Are We Politicians or Citizens?
Abookamongstthemany
Posts: 8,209
Hell Yeah! Howard Zinn tells it like it is concerning the 'anti war' posing Democrats.
http://progressive.org/mag_zinn0507
Are We Politicians or Citizens?
By Howard Zinn
May 2007 Issue
As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration’s “surge” of troops, and the Republicans’ refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.
That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal, saying that progressives in Congress, “like many of us, don’t think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war.”
Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It’s as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.
We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.
Timetables for withdrawal are not only morally reprehensible in the case of a brutal occupation (would you give a thug who invaded your house, smashed everything in sight, and terrorized your children a timetable for withdrawal?) but logically nonsensical. If our troops are preventing civil war, helping people, controlling violence, then why withdraw at all? If they are in fact doing the opposite—provoking civil war, hurting people, perpetuating violence—they should withdraw as quickly as ships and planes can carry them home.
It is four years since the United States invaded Iraq with a ferocious bombardment, with “shock and awe.” That is enough time to decide if the presence of our troops is making the lives of the Iraqis better or worse. The evidence is overwhelming. Since the invasion, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, and, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, about two million Iraqis have left the country, and an almost equal number are internal refugees, forced out of their homes, seeking shelter elsewhere in the country.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But his capture and death have not made the lives of Iraqis better, as the U.S. occupation has created chaos: no clean water, rising rates of hunger, 50 percent unemployment, shortages of food, electricity, and fuel, a rise in child malnutrition and infant deaths. Has the U.S. presence diminished violence? On the contrary, by January 2007 the number of insurgent attacks has increased dramatically to 180 a day.
The response of the Bush Administration to four years of failure is to send more troops. To add more troops matches the definition of fanaticism: If you find you’re going in the wrong direction, redouble your speed. It reminds me of the physician in Europe in the early nineteenth century who decided that bloodletting would cure pneumonia. When that didn’t work, he concluded that not enough blood had been let.
The Congressional Democrats’ proposal is to give more funds to the war, and to set a timetable that will let the bloodletting go on for another year or more. It is necessary, they say, to compromise, and some anti-war people have been willing to go along. However, it is one thing to compromise when you are immediately given part of what you are demanding, if that can then be a springboard for getting more in the future. That is the situation described in the recent movie The Wind That Shakes The Barley, in which the Irish rebels against British rule are given a compromise solution—to have part of Ireland free, as the Irish Free State. In the movie, Irish brother fights against brother over whether to accept this compromise. But at least the acceptance of that compromise, however short of justice, created the Irish Free State. The withdrawal timetable proposed by the Democrats gets nothing tangible, only a promise, and leaves the fulfillment of that promise in the hands of the Bush Administration.
There have been similar dilemmas for the labor movement. Indeed, it is a common occurrence that unions, fighting for a new contract, must decide if they will accept an offer that gives them only part of what they have demanded. It’s always a difficult decision, but in almost all cases, whether the compromise can be considered a victory or a defeat, the workers have been given some thing palpable, improving their condition to some degree. If they were offered only a promise of something in the future, while continuing an unbearable situation in the present, it would not be considered a compromise, but a sellout. A union leader who said, “Take this, it’s the best we can get” (which is what the MoveOn people are saying about the Democrats’ resolution) would be hooted off the platform.
I am reminded of the situation at the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, when the black delegation from Mississippi asked to be seated, to represent the 40 percent black population of that state. They were offered a “compromise”—two nonvoting seats. “This is the best we can get,” some black leaders said. The Mississippians, led by Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses, turned it down, and thus held on to their fighting spirit, which later brought them what they had asked for. That mantra—“the best we can get”—is a recipe for corruption.
It is not easy, in the corrupting atmosphere of Washington, D.C., to hold on firmly to the truth, to resist the temptation of capitulation that presents itself as compromise. A few manage to do so. I think of Barbara Lee, the one person in the House of Representatives who, in the hysterical atmosphere of the days following 9/11, voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to invade Afghanistan. Today, she is one of the few who refuse to fund the Iraq War, insist on a prompt end to the war, reject the dishonesty of a false compromise.
Except for the rare few, like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and John Lewis, our representatives are politicians, and will surrender their integrity, claiming to be “realistic.”
We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do.
Howard Zinn is the author, most recently, of “A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.”
http://progressive.org/mag_zinn0507
Are We Politicians or Citizens?
By Howard Zinn
May 2007 Issue
As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration’s “surge” of troops, and the Republicans’ refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.
That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal, saying that progressives in Congress, “like many of us, don’t think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war.”
Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It’s as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.
We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.
Timetables for withdrawal are not only morally reprehensible in the case of a brutal occupation (would you give a thug who invaded your house, smashed everything in sight, and terrorized your children a timetable for withdrawal?) but logically nonsensical. If our troops are preventing civil war, helping people, controlling violence, then why withdraw at all? If they are in fact doing the opposite—provoking civil war, hurting people, perpetuating violence—they should withdraw as quickly as ships and planes can carry them home.
It is four years since the United States invaded Iraq with a ferocious bombardment, with “shock and awe.” That is enough time to decide if the presence of our troops is making the lives of the Iraqis better or worse. The evidence is overwhelming. Since the invasion, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, and, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, about two million Iraqis have left the country, and an almost equal number are internal refugees, forced out of their homes, seeking shelter elsewhere in the country.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. But his capture and death have not made the lives of Iraqis better, as the U.S. occupation has created chaos: no clean water, rising rates of hunger, 50 percent unemployment, shortages of food, electricity, and fuel, a rise in child malnutrition and infant deaths. Has the U.S. presence diminished violence? On the contrary, by January 2007 the number of insurgent attacks has increased dramatically to 180 a day.
The response of the Bush Administration to four years of failure is to send more troops. To add more troops matches the definition of fanaticism: If you find you’re going in the wrong direction, redouble your speed. It reminds me of the physician in Europe in the early nineteenth century who decided that bloodletting would cure pneumonia. When that didn’t work, he concluded that not enough blood had been let.
The Congressional Democrats’ proposal is to give more funds to the war, and to set a timetable that will let the bloodletting go on for another year or more. It is necessary, they say, to compromise, and some anti-war people have been willing to go along. However, it is one thing to compromise when you are immediately given part of what you are demanding, if that can then be a springboard for getting more in the future. That is the situation described in the recent movie The Wind That Shakes The Barley, in which the Irish rebels against British rule are given a compromise solution—to have part of Ireland free, as the Irish Free State. In the movie, Irish brother fights against brother over whether to accept this compromise. But at least the acceptance of that compromise, however short of justice, created the Irish Free State. The withdrawal timetable proposed by the Democrats gets nothing tangible, only a promise, and leaves the fulfillment of that promise in the hands of the Bush Administration.
There have been similar dilemmas for the labor movement. Indeed, it is a common occurrence that unions, fighting for a new contract, must decide if they will accept an offer that gives them only part of what they have demanded. It’s always a difficult decision, but in almost all cases, whether the compromise can be considered a victory or a defeat, the workers have been given some thing palpable, improving their condition to some degree. If they were offered only a promise of something in the future, while continuing an unbearable situation in the present, it would not be considered a compromise, but a sellout. A union leader who said, “Take this, it’s the best we can get” (which is what the MoveOn people are saying about the Democrats’ resolution) would be hooted off the platform.
I am reminded of the situation at the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, when the black delegation from Mississippi asked to be seated, to represent the 40 percent black population of that state. They were offered a “compromise”—two nonvoting seats. “This is the best we can get,” some black leaders said. The Mississippians, led by Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses, turned it down, and thus held on to their fighting spirit, which later brought them what they had asked for. That mantra—“the best we can get”—is a recipe for corruption.
It is not easy, in the corrupting atmosphere of Washington, D.C., to hold on firmly to the truth, to resist the temptation of capitulation that presents itself as compromise. A few manage to do so. I think of Barbara Lee, the one person in the House of Representatives who, in the hysterical atmosphere of the days following 9/11, voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to invade Afghanistan. Today, she is one of the few who refuse to fund the Iraq War, insist on a prompt end to the war, reject the dishonesty of a false compromise.
Except for the rare few, like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and John Lewis, our representatives are politicians, and will surrender their integrity, claiming to be “realistic.”
We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do.
Howard Zinn is the author, most recently, of “A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.”
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Thanks Ms. Ontheshelf...
I know! He just gets to the heart of the matter and doesn't waste time on the surrounding bullshit that doesn't matter.
and you're welcome Abu.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Every American on this board has access to the email addresses, phone numbers, and mailing addresses of every one of their Representatives and Senators, and every one of us has access to those of the White House.
The primary elections are months away.....so in the meantime, let's raise our voices to the powers that be and tell them we want to end this occupation, NOW.
http://webb.senate.gov/
I'm not saying you shouldn't contact your own congress people or senators, it's just that I think this is the guy who will actually do something on this front.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
if nothing else, he's got a gun, fact he's got two....
lol.
seriously, he's one of the more vocal proponents of getting the troops out of iraq, and he's good in the way he goes about it.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Webb is much tougher.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Obama's in the polls.
No, Obama is pulling the same crap Zinn referred to in the piece I posted.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
....he's in the polls!
I guess that's all that matters.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And big shit matters little...it seems.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I am so SICK of this war and I am even more SICK of the spineless wimps who claim to be the opposition and claim to be antiwar when in reality they are just trying to get elected.
Timetables are dumb plain and simple. Democrats sold out, and voting for democrats save explicitly antiwar ones like Kucinich isnt going to do a damn thing, in fact it may lengthen this war. Remember, Bill Clinton and his bombs against Sudan and the Bosnia war. I was against that war and so was Pearl Jam
In my mind, an old Vietnam statement bears repeating. The question would often come up, "how do we get out of vietnam", And most radicals would respond "on boats".
It has become increasingly clear that the democrats by and large believe the country is republican and prowar and will refuse to run an antiwar campaign in 2008 and will refuse to nominate a lefty like Kucinich. They will nominate some dead jerk who is stiff and boring. As opposed to running an antiwar campaign they will run a prowar campaign because they feel that will win.
I am so sick of politicians lying to me and my generation. I mean goddamn 3000 plus of our generation are dead, their bullet ridden corpses have been brought home under cover of darkness because Bush wont allow photos of flag drapped coffins.
At a certain point you question the entire 2 party system, and question if it represents the country as a whole. Are you represented by Hilary who is prowar. Are you represented on the other side by Bush or Guiliani or Mccain?
We owe it to our children, and the current generation to bring our troops home, not in a year, but tomorrow, or better yet right now. We owe that to them. Wars ruin families, and this war has ruined its share. Children shouldnt die before their parents. Its just not the way it should be.
HOW GODDAMN hard is it for a Democrat to say
1. I WILL PULL TROOPS OUT IMMEDIATELY!
2. I will end this war, and will not widen the war, I will withdraw all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan
3. I will give reperations to the Iraqis and Afghanis
4. I will be a pacifist.
During Vietnam you had honorable people like RFK, or McCarthy or MCgovern side with the pacifists and hippies and demand the withdrawal of all troops from Vietnam.
WHERE ARE the McGovern's, RFK's, and McCarthy's of our generation?
How long will this war continue and how many more children will suffer as a result.
For anyone who continues to support the war, its a simple question, Do you want your children to be sent to iraq?
I completely agree. It should be asserted, if you voted for the war in iraq and continue to support it, that person Repubican OR democrat shouldnt be voted for.
At a certain point those who send children off to die in wars that they refuse to fight will atone for their sins. We all will. We all have to face our maker. But sending children to fight an immoral war is really sinful. Sinful in the true sense of the word.
Democrats need to have some accountability, and if they are refusing to cut funds, if they are refusing to demand IMMEDIATE withdrawal, if they are refusing to initiate BINDING resolutions, then point blank, they shouldnt be voted for and war criminal trials should be initiated not only for Bush's administration but also all those Democrats who are continuing to finance the sending of soldiers off to their deaths in a foreign land. There is no honor in that. There is no honor at all.
I have many times talked about this but it bears repeating. At a certain point the Boomers have to face the fact we are coming up. Either they
1. relinquish their power, and let us decide what to do with the world.
or
2. We have to force them out.
I have NO respect for the Boomers, who are doing exactly what they rebelled against. They are sending children off to war.
At a certain time, parents have to attone for their wrongs, parents have to realize that kids arent stupid and that they know EXACTLY what is going on in Iraq. At a certain point stuff really gets out of hand. Its a fact of life.
As long as this war continues, I am at war with the boomers. I have no respect at all for a generation that sends my generation off to the gas chambers to be exterminated.
Thats what I got so mad at during the 04 elections. The antiwar got behind Kerry. Yet Kerry wasnt and isnt antiwar, and against Howard Zinn points out that the role of the antiwar movement isnt to be coopted and bought and sold and lied to by politicians. its to challenge them. Thats why I had a huge problem with the Anybody but bush crap. This legislation proves my entire point. Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same. If these Democrats were in power they would still have us in Iraq. They dont believe fighting terrorism with youthful soldiers is wrong. In fact they support it. They just have a problem with the way the Bush team has done things.
Democrats arent antiwar. And we as people who are opposed to any more deaths in iraq, need to vote out those people who continue to allow this administration to carry out its goals. Either your for the war or your not, and if you arent for the war, why the hell wouldnt you draft legislation to cut off funds?
Its like they are complete wusses. As I said before, there is a special place in hell for those who continue to allow this war to continue
thanks for the post.
if you 'don't want war' or are antiwar how can you keep paying for one that was a complete fuck up/mistake year after year? how can virtually no one be held accountable for anything?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
The man says it much better than I do.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde