|
A Vietnam-era
Dad Talks to His Protesting Son
March 26, 2003
By Bernard Weiner, The
Crisis Papers
Dear Mark:
First, I want to say how proud I am of your -- and much of
your generation's -- commitment to the values we both hold
dear: fair play, civility, social justice, peaceful resolution
of conflict. It's not easy being a young adult in this current
crazy world, and I admire the way you're going about learning
how to cope with its vagaries, hypocrisies and criminalities.
As you know well, Mom and I are always nervous about your
safety; you and I may not always agree on tactics and strategy
in that regard in the growing anti-war/pro-democracy movement,
but I'm glad you're willing to hear me out. So, here goes:
One thing we anti-Vietnam War protesters learned in those
'60s and '70s days was that if we talked only to ourselves,
we gave the government the perfect opportunity to dismiss
and ignore us as just a tiny minority of "scruffy hippies"
or "longhaired radicals."
But when we broadened our ranks to include more and more
ordinary middle-class, middle-age citizens -- that is, when
we toned down our rhetoric against the "bourgeois System"
and focused on the actual enemy, the administration's war
policy -- we suddenly found that the government had to take
our growing movement more seriously.
These "respectable citizens" had clout, better connections
to opinion-shapers, more access to funding, and so on; many
of them belonged to the same churches and organizations and
clubs as those who possessed some power. Once those defections
started to happen, the Movement began to achieve critical
mass. (Example: Lyndon Johnson said that when Walter Cronkite,
the beloved and trusted CBS News anchor, began to speak out
about Vietnam, LBJ realized he had lost the battle for domestic
support of that war.)
So what I'm suggesting, obviously, is that today's anti-war/pro-democracy
movement begin to think along similar lines. If we're just
engaging in actions that express our anger or that enhance
our group's particular agenda, Bush&Co. will win the battle
for American public opinion -- and thus find it easier to
move on their imperial agenda abroad and their police-state
represssion at home.
But if we are able to involve more and more ordinary citizens
-- many of whom have never before marched or even contacted
their elected representatives or written a letter to the editor
of their local newspaper -- it will be difficult for the Bushistas
to marginalize and demonize the protesters as little more
than "violent crazies" or "young punks" or whatever label
much of the corporate-owned mass-media assigns in order to
denigrate the serious political issues being raised.
The rage expressed in the streets on The Days After the war
on Iraq began is understandable; even though I disagree with
some of the tactics used by you and your friends, I can appreciate
where it came from. You say that you all were very angry,
and very frustrated, and some of that energy just had to explode
out, kind of scattershot. (Note: There always are, in any
movement, a few agents provocateurs -- police or government
plants embedded to steer the actions in a more violent, dangerous
direction. The aim is to divert attention from the issues
raised but also in the hope that the use of violence will
scare away the more mainstream folks from joining the next
demonstration. So be on the lookout.)
In order to build a more effective, cohesive, broad-based
Resistance, we have to be more creative, more focused on being
politically effective rather than being emotionally cathartic,
more dedicated to the long term fight in front of us rather
than the short-term action at the next intersection.
Make no mistake about it. This battle we are in is not just
about Iraq or this particular war. It is about a desire on
the part of those that have hijacked the American government
to create a permanent war machine abroad, and a proto-fascist
state at home. The outcome of this political battle will shape
America's, and the world's, future for the next several decades.
The stakes are that high.
The Europeans are well aware of the true nature of the battle.
They see America moving aggressively to become the Colossus
astride the globe, dictating to everyone else what must be
done, and keeping potential economic/political/military competitors
in a subservient state. Already, new alliances are beginning
to form to combat Bush&Co.'s imperial ambitions.
Did you ever think you'd see the day when France, Germany
and Russia would unite on anything? Well, they and a good
many other European Union members are in the early stages
of developing a kind of alliance that could rival, or at least
put up some stiff resistance to, the Americans -- and, if
China and Japan were to join in, a mighty force indeed would
be amassed.
Let's talk now about an even mightier force: non-violent
resistance. Once that "Soul Force" (to use Mahatma Gandhi's
term) gets rolling and honed to a fine point, nothing can
stop it.
Consider what Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar
Chavez accomplished without succumbing to the temptations
of picking up arms. Consider the protesters who by sheer (mostly)
non-violent "people power" hastened the end of the dictatorial
regimes in the Philippines, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Romania,
Poland, et al. Not only is non-violence a powerful political
tool, but it is, and becomes, a spiritually uplifting force.
And why? Because it changes the interaction. Instead of you
reacting to their violence with your violence -- which then
leads to more violence, and then to more and so on -- you've
changed the parameters. Suddenly, they have to deal with you
differently, as a human who bears them no ill will even as
you confront their power; they often get flummoxed by these
new rules of engagement. (One extremely effective way is to
be friendly toward the cops -- addressing them by name when
possible, offering them food and drink, telling them in conversational
tone why you're protesting, how your concerns may connect
to theirs, etc.; the tensions tend to relax, even when arrests
are made.)
And, most importantly, the larger public, appreciating the
non-violent nature of the protests and raised with a belief
in morality and fair play, starts to understand the immorality
of their government's policies and brutalities, and begins
more and more to support the protesters.
Just one theorhetical example: Imagine the social impact,
and the attendant news coverage, in two different scenarios:
1) Two thousand protesters take over the streets in a major
American city, break windows, block freeways, trash a corporate
lobby, fight with the cops, etc. The news media highlight
photos and footage of the violence, and interview poor people
trying to get to work on the buses that were blocked for hours;
the political issues behind the protesters' rage is barely
mentioned, and often neither is the police violence that sometimes
creates or heightens the confrontational mood.
2) Two thousand protesters surround the symbol of their anathema,
the federal building (or a major defense-contractor), in a
major American city. When told to move or face arrest, they
willingly allow themselves to be arrested. Two thousand new
protesters surround the federal building (or defense contractor)
the next day. And the next. And the next. The news media is
forced to handle the story in a different way, especially
because "people of substance" -- doctors and lawyers and teachers
and soccer moms and civil rights leaders and grandparents
and clergymen -- are, in the name of conscience, willing to
face arrest (partially because everyone understands that this
will be a non-violent action), in order to highlight the issue
of the government's crimes. The serious issues raised by the
protesters gets more ink and more currency.
This may sound like a dream, but I truly believe the Resistance
can move forward to that kind of scenario, if we play our
cards right. If we're willing to be more creative in our tactics
and strategies. If we're willing to think beyond tried-and-true
methods of protesting, with humor and determination. (Just
one example: In the Vietnam War days, some of the most effective
campaigns involved spilling "blood" onto Draft Board records,
getting arrested and, in effect, taking the government to
court in highly publicized trials.) If we're willing to spend
the many weeks and months organizing, planning, organizing,
training, organizing -- and organizing.
I'm not trying to pretend that all of this is going to be
easy, or without dangers. This Administration is ruthless
and has already made clear that it's willing to wound, to
smear, to kill to get what it wants. And local police forces
are often the least well-equipped, most overworked, and least
monitored in the way they deal with dissent.
But if we want to preserve and defend the Constitution of
the United Nations, and the best of what we are in the world,
and if we want to help advance humanity another couple of
feet along the route to civilized behavior instead of falling
back into the old habits of violence and repression -- if
we truly desire that future, we can make it happen. Soul Force.
Remember that there is another Superpower out there able
to resist the dangerous adventurism of the Bush Administration:
us, the burgeoning, worldwide mass movement of those who are
joining together and standing up to leaders who, out of the
worst of motives, are trying to take humanity in the wrong
direction.
So get on a steep learning curve. Read your Saul Alinsky,
read Abbie Hoffman, read Robert Moses (Paris), read Martin
Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau and Gandhi and Cesar
Chavez and Susan B. Anthony and Sojourner Truth and Martin
Lee and Frederick Douglas. You don't have to re-invent the
wheel totally. Others have been there and laid the foundations.
(How I wish we young New Leftists in the Vietnam era had been
more open to listening to the wisdom of the many Old Leftists
we consciously ignored.)
So that's where I'm coming from, Mark. Let's talk more. And
let's work together to turn this country around.
-- Love, Dad
Bernard Weiner was a writer/editor with the San Francisco
Chronicle for nearly 20 years. A Ph.D. in government & international
relations, he has taught at various universities, and currently
is co-editor of The
Crisis Papers.
|
