 2007 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny how flashbacks get triggered. I lived in a series of homes, but, in my youngest years, remember, again and again, being emotionally hurt by some adult, who would then be excused by one caregiver or another with "but she meant well." Are we each coming up with such a recollection, me for Cindy Sheehan and for Andrew Bacevich for Kerry and Lynch?
Colin Powell is known for having a pretty good set of rules for living. One of them is that as long as it doesn't matter who gets the credit, lots of things become possible. You correctly assume it applies to the Congress.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 29, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry you had that experience as a child, Howard; there is NEVER an excuse for an adult mistreating a child. But we're adults now, with adult problems and living in a country with some very serious issues that have placed a very serious burden on my children and my grandchildren. And I'm trying to be THEIR advocate.
I'm sorry you didn't have one when you were growing up. I didn't either -- I was my own, which is why I am so passionate about wanting an America that will take care of them after I'm gone.
Debra Morgan Pardee
"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." -- George Bernard Shaw
May 29, 2007 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be missing my point, which was the excuses made for abuse because some uncle or great-aunt "meant well." In this context, being an advocate truly means focusing on an objective, rather than the people trying various means to affect that objective. If someone "means well", but interferes with one of the cases where Congress, for all of its internal squabbling, is actually progressing on the objective, why make excuses?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 30, 2007 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sheehan has been her own worst enemy. Photo ops with a smack on the cheek by Hugo Chavez didn't help. Howard is right -- Sheehan may not have been irrational, but a lot of those she chose to associate with certainly were.
Beyond the obvious sympathetic appeal of a mother who had lost her son, she alienated a lot of other grieving war mothers by implying their sons died for nothing. That's as deeply offensive as you can get to someone who just buried a son or daughter.
This campaign proved easy fodder for those who wanted to put her in the same league with Nick Berg's father.
May 29, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink