Why I Criticized Code Pink

On Wednesday I admonished a Code Pink protester for her melodramatic "attempt" to arrest Donald Rumsfeld. My post (published here, here and here) was not a rebuke so much as a practical call for more advanced operations. Nonetheless, so-called progressives -- including David Swanson, whose After Downing Street website is largely dedicated to the torture scandal -- told me I had crossed some line.

As he explained in an email, Swanson refused to run what I had written because he thinks "self-critique from our own side" is so deleterious it must be silenced. He said he would "promote" my point of view only if I express it "without criticizing...the few people who are doing something."

To comply with Swanson's unwarranted rule would be to perpetuate the very problem I want to address, which is that many activists are more concerned with feeling good about themselves than being effective.

The incident which prompted my previous commentary occurred on May 9 at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in Washington, DC. As Rumsfeld arrived at the event, he was harangued by Medea Benjamin and Desiree Fairooz of Code Pink. I wrote that Fairooz seemed "a bit crazed" as she screamed at Rumsfeld and unconvincingly claimed she would apprehend him for war crimes right then and there if only she were in possession of handcuffs.

Although I approvingly noted her desire "to hold our leaders accountable," I also questioned whether Fairooz's outburst would influence public opinion as presumably intended. My emphasis on the latter consideration is what caused Swanson to deem the post too incendiary for publication.

I pointed out in my rejected piece that allegations of unlawful conduct tend to be more persuasive when the accuser bothers to mention what crime the accused is believed to have committed. The closest either muckraker came to mentioning a cause for arrest was when Benjamin said of Rumsfeld: "He killed people in Iraq."

It should be obvious to everybody that the basis for apprehending Rumsfeld needs to be something more than feeling the former Defense Secretary did something illegal. Nonetheless, those who lately have been professing certainty about war crimes, typically fail to identify the laws they "know" were violated. Trying to be helpful, I recommended "focusing on conspiracy to commit torture, which is a felony under 18 U.S.C. 2340A of the U.S. Code." Unfortunately, Swanson has so far prevented that suggestion from entering the After Downing Street echo chamber.

Citing applicable statutes is no small factor when it comes to arresting lawbreakers. Moreover, recruiting people to make citizen arrests is ostensibly a key aspect of Swanson's mission. Indeed, his website includes a page that's headlined "How to Make a Citizen's Arrest of a War Criminal," on which he purports to be in search of "[arrest] teams in California, Texas, New York, and Washington, D.C., among other places." As I told him in an email, my proposed strategy and tactics are more consistent with his stated objectives than Code Pink's theatrics are. So it's very strange that Swanson squelched constructive criticism of fictional arrests, and turned his back on an offer to initiate real ones.

Ironically, my history with Swanson and Code Pink reflects a kinship concerning the very issues which lie at the heart of our current disagreements. In 2005 I joined forces with Code Pink activists at one of Rumsfeld's speaking engagements. After I asked an unwelcome question that day, I was forcibly removed from the premises, just as Benjamin and Fairooz were ejected a week ago. And in 2006 I hosted a forum on media censorship televised by C-SPAN that Swanson had organized. So it's especially disappointing to now be required to pass a purity test in order to participate in "his" discussion.

Swanson's fluctuating principles represent a blind spot which surfaces frequently on "our own side." (For the record, I'm not actually on any "side.") The tendency to embrace tolerance and such virtues only intermittently, has dealt a virtual death blow to the concept of free expression. A generation ago it was common to find self-identifying liberals who understand the importance of defending ugly or unpopular speech. Two well-known examples are the support the American Nazi Party received when its members sought to march in the streets of Skokie, Illinois, and Larry Flynt's widely recognized right to publish an intentionally hurtful cartoon depicting a public figure (Jerry Falwell) engaged in a bogus act of indecency. But nowadays the people "on our own side" who detect and reject thought control in all its insidious forms are few and far between.

It was mostly "progressives" who insisted on punishment for Don Imus even though the irreverent radio announcer had violated no rule when he referenced racial characteristics while ridiculing the physical appearance of basketball players. After copies of an O.J. Simpson book had been shipped by one of Rupert Murdoch's imprints, an uproar ensued which caused Murdoch to pull the title out of circulation. Nary a liberal seemed concerned that a lynch mob had robbed everyone of the option to buy that book. And then there's war correspondent Dahr Jamail, lionized by peaceniks as the antithesis of a censor and bigot, who endorsed an effort to thwart development of a film project simply because he doesn't "trust Hollywood."

The common thread here is a mindset which impels unwitting acts of censorship by individuals who believe they stand for free speech and open debate. When confronted with the reality of their oppressive behavior, the oblivious morality czars either retreat or rely on convoluted logic and semantics (i.e., quibble over the definition of "censorship") to deny the charge. In the world of activism, as elsewhere, such shenanigans are extremely counterproductive, and the consequences include inertia, drastically low standards and loss of credibility.

Imagine if fire department officers were to indulge in the sort of pointless diversions Swanson and his ilk see as noble behavior. Buildings would burn to the ground because commanders would have already purged the ranks of skilled individuals whose opinions are offensive, leaving too few to get the job done. Luckily, most communities are actually served by a diverse, amply-staffed contingent of firefighters, some of whom are occasionally critical of one another, all of whom focus exclusively on putting out destructive fires when called upon to do so.

Swanson spends what must be huge chunks of his time sounding alarms about torture and the need to punish war criminals. But where the rubber meets the road, his paltry emergency response team, devoid of disciplined actors and independent thinkers, is busy being fitted for costumes and enjoying a group hug.

UPDATE 5.18.09: Swanson emailed me over the weekend to say he is "eager and delighted" to assist me, and today has begun to do so.

Click here for follow-up post.

Jeff Norman blogs at CitizenJeff.com.

Comments

[StartLoving]

Mr. Norman, you are very much on the right track. The "heat" you have taken is largely pathological in its nature,and extremely revealing. What calls itself a "progressive,' or "peace" movement is, as you've pointed out, almost entirely about "feeling good," and certainly NOT about being committed to a mission; cowardly, about tearing down others so its own cowardice and lack of discipline and and commitment is unnoticed, it hopes. "

And when that cowardice is noticed, well, criticism with is flamed, as you've expericned. What hypocrisy. We" criticize the H*ll out of the military, for example, for blindly following orders, but criticism within the "Movement?" Verboten! Absurd. IF the "movement" actually STOOD for anything important it would be dying for honest, constructive criticism because OBVIOUSLY it is of no hope as it currently goes about its daily, hmmm... criticism of OTHERS.

However, Mr. Norman, the root issue with which you are attempting to grapple is in fact, that there really are few if any "progressives," or "activists" in DEED, in FACT. Hence, writing, and criticizing are besides the point, and a distraction. As the enormously literate and articulate Albert Schweitzer said, "Example is not the major thing in influencing people... it is the only thing." And Gandhi, "You must be the [courageous leadership] you wish to see in the world

And you, Mr. Norman, are you the courageous leadership and action you wish to see in the world?

[levee]

It's too bad we all think we've evolved beyond this theater.

If you want to get truly pragmatic, then forget these losers (Cheney and Rumsfeld), there decrepit souls are punishment enough, and let's get on with a revolution in energy, a humane health care system and a powerful and organized workforce. This so called "justice" everyone claims to be seeking is indulgent.

Meanwhile, Code Pink was rattling a primal part of our psyche like some sort of 21st century oracle. I don't think the soothsayer cared if he was rude or inconvenient when he dropped his bomb on Caesar, and nothing you say here is gonna talk away the visceral drama of that performance. You could feel Rumsfeld crawling in his skin and I can still hear that chant like it was coming from a burning bush (no pun intended).

"WAAARRRR CRIMINAAALLLLL"

[Jeff Norman - Huffpost Blogger]

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Ray McGovern's encounter (which I embedded in the follow-up post to this one) got more TV coverage, and was taken more seriously. Virtually nobody who shares his position saw any down side to what he did. By contrast, the reaction to the Code Pink encounter is very mixed, even among people who share their position.

The Code Pink apologists (here and in the comments section of my follow-up post) have so far failed to address my point that it would be better to make a real citizen arrest and/or to specify Rumsfeld's crime(s). Nobody who expressed disagreement has explained why it's better to be more toothless and vague than to do what I'm suggesting. This failure to address the argument that's been presented exemplifies one of my points, which is that many activists care only about how they FEEL.

I'm trying to generate a civilized discussion that's based more on a cost-benefit analysis than on an announcement of feelings.

[azcamp]

As long as we have the right to free speech, some activists will dress up, dress down and undress for the cameras. We recognize naked PETA spokespersons, pink cross-dressers and hooded knights as the vocal minority who make life interesting. Real change is led by ordinary grass roots citizens without costumes, shock tactics and bullying.

[Truthahn]

The anti-war movement is squandering its credibility daily. Barack Obama is breaking his promise to end the Iraq war, he's expanding the Afghan war, conducting airstrikes in Pakistan, and he's continuing the noxious detainee and secrecy policies of the Bush administration, yet the anti-war left is largely silent. The anti-war movement should quite pretending it's anything other than a propaganda arm of the Democratic party. They'll harrass a washed-up irrelevant nobody like Donald Rumsfeld, yet they have little to say against the warlord who currently occupies the White House, just because he has a (D) by his name.

[Justice Wainwright]

Very well said and I completely agree, not that I am anyone of any importance.

These groups have a great idea, but the message is lost on those who they need to convince most of all. You and I understand that these men and women need to be held to the fire and answer for their diatribe, but the uneducated and intellectually lazy are engrossed in American Idol and these theatrics only force them to turn the volume up more.

We live in a world where so many people feel silenced and have become apathetic, so I understand their need to be loud and scream, in the hopes someone will listen. However, sometimes the loudest screams serve only to push back the waves of progress. The silent, but precise pin prick can often do more damage than the bluntest force.

The gay community and marriage equality folks have the same problems. Between the love in hippies and the "progressive, because all my Facebook friends are doing it" groups, its a deluge of frustration. The problem is, without a definite leader, a chorus of voices has no direction. I believe we are getting there though. I will say this, these woman have some balls. I wouldnt have the self control to yell at him, I would be too busy punching.

[tompoe]

Rumsfeld is a war criminal. Try to stay focused, Norman.

[BeeOplentee]

Code Pink, obnoxious and silly as it is, only gives stature and credibility to its targets. I cringe when I see these fools act up.

[Sinick]

Right on Jeff! These are the type of individuals who have turned the word "liberal" a dirty word. Being liberal is a state of mind. A shrill cry for attention only serves to undermine that notion.

[jones]

The mischief they are pointing out are also very shrill. Sometimes you need someone shrill to sound the alarm.

[GatoPreto]

You make a very valid point. Though we admire Code Pink's daring, we can't help but lament the fact that they essentially end up looking like uninformed, crazed attention seekers, which in turn helps protect Rumsfeld's image. He didn't seem too worried now, did he?

Alex Jones does that a lot too, all angry and red in the face...wait a minute; is there a pattern?

[lamarkpowells]

look just like you said we dont know if nancy pelosi is telling the truth we dont know if she is lying either and I trust her over the cia all day long

[StephenDedalus82]

The problem with Code Pink is that their antics make their targets seem like reasonable people by comparison. Positive action isn't just about getting attention and screaming loud. That can be and often is counterproductive

[WorkingClass]

I stand with code pink. They have the balls to raise hell and stink up the place. We need more and more and more of that.

[Jeff Norman - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree. I'm suggesting that they refine their tactics, not go away. The theatrics are ultimately toothless. How about making real citizen arrests?

[mommadona]

You protest with the protesters you have, not the ones you wish you had.

I've 'been there' - you grab the moment and go with it.

I'd be right there with those two, yelling as loud as I could.

NEVER AGAIN.

If there had been ANY progress in the last 8 miserable years for ANY healthy discourse to sort it out - it might be different - but, squeaky wheels get squeakier still with no grease in sight.

[Jeff Norman - Huffpost Blogger]

Why the emphasis on volume? Wouldn't a quiet but real arrest be more powerful than a loud theatrical one?

[Raven]

The emphasis on volume is so sadly lacking now, that's why Code Pink feels they need to scream.

Someone has to.

And I, for one, am thankful that they are. Screaming, disrupting, shaming.

In fact, if more Americans did what Code Pink does, we'd all be better off.

Code Pink makes it virtually impossible for the war criminals to walk around and attend events as though they are upstanding citizens.

If their charade is loud, obnoxious, and embarrassing, well, then all the better.

Fury is perfectly appropriate given Rummy's crimes. Turn the volume up, not down.

[Parducci]

I guess I just never understood why Code Pink. Is it like the Code Red from "A Few Good Men"? Or is it a take off on Code Blue, the maker of premium deer scent? I mean Code Pink means a child abduction in a hospital. What is that all about? Can anyone explain?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital_emergency_codes

[BlackJAC]

I remember my college's local detachment of causeheads and their erroneous notion that spectacle ("raising awareness") was the same as effecting real change. They thought that a bunch of upper-middle-class white suburbanites having a slumber party on the student union patio would do something about homelessness. They even wallpapered the student union lobby with newspapers, with a sign that read "All this newspaper should've been recycled."

[TheBlackCat]

Same here BlackJac. Being eager to change the world, as a freshman in college I signed up for all sorts of groups like this. I quickly discovered exactly what you stated- that it was mostly a bunch of upper middle class kids with liberal guilt who thought a bunch of slumber parties and protests were going to change the world.

Luckily for me, I realized very quickly that these groups did nothing, absolutely nothing, but garner press about THEMSELVES with high publicity stunts that changed absolutely nothing. I quickly dropped the student run reactionary groups for groups which I looked into first and found actually DID THINGS as opposed to just talking about things and how they should change. For instance, I dropped PETA for Floridians for Humane Farming. They had none of the spectacle of PETA- instead they worked with law makers and with farmers directly, and through this group we actually were able to change things and get laws passed which mandated more humane farm conditions in the state of Florida.

I completely agree with the author's assessment that many organizers are more interested in making themselves feel good than anything else. These are groups I now avoid, and instead I stick with ones that actually DO SOMETHING like habitat for humanity, the big sisters program, the Marijuana Policy Project, stuff like that.

As Gandhi said, we need to BE the change we want to see in the world.

[jinsei]

Congratulations on the farming bill! I agree that changing the world takes hard work, knowledge, and SERIOUSNESS. There's a Japanese expression from a famous show akin to the Gandhi quote, which is: "To do justice, you must be superior." It meant that you must rise through the ranks and become the authority before you can change the authority.