The Anti-War Dilemma: How To Protest A President You Trust

TEMPE, ARIZONA - During the Bush era, peace protests were presupposed. If the President of the United States showed up anywhere, so did the protesters. Now that Barack Obama has taken over the helm, though, peace activists are debating and rehashing protest strategies and often not protesting at all.

"Does this mean we just give Obama a free pass, no matter what he does?"

Two nights ago, this was the overarching question when a local chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America debated whether they should endorse an anti-war protest when President Obama delivers the commencement address at Arizona State University (ASU) this Wednesday. After all, one of the planks of the organization is peace, but they are also a partisan organization (hence the word 'Democrat' in the name) that supports Obama.

In recent years, peace protests have focused on military action in Iraq. Opposition to war in Afghanistan was not as widespread because the Taliban in Afghanistan were linked directly to 9/11. Yet most peace activists object to what they see as an escalation of war in Afghanistan by the Obama administration. Some believe a Republican president would have pulled out of Iraq within a similar time frame as Obama.

So, why the lack of enthusiasm for protesting Obama's warfare policies?

For most, it seems to boil down to trust. For the first time in decades (for many, the first time in their lives), a considerable number of peace activists trust the President of the United States.

"We need to give him a chance," one activist beseeches, "I really believe that he is doing the best he can. He has only been in office 100 days."

Most Obama supporters also believe that Obama has kept his promises in regards to military action. He has made strides toward an independent Iraq, and he is working to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Some want "protests" at presidential events to be transformed into "rallies" where activists thank the president rather than picketing. They suggest peace activists bring signs that convey a positive message, such as, "Thank you for your efforts toward peace," rather than the more contentious signs that have been routinely brandished by protesters on the nightly news.

Dan O'Neal, the Arizona Coordinator of the Progressive Democrats of America, was a strong proponent of a protest at the ASU commencement but conceded the action did not have to be called a protest. He pointed out that when President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with labor leaders and progressives after his election, he told them that he agreed with them and then said, "Now make me do it."

O'Neal says, "We want the progressive in Obama to come bouncing out," but says that the newly inaugurated president will be pulled from both sides -- the right and left. "We want Obama to be successful, and the only way he can be successful is if we keep pulling him back to the left. We're doing this to make him a better president."

Although Obama is seen as a centrist within the Democratic party, those on the left undoubtedly want to continually pull him toward the left -- just as those on the right want to pull him further toward the right.

Liz Hourican of Code Pink says, "This is a new question. All peace organizations are going to have to rethink our strategies." She acknowledges that having a president who is friendlier to their cause changes the nature of presidential protests, and believes that all peace organizations are going to have to ask themselves, "What is the one message that we would like to share?"

Obama's presidency has not only complicated the anti-war message, but has also made it more difficult to turn out the large numbers that the movement enjoyed during the latter Bush years. Over the weekend, Code Pink held their annual 24-hour Mother's Day Vigil for Peace in Lafayette Park across from the White House. It was the first time since 2006 that they asked people from outside the Washington area to attend. Just over a hundred people showed up to the event according to organizers, a stark contrast to the thousands that Code Pink enjoyed in 2006.

Liz Hourican still plans to be a part what she calls "peace actions" at the ASU commencement Wednesday. She is careful not to use the word "protest" and encourages fellow activists to make actions during the Obama's visit more positive. She told her fellow activists, "I am going to get there early, get my spot, and make sure that I talk to everyone I can. I'm going to get signatures, email addresses, and really expand my network."

Code Pink worked with a coalition of local peace groups to come to a consensus on messaging. Then volunteers spent Saturday afternoon making signs to carry at ASU with two basic, nonconfrontational messages, "War is taxing" and "Peace is priceless."

Hourican says it is more important to build support toward a critical mass than to make protests an outlet for anger and emotions, "Is it more important to be mad or to appeal to people who are not in our group? The bigger picture is way beyond us."

For some, reticence on Obama's Afghanistan policy is more strategic than earnest. Many progressives feel that other priorities -- like the economy -- must take precedence. They worry that protesting Obama at this juncture could divide (and conquer) those who support a more liberal agenda overall. The economic crisis and an ambitious domestic agenda is often the overriding reason for activists to compromise on Afghanistan.

"It's not about disagreeing with Obama. It's about the way we disagree. How we, as progressives, are perceived by the rest of the Democratic Party," said one local activist who was concerned that if local chapters of Progressive Democrats of America protested against Obama, their message might be lost. "Even worse," she said, "the group could be seen as the fringe wing of the party."

Comments

[guyinAZ]

In the Bush era the Republicans split over the issue of immigration. It appears that the Obama era may be known for splitting the Democrats over war. It will be interesting to see how long the Democrats can hold together as Obama gets us deeper into the Afghan quagmire.

I'm betting Obama is also going to get us involved in the racial wars in Africa.

The U.S. needs to get its nose out of other people's business so that we can solve our own crumbling economy.

[Beckychr007]

Dawn, no offense, but you are going to feel like such a sap in a year.

Why would you place all this blind trust in a guy you really know nothing about--have never met? Even religions have a higher bar than you--there is some factual basis put forth for faith--turning water into wine, heal sick, etc.

With Obama there is nothing but that he is intelligent and probably the greatest orator of his generation. But, facts--nothing--and if you cared to examine what facts there are-- increasingly they indicate that he is not going begin measuring up to your expectation.

sappy sappy sappy

[guyinAZ]

Right on Becky -- sappy is the right word. I can't believe the free ride liberals are giving Obama.

I wonder what the sappists are going to say when Obama gets us involved in Pakistan? Ooops! I saw a Taliban video that proves we already have troops there. Looks like Obama gets another free ride.

Oh, and remember everyone was in a tizzy because McCain said we will be in Iraq for the next 100 years? Obama now says we will have "non combat troops" for at least 50 years but there isn't a peep of protest from the Democrats.

I used to participate in war protests against Bush -- but that's before the saps took over. If the Ladies in Pink want more participation in they need to get some balls and stop the Obama love fests!

I might have been fooled when I was an anti-war protester but I'm not going to be a sap!

[rwext]

every day in every way the hypocrisy of liberal progressives and the debacle that is the Obama era becomes more pronounced

[Mike949]

Obama has clearly modified the positions he took during the campaign. I have to think that information he became aware of once he became President has driven his policy decision. Governing is clearly different from campaigning.

[Snuffleupagus]

Yes you do HAVE to think that. Otherwise you would be forced to confront reality.
The reality that both parties are bought and paid for by our military industrial complex, that they serve big oil, big banks, big pharma and big autos.....­.....not we the people.

Governing does not describe what is happening here. What is happening is the destruction of democracy in America.

Everyone (82%) wants these wars to end. The government is not privy to some secret information that makes it all OK 949. They hide the truth because the people would revolt if they knew it.
The truth is that these wars are unnecessary, and we the people are being trampled by tyrants and liars in both parties.

[Truthahn]

How are Obama's policies any different from what McCain's would have been?

A) 50,000 occupying force in Iraq for the indefinite future
B) continued airstrikes into Pakistan
C) Bagram AFB used as the new Gitmo
D) Bush's state secrets doctrine used to deny hearings and habeas corpus for detainees
E) expanded war in Afghainistan

If McCain had instituted the above policies you can be sure anti-war organizations would be screaming about it. Barack Obama does the same stuff and the response is deafening silence. Justin Raimondo is the only anti-war voice that actually holds Obama accountable. All the others are pathetic Obama worshippers who wouldn't dare criticize The Messiah.

[jsgaetano]

McCain would have still been in denial about the economy.

Also... there's no way McCain would have canceled Helicopter One if it would have been HIS taxi to the airport.

McCain would have been another 8 years for Bush/Cheney.

[guyinAZ]

What we are seeing with Obama is this: wars are bad if Republicans are in power, and wars are a necessary evil if Democrats are in power. I am very disappointed with the hypocrisy of the war protesters.

[jsgaetano]

They need to look at how the Far Right gets things done.

The far right had absolutely no problem continually hammering their representatives for results. They still don't, actually, even though "results" is currently limited to shameless obstructionism.

Don't be afraid of continually pushing for results. If Obama doesn't hear constant and vocal urging from his supporters, it's easy to cave to the far right's demands.

[SangZe]

I voted for Obama, but though I continue to support most of his policies, I do not always agree with him. I reserve my right to loudly protest any of his actions which I believe are not in keeping with my ethics. I do not find it a problem to do so; on the contrary, I believe such protest is a necessary part of a reasonable democracy.

[barackobama4prez]

we must protest any president that doesn't listen to public opinion. this is a democracy afterall.

[jhNY]

All it takes for me to protest Obama's war policies is a good look at the streams of refugees coming out of Swat, our probable use of white phosphorus on Afghanis, and the deaths by drone of Afghan and Pakistani civilians. All this coming at a time Petraeus says there is no longer any element of Al Qeada operating in Afghanistan.

So now we're attacking the Taliban, a Pakistani-Afghani evangelical Islamic movement, whose great and unpardonable sin was to allow Bin Laden to live among them during the 9-11 planning and attacks-- without us ever having bothered to prove, even to our own satisfaction, that the Taliban government had certain knowledge about the plan to attack the US. We've moved from rooting out an enemy to attempting to eradicate a religious movement, which however odious and repellent its social practices, is a religious movement nonetheless, and a popular one, making us the armed (Christian­)aggressor­s against a type of Islam.

Can't see how this ends well for the US or our interests in the region. Is it really reasonable to expect the folks we're shooting at to learn to love us? What does Obama expect to achieve, besides the political perception here in the US among voters and opinion-makers that he's tough on terrorism? How many blown-up houses and people is that worth?

[Oracion]

Shoulda asked that in 03 when the war started. The issue now is just about getting out, to which there's at least some sort of timeline, but as to how well it'll stay is the question. I'm hoping it fits though so that in time, Iraq is free from us and we don't have to lose any more lives over there for a mistake our previous president made.

[Marie62866]

I trust and support Obama! But I want our troops home! End the war! Prosecute Bush and friends for their war crimes!