|
A national door-to-door canvassing organization(like Greenpeace or PIRG)opposing militarism in the US generally and the war in Iraq in particular, one that mobilizes and informs its mass membership, is an idea that I have been putting forward extensively, wherever I could. Indeed, if you have places to post the idea you could suggest them and/or post the item yourself: There needs to be a mass organization that canvasses door to door for funds and members and an organization of the opposition to this war and the imperialism it embodies in Congress into a vocal caucus. There also needs to be a mass fundraising effort to match the kind of funds that antiwar 527s spent during the election campaign in a national advertising campaign on the issues and for active support. Without the elections as an excuse, the mobilization should be much larger. It takes a higher not a lower degree of initiative in off-election years to mobilize against a long drawn-out war like this one. The longer there fails to be the kind of effort that I have suggested, the harder it will be to get the public excited about the issue, with the Iraq war becoming for most Americans something more like a tragic background noise that is tuned out rather than an urgency that must be actively opposed.
I would imagine that the organization would have the following features. By canvassing door to door,one could build up a truly mass organization, with millions of dues-paying members opposed to the Iraq war and to a broader range of militarism concerns included in the organization's principles of unity and officially endorsed positions. Such an organization could do many things that are not done as effectively as possible today.
First, it will be easier to mobilize huge numbers to the rallies now organized, although the current focus on numbers in this vein could also be transcended, by building a deeper movement with more mainstream impact. It would also be possible to link up with major progressive think tanks, and finance/provide a clearinghouse for accurate and intelligently formulated material for the organization's members and for the peace movement as a whole.
A connected idea is to get the truly strong peace movement oriented members of Congress (eg progressives who not only oppose Iraq but the Kosovo War as well) into a 'peace caucus' which could be a focal point for peace politics and advocacy in the Congress, as well as a power link for the organization, which I suppose could be called "PeaceAmerica" or something like that. The peace movement, unlike the anti-Vietnam war movement, could be sustained by a continuing, mass-scale, membership organization opposed to imperialism even though probably not sufficiently "politically correct" for many tastes.
Such an organization would be in a position to form coalitions with antiwar concerns of mainstream religious organizations as well as politicians, as discussed. This broad antiwar coalition would be in a position to bring issues to the UN, sponsored by friendly members of the General Assembly. (I think that there needs to be a GA special session on the Iraq war, in a venue where the US has no veto power, possibly trying to open some kind of negotiating channel and recognition of the political forces actively fighting the US occupation of Iraq.
The organization, for strategic and tactical reasons (not rejecting the view from the South Africa national liberation movement that "nonviolence is a tactic and not a religion") at the very least,must be committed in its own actions and endorsements to nonviolence against any persons. It should also take a vocal and principled stance against deliberate violence directed at innocents. It is important to be careful about defining this whole issue, so that so-called "violence against property" issues are addressed adroitly (against Earthfirst! type acts that can endanger people). It is also important not to have people in the leadership who would divide the movement by categorically condemning all those outside the organization in the movement who are more militant. This issue isdiscussed at some length because it is potentially divisive and is one rock upon which such mass organizing efforts could founder.
A second issue is inclusion in the statement of principles such notions as not treating civilian victims of 9-11 as rightly killed, or recognizing that terrorism (of the type that the "war against terrorism" is supposedly confronting) as well as imperialism are to be opposed. This must be an organization that, without diluting progressive content, can appeal to mainstream America. A ban on all expression or practice of bigotry by the organization addresses another area of potential political hazard.
The organization would have a paid staff once it gets off the ground, including paid canvassers, like Greenpeace or PIRG, but with a peace movement focus -- confronting head-on the controversial issue of calling for an end to the US-led war in Iraq. It would probably not be able to raise money as easily as these others for reasons of the controversiality, but the pressures to keep the movement tied to political realism and mass appeal would be there, to the detriment of sectarians and others who would weaken the antiwar movement in pursuit of their own tiny organizations' aims (like the PL in sds). The issue of how broad to make the organizations' demands and positions would be perennial.
I believe this is the best way to build a peace movement that is geared to success in the political circumstances of the US.
RSVP CLOUDY
I will try to post this later in other venues so that it can be fully vetted
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
