Saturday at the protest
September 16, 2007 32 Comments
Yesterday, when I got off at the Archives Metro stop, I came face to face with the pro-war movement, a group you don’t hear about or see much nowadays, probably because their views–much as they’d like not to admit it–seem ignorant of the grave situation in Iraq. What particularly rankled me about this group, which did not even fill the one or two blocks on Pennsylvania Avenue that seemed to be their designated area, was how presumptuous their signs were. They parroted the mantra about “support our troops” and “support our country,” which at some point came to mean, keep the troops at war. This in spite of the fact that the anti-Iraq war protest had many veterans of the war in attendance, vocally protesting a war they know more about than the heavyset guy I saw by the metal barricade wearing a “9/11 Taught Me All I Need to Know About Islam Shirt,” whose post-protest plan was to watch some college football game.
Granted, those of us anti-war people do not know as much as the troops in Iraq either, though I’d take a guess that we read the news a little more than the prowar crowd. In fact, while the anti-war crowd seemed to be directly protesting against the administration and the war, the prowar crowd had a bone to pick with a more ill-defined force. One man I saw had a sign that read “hippies smell”; an elderly woman summed up her thoughts, “I think they’re loony, left and crazy.”
Unlike the anti-war group, who directed their grievances towards the decision-makers–the administration and Congress (that’s why they’re in D.C., right?)–the pro-war faction is protesting against…hippies? It is somehow remniscent of schoolkids in an argument that one wins through rational means, causing the other to protest with a bad sportsmanlike exclamation like: “you smell!” (20 years later, “hippies smell”). Somewhere along the way, the right-wing group I saw out yesterday decided to direct their anger at an amorphous group of hippies and not focus on the people who make decisions that impact their lives and the lives of the troops they supposedly support.
Interesting! Thank you for the on-site report!
But Hippies Do SMELL!!!
Thanks for the insiders view, have you watched the GOE Rally? It was on C Span yesterday. Check it out!
http://www.naturalfamilyblog.com/archives/001140.html
Jenny Hatch
[edited to take out multiple blog plugs]
Jenny, your blog is totally awesome. Thank you for your fascinating insights, such as:
“ANYONE who gives aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war is the smelliest, stinkyest, biggest loser in our society”
You’ve truly helped to elevate this dialogue far beyond the schoolyard tussle that it once was.
I completely forgot there was a protest in D.C. this weekend, but I did venture down myself to check things out. Most of the things Elaine crticizes the pro-war (anti-anti-war, actually) folks for you could easily apply to the anti-war (along with a lot of other “anti-”causes) groups. I was surprised to see how old everyone was and how few people were there.
The other people were there to protest the protesters not some amorphous group. This is called a counter-protest. I found them to be a lot more respectful and civilly disobedient then the crowds shouting “F*** Bush” and “Fascists!” You would thought it was a parody.
No, coutner-protests, you’d think, would protest the other side of the issue, so rather than bash “hippies,” they would defend the administration free of ad hominem. At least the anti-war people, from what I can tell, can confine their protest to the people most responsible for the war. They are protesting an amorphous, somewhat made-up group, in the sense that they are still invoking the specter of the 60s-70s hippy quite a bit.
When I was part of a weekly antiwar local protest, some of the following was shouted at us by war supporters:
“—’ing homos”
“You commies!”
“Have you ever tasted anthrax?”
“Kill all the Muslims, every last one of them!”
“Hitler would have loved you guys.”
“You’re just a stupid woman.”
“You’re the terrorists!”
One guy with an American flag on his car drove around and around the block, each time yelling: “East s–t and die!”
One man stood for 20 minutes giving us the finger within inches of our faces, holding in his other arm a little girl about a year hold whose fingers were turning red from the cold.
But that was a few years ago. Glad the war supporters were politer last weekend.
Both Chris and I may have been selective in what we noticed because of our respective differences on the war–and also because I didn’t run across as many of the anti-war protestsors b/c I was standing in the wrong zone–but I found members of the pro-war crowd to be just as angry as hm’s experience. Oh, and they really seem to get off on accusing anti-war people of being terrorists, as hm ran into.
Chris, I don’t really understand what you mean when you say they are actually anti-war. Someone even had a sign that read “war solved nothing, except genocide [etc]….”
They’re not anti-war, they are anti-”anti-war”, i.e. the people protesting the war and philosophy they envelope. I don’t see much of difference between calling the Capitol Police Fascists and Nazis and calling the protesters commies, especially when the anti-war protest was sponsored by ANSWER, an organization created by Marxist-Leninists.
Over all, it was a sad, underwhelming affair that shows that most people have better and more important things to do with their lives, which is a good thing.
Chris, you are illustrating my point exactly that the “anti-anti-war” people are driven more by their hatred towards people who they don’t know than by an eagerness to defend the reasons we are in Iraq. People who were protesting Iraq were from all walks of life, and there was a sizable portion of them who were veterans of the war, which is pretty different than your portrayal of them as deriving from one organization and philosophy. My whole point is that the other side needs to hang onto this straw man “philosophy” that they’ve painted of Americans who are against the war because they will not engage or cannot defend the reasons we are in the war.
You take a rather blase attitude towards the exercise of our Constitutional rights of free expression and civic involvement. That cynicism is very D.C. It’s funny, because when I walked out into the crowd of pro-war protesters on Saturday, I thought, well, aren’t I lucky to live in a country which–in spite of what some of those people may want–is founded on a respect for free expression that allows people of different views to protest in the same area without outbreaks of violence. I can’t feel to blase about that, I suppose.
I’m blase about it because it’s always the same people shouting “Start the Revolution!!!” at the top of their lungs, and because these things are truly pointless when it comes down it. It gives free expression and free association a bad name.
I have to ask, did the anti-war protesters had actual arguments!?!?!? It’s a protest for goodness’ sake, not the Oxford debate forum. The hatred I saw spewing from the anti-war was far far worse than what came from the other side–it’s just that we’re used to it by now, like we’re used to hearing mobs in the middle east and europe call for death to infidels. Additionally, I think you missed the few events that did result in violence between the two groups.
I said the event was sponsered by ANSWER, NOT that all the people that came were all members of that organization. However, I think part of the anger on the part of the anti-anti-war crowd stemmed from the fact that OBL’s last statement (real or faked) parrots exactly the anti-war crowd’s views, the purpose of which is to find more allies, active or passive, in the American left. Some will be stupid enough to fall for it, but it’s up that side to make sure they don’t find themselves in an unfortunate ideological alliance. Also, there was the vandalizing of the Vietnam War Memorial last week. I don’t apologize for the false assumptions made on their part, but those are pretty tame to the “9/11 was an inside job” believers.
According to the news that I heard there were 7000 to 10,000 peaceful antiwar demonstrators.
There are many known instances of undercover agitators who incite outbursts as these rallies. Last one I heard about, they forgot to take off their police shoes and were spotted that way. And it is documented that the FBI infiltrates the peace movement, sadly, a longstanding tradition.
The peace movement and anti-Iraq and anti-Iran war movements are a coalition. They are not a communist front.
Bush by some definitions certainly is a fascist. Remember, Marx and Lenin, whom you cite, were communists. And in the 1950s to be communist was to be considered antifascist, and vice versa.
Considering the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and the 2 million refugees and 2+ million displaced Iraqis ~ who the US closes its doors to ~ “fuck Bush is a mild blandishment.
Bottom line: out of Iraq, hands off Iran.
hm, your bottom line is at least half mindless slogan. Outright attacking Iran would not be prudent, but a “hands off” approach would be naive at best considering there’s a country and a people the Iranian government would like to “wipe off the map.”
There’s a long and thorough record of the relationship between European anti-nuclear movements and communists and others who generally protested against anything back then. Those people are still around, and many have manifested themselves in the current opposition. That’s not to say that all who are against the war support that agenda, but that’s just what many of the professional protesters do.
I don’t cite Marx and Lenin with pleasure considering the perniciousness of their ideologies. Those who would define Bush as a fascist don’t know what fascism really is. The reason the communists and fascists were anti-each other was not because of their opposed ideologies but because both political philosophies believed in the authoritarian state. It’s good to remember that Nazism was “National Socialism”–the two camps are more alike than many would like to think or admit.
chris, please, you are not imparting any facts that i don’t know. i disagree with your interpretations. i resent your “reminder” that “nazism’ was ‘national socialism’”; because “nazism” is a contraction of “national socialism” does not mean that all socialism must be rejected outright, as you seem to imply.
there are better ways of countering ahmadinejad’s (sp?) raving anti-Israel declaration than using it to draw a line in the sand.
demonstrations bolstered disarmament talks and ended the vietnam war. you mistrust the motives of “professional protesters,” i feel we owe a debt to community and grassroots organizers. our perspectives differ.
fascism is a matter of definition, and one definition comprises a strong working link between government and industry. that is the bush administration in a corrupt nutshell. i would be more inclined to describe it as an oligarchy or plutocracy with a dash of theocracy. but i can see why some call it fascist.
your interpretation of “hands off iran” seems disingenuous. but next time i need a slogan about the u.s. not attacking iran militarily, i shall make it more obvious.
i agree that bush and his administration fit the fascist bill in many regards. of course he’s not as bad in effect as hitler, but that does not meen his actions of trying to limit free speech, spy on Americans, give unaudited handouts to certain corporations have no resemblance to fascist principles.
for one who puts so much stock in ideological labels, you seem to have trouble defending why bush is not fascist or why protestors are communist. if you’re going to accuse people of subscribing to communism or upbraid us for making comparisons between bush and fascists, you have to do more than make guilt-by-association innuendo. perhaps, you should explain what fascism really is for us rather than accuse us of not knowing, which seems to be your MO in this argument.
And I agree with what hm implies that your tone has been condescending.
I apologize for coming off sounding condescending, It wasn’t the intent, but I’m always a bit taken aback by some of the assumptions made. I will admit, too that it was intellectually lazy of me to equate fascism with Nazism, since they are two different, although related, things. However, most people do tend to equate the two. All I was saying about Nazism is that these ideologies we are discussing don’t match up to our right-left mindset.
As for Ahmadinejad, everyone thought Napoleon and Hitler were raving lunatics as well. The situation deserves to be monitored carefully.
When a term is applied to so many various things, it loses its meaning. Orwell said that fascism is indefinable exactly for that reason. The way it’s bandied about casually is kind of disturbing to me and shows an ignorance and lack of seriousness about the subject. If you actually look at how fascists defined their philosophy, put most simply, fascism subjects every aspect of the individual’s will to that of the state, which determines the common good-everything becomes subservient to the state including the schools, religion, daily work etc. That doesn’t mean the state just regulates, it means everything that is done is done for the state and its predetermined common good. Thus, individuals cease to exist, and they form the collective whole of the masses who, together create the common good declared by the state. Fascism doesn’t subscribe to Marxist class warfare or economics necessarily. The definitions hm supplies are too broad and seem to fit the circumstances of the times more than a separate body of ideas.
If Bush were really a fascist, there would have been no protest on Saturday and this website and those on your blogroll would not exist. Under your definition of fascism you would have to include FDR and other wartime presidents. The organization whose signs I saw all over DC and who organized the protest is a group run by members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation and former members of the Workers World Party. I am not just calling them communists. WWP supported the Soviet interventions in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Once again, I’m not saying everyone there agreed with that ideology and I’m not saying they shouldn’t have the right to protest, but it’s good to know who’s out there representing your POV in these protests.
Thank you, Elaine and Chris, for your further comments ~ appreciated! Of course, to an extent, we are using labels to serve brevity. My years of writing about nomenclature professionally convinced me that terms are necessary but must always be defined in context.
Just heard from a friend who was at the demonstration, and who shares this account:
“It was reminiscent of Viet Nam protests. The numbers were vastly
underreported, as was the entire event. Not once did any of the news report
this as an IMpeachment rally- instead, preferring to refer to it as a war
protest. They gave equal coverage to the Pro-war folks, and overreported
their numbers- we saw fewer than 100, so they claimed that they were holding
a separate rally with 1,000 elsewhere!! It was pretty powerful, with the
music and chanting, although the Democrats get a little fancy with their
chants- like everything else, are unable to keep it short and simple. Things
about oil for profit, occupation, etc – I just went with “Peace Now” and
“Shame on You!”
“…we got tear-gassed.
We did the die-in, and at some point, I rose from the dead to give a brief
interview to the Hill.
“It was worth it, but disappointing that we couldn’t get accurate coverage-
there were almost 100,000 of us! “
PS ~ Read recently in a Jewish Telegraphic Agency newsbrief that a huge new Jewish Community Center is going up in Tehran. That is but one reason why I think it is important not to overreact to Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israel statement and Holocaust denying ~ and he has a monopoloy on neither of those.
I agree Ahmadinejad needs monitoring, and that’s beautifully pub, Chris. And so does Musharraf, who frightens me much more.
spelling corrections:
monopoly
put (not “pub”) ~ sorry Chris! Next drink’s on me (perhaps under Elaine’s auspices).
relevant article by Joe Conasan. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/09/21/free_speech/index.html?source=newsletter
excerpts:
Even before 9/11 provided the pretext for a wide variety of incursions on liberty, the Bush White House pushed back as hard as possible against protest and abused the authority of the Secret Service.
As Matthews noted on Tuesday evening, the Bush White House standardized those methods for squelching speech in a manual for presidential advance teams. “By the way, 80 percent of the country disagrees with him,” Matthews quipped, “so you’ve got to have this manual handy.” Then he quoted a telling section: “If demonstrators appear likely to cause only a political disruption, it is the advance person’s responsibility to take appropriate action. Rally squads should be dispatched to surround and drown out demonstrators immediately.”
That October 2002 manual — obtained in heavily redacted form last June by the American Civil Liberties Union in the course of litigation against the Bush administration — includes copious instructions for ensuring that dissension need never be seen nor heard. Its repetitive themes include “the best method for preventing demonstrators,” “deterring potential protestors from attending events,” and “designat[ing] a protest area … preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route.” Potential protesters are to be ignored only “if it is determined that the media will not see or hear” them.
also, regarding Iran, I was interested to read that the Holocaust special that is sympathetic to Jews is doing well there.
The Salon article basically talks about the White House’s rules for regulating protests. Most municipalities do this by requiring permits for specific areas and times. Universities do basically the same thing with all of their guest speakers as well. Additionally, all of our other constitutional rights are regulated as well–to a much greater degree in most cases. Do I think regulation is inherently a good thing? Absolutely not. Is the point here to squelch free speech? Not at all. It’s about basic respect of everyone’s freedom of speech. Protesters infringe on the rights of others when they disrupt events, as Code Pink did at the Heritage Foundation last week. But there’s no way protesters will not disrupt an event because that’s not today’s MO. The #1 rule we teach our activists in my office is “always be respectful” because it’s the most effective way to get your voice heard and taken seriously. If you’re more concerned about media coverage, it’s pretty easy to write up and distribute a press release and media alert.
As for that “sympathetic” Iranian miniseries, might I suggest you diversify your reading. Relevant article: http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,504864,00.html
In case your not up for reading German, the relevant points:
- The series’ main thrust is that Zionists colluded with Hitler to exterminate the Jews so that those who escaped could establish a Jewish state
- A major plotline is the hiding of this conspiracy of collusion by a Jewish historian
- The series says that all of the Jews killed were those opposed to the re-settlement of Palestine
- The series uses the writings of French holocaust denier Roger Garaudy as a “historical source” as the credits at the end of every episode indicate
- The series’ director enthusiastically denies the Holocaust on his website.
Code Pink disrupted the Heritage Foundation ~ good for them!!!
Get attention with a press release? Give me a break!! Too many media biases I’m afraid.
Occupying a country with unregulated mercenaries and killing and displacing millions of its people and leaving it racked with civil war hardly respectful. Civil disobedience to counter that is respectable.
I’ve participated in demonstrations, in the 70s and recently. It is much more repressive now.
I’ve been in peaceful gatherings at our congressman’s office with clergypeople when he calls the police and security, then denies it.
Finally, I am really sick of people putting forth a right-wing view trying to convince their Jewish friends and acquaintances of one side of an issue by associating the contrary view with Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, criticisms of Israel, Hitler or the Nazis. Just argue the issue at hand, please.
But since chris and i evidently take opposing views of what is polite, i’ll overlook that he didn’t thank me for my offer to treat him to a beverage
hm,
I apologize for not thanking you for the offer of a beverage.
As for press releases, most protests attract the media like flies. If anything, their biases favor conflict and outrage over anything else.
As for your characterization of our soldiers as “mercenaries”, I have very little to say that would be polite, other than to say that the actual mercenaries in Iraq have come from Syria, Iran, and beyond.
As for Code Pink disrupting the Heritage foundation event, that is exactly the type of hyperpartisan attitude that has produced today’s political divisiveness. I disapprove of Code Pink’s conduct as I would if a bunch of YAF members overtook the stage at one of Code Pink’s rallies.
Ahmadinejad: The issue at hand was the allegedly sympathetic Iranian miniseries. There was nothing right-wing about what I translated — the article was from Der Spiegel for pete’s sake!!! So I would ask you to argue the issue at hand, please.
As for today being more repressive, I agree. But it’s been mostly a cultural form of repressiveness that encourages groupthink in our education system and stifles any form of creativity other than what is approved and acceptable by the former anti-establishment that is now the establishment.
I think you have lost some perspective on our education system because of your frustration with certain ideological views that you encounter in texts and the classroom. Because I have not done a whole lot of research into education historically or today, I am mainly being anecdotal when I say that I have rarely felt repressed by any sort of academic establishment. In fact, students I have met from other nations have often commented on how much freedom of thought and expression American students are bequeathed in our classrooms, especially in a university setting.
As a history major, I encountered a few big egos who may have enforced a hegemonic adherence to their interpretations of history, but in general, I was pushed to think critically and engage many different interpretations of the history, and yes, free of political or ideological motivation.
I do thank you for clearing up a bit about that mini-series, though I don’t think I read the articles that portrayed it as sympathetic to Jews incorrectly (i didn’t just make that up!), and I do agree that the last thing we need is to invade Iran because we’ve decided they’re all anti-Semitic. Look what good that view did us on Iraq.
Actually, I could care less about “repression” in the classroom or anywhere else in this country (“repression” being different than actual repression). But there’s little debate about whether academia is dominated by the left. Anyway, that’s a completely different argument for another day. However, it reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI
I wasn’t doubting what you were reading about the Iranian mini-series. I was saying that the article you read was incorrect.
I was NOT calling US soldiers mercenaries.
I am referring to Blackwater et al, 180,000 of whom are in Iraq and who are subject to neither Iraq nor US nor international law or codes of military justice and who kill civilians with impunity.
As for the rest, I remain unpersuaded.
I apologize for assuming you did, hm. However, it was not clear whom you were talking about.
As for persuasion, that was not my intent. If it had been, I would have appealed to your interests rather than your intellect.
Uh, Chris, I think you need to tone down the condescension a little bit on the last thing you said. I think–or thought that we could at least establish that we are reasonable people who can think critcially and find your comment to veer into ad hominem.
I’m sorry my last comment has been misunderstood. It was an allusion to Benjamin Franklin’s famous aphorism: “If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect.” It was intended as a compliment to the stances on principle exhibited here. For an example of persuasion by interest, the story on Hillary taking advice from the President’s officials on how to carry on in Iraq after the election is a pretty good one.
i’ve gotten some back-handed compliments in my day (“your hair is like a small rodent”), but that takes the cake!
thanks?
so….drinks the weekend of the 5th??
Heh…sounds good?? Will I need to bring security with me?
It wasn’t even meant back-handedly. Surely we can agree that holding views based on your own thinking and search for truth is nobler than holding a view for purely selfish reasons and self-interest. That’s all I was trying to say.