President Obama and the Democrats need a new peace initiative to increase turnout and voting by pro-peace voters who will make a critical difference in this November's election.
The president has already recognized the importance of this constituency. In every speech he points to winding down the Iraq War and the Afghanistan quagmire as among his achievements. The savings, he also notes, are billions of tax dollars that should be invested in his mission of rebuilding America.
Why is a further initiative needed, when everyone agrees that the economy and character issues are the most important in voters' minds?
Because many pro-peace voters have been disillusioned by the president's unilateral escalation of drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere; the lack of transparency around those drone attacks; secret military interventions in many countries under the banner of counterterrorism; the assertion of executive control over interventions like Libya; the approval of assassinations and cyber-war measures under the sole approval of the president; and the shrinking of civil liberties and Congressional checks and balances in this new era of warfare. A decision on the US and/or Israel attacking Iran may be imminent but who would know? The War Powers Act does not apply unless there is "sustained fighting" by American "ground troops."
In doing what they believe is necessary to protect US interests, the president and many Democrats have deflated their base among pro-peace and progressive voters. To expect that those voters will return to 2008-levels of enthusiasm, or turn out at 2008 levels of participation, is mistaken.
These voters are not undecided between Obama and Romney. They are undecided about whether to vote at all, or to cast a protest vote for the Greens.
We have been here before. We know how this could end.
Surely if the Obama campaign is spending tens of millions in pursuit of a handful of "undecided" voters in swing states [their numbers are only 4 percent in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania], the campaign also can invest in trying to increase turnout on its pro-peace flank this November.
The president's historic initiatives on behalf of the Dream Act students and the LGBT community are current examples of how to bring back key constituencies from their disillusionment with earlier policies.
If it's not enough to campaign on claims of winding down two wars, what more is needed?
One possibility is for the president to recognize, without having to backtrack,that his policies have opened a new era of warfare that renders the 1973 War Powers Act all but obsolete. He can be an effective Commander-In-Chief while disavowing a return to an Imperial Presidency.
The proposal need not be a detailed blueprint, partly because the subject is complex. But the president can pledge to start a conversation about how to enhance the democratic rule of law, the constitutional role of Congressional oversight and consent, and a broader, re-invigorated place for the media and civil society in the process of deciding whether, when and for how long America goes to war.
However much he extols his Libyan policy, he should remember how close he came to rejection by a bipartisan coalition in the House, and how he was forced to conceal internal administration memos questioning the legality of that policy. He and his team should remember how difficult it was to maintain that the War Powers Act didn't apply to Libya [because, they claimed, there were no American ground troops, no "sustained fighting", no "active" exchange of fire, and so on.] More Libyas are on the horizon, or perhaps already in the works.
A future-oriented promise of reconsidering and updating the War Powers Act would make pro-peace voters see a new hope and new agenda for an Obama second term, thus spurring their turnout. There is no downside to such a pledge. If he needs a rationale, Obama can simply say that his policies have opened a new chapter of warfare that requires an expansion of the law. Romney, the media and the Pentagon are not likely to advocate for the expansion of executive power, a new McCarthyism or a return to the Nixon era.
Some next steps might include:
- A plank in the Democratic platform, although time is short to include one;
- Consensus support from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who would hold forums to develop the proposal, and emphasize it in their fall campaigns;
- Convening of a task force of civil libertarians and lawyers working on detention and torture issues, to solicit their recommendations;
- Convening a conversation with mainstream media advocates concerned with the erosion of First Amendment protections;
- Convening clergy to increase input on the moral dimensions of the new warfare.
If enough voices declare that a stronger vision of peace is needed, anything can happen in the course of this election. John F. Kennedy's advisers didn't want him to announce the Peace Corp in October 1960, but he did so in response to a student movement. JFK also called Coretta Scott King when her husband Martin in jail. Looking back, those gestures were history-turning events.
A call by this president to expand the War Powers Act and avert any return to the Imperial Presidency might have the same ripple effect this fall.
Follow Tom Hayden on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TomEHayden
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Hayden uses Libya as his evidence of Obamas "imperial" Presidency. To clarify, we were support for the allied powers in the air and at sea we helped rescue refugees. Libyan politics may be a mess but the Libyan people are free. We did not start the war in Libya, and Obama at least addressed the War Powers Act where Bush never gave it any consideration.
Hayden wants Obama to say "his policies have opened a new chapter of warfare that requires an expansion in the law." Well OK Tom, of course, it would be nice if the President had that conversation with Congress. But it's not the catalyst which will bring peace activists back to the table. We never left and we will vote.
Democrats have allowed the Republican, punitive, jingoistic approach to foreign policy to become the norm. Democrats may pay lip service to peace at election time, but by their votes we shall know them.
I did not vote for Obama in 2008, precisely because of this problem. When the time came for Senator Obama to cast votes against funding the Iraq War -- the principled opposition to which HAD JUST MADE HIS NATIONAL REPUTATION -- he found reasons to vote for it anyway. I'm not surprised that Gitmo is still open, or that we're still in Iraq.
Democrats will not mollify me by merely adopting nice-sounding campaign promises and platform planks. I need to see them vote to throw off the enslaving chains of the war machine FIRST. Only then will I consider voting for their candidates for President.
It's easy to proclaim yourself for peace when to don't carry any of the burdens of protecting the country. Even Obama knows what his responsibilities are.
The only reason Tom Hayden has the right to express his opinions (and that goes for all of us) is because this country has never accepted people on any terms. We have always been willing to do the "dirty work" necessary to protect ourselves and democracy in general. Our young people are, and always have been, willing to risk their lives in combat.
For anyone to portray himself as an "enlightened" person that is above all that is insulting and disgusting.
American conservatives have flogged the appeasement straw man for decades. In bowing to right-wing wishes, America has won the prize of being the most hated nation on Earth. The money spent on the military these past several decades is overwhelmingly the worst investment we have made.
Despite the fact that Obama hasn't done much to advance the cause of world peace, it's pretty clear to any voter really concerned with that issue that Romney would be worse than Obama in that regard. The author surmises that this might cause those voters to vote for the Green Party candidate. However, most of them remember (or have learned) about what happened in 2000, when enough progressives voted for a third-party candidate without any hope of winning rather than voting for the less offensive of the two major party candidates to enable the worse candidate (GW Bush) to win in Florida and thus overall.
Besides, even assuming there are lots of "pro-peace voters," those voters tend to live in states where Obama has such a large lead in the polls that losing their votes isn't going to make a difference. Perhaps if the author were more familiar with the voters in the crucial swing states, rather than just the voters in California, he would understand that.
Well, I am one such voter, and I've been waiting eight hours for my comments to appear here.
that will never ever vote for him.
- WWI
- WWII
- Korea
- and Vietnam
Korea was started, for the US, by Emperor Douglas MacArthur before Truman even knew. MacArthur ordered US troops into Korea and combat before talking to Washington. Truman, considering MacArthur's popularity, was too much of a coward to fire MacArthur and charge him with treason. MacArthur was a Republican and extreme right-wing.
Vietnam started for the US when Eisenhower cancelled the Vietnamese elections in 1956 because the CIA told him that Ho Chi Minh would win at least 80% of the vote.
I know almost nothing about WW I.
Learn history before running off at the keyboard.
1) Obama's election year "evolution" on gay marriage was a despicable form of pandering. It is kind of like a) his claim that republicans are waging a war on women; b) his conversation with college students-a lot of whom will be unemployed in the very near future-about the interest rates on their loans; and c) his executive order that granted amnesty to illegal aliens in order to court favor with Hispanics.
It's pathetic. And any right thinking person should not be persuaded by such tactics. It's bread and circuses in a country that has real obstacle and challenges.
2) George Bush set the time frame to end the war an Iraq. Obama might get credit for Afghanistan, but Iraq was set to expire well before Obama came into the oval office.
This election is different; it's not just about Obama and Romney. It's about resolving the culture war. Liberals know this and they are scared. They won't care about how bad a president Obama has been or how many promises he's broken, etc. They will support him no matter what because they are trying to survive politically and culturally themselves. They think that if they can get O reelected, that is vindication for their failed movent and for supporting O in the first place.
You can't reach out to people like that, you just have to defeat them in November.
Occupy and the Ron Paul campaign failed because there is no "peace vote" with political power.
It didn't take a media conspiracy to defeat these movements. They defeated themselves.
There has not been a successful peace movement in the US since 1968. .
Given that there is no viable alternative to the Democrats, that trend probably will not change in our lifetimes. Like the Black vote, the Peace vote is automatically given to the Democrats who in turn give this minority group of voters lip service, but little else.
Dumping party loyalty will make it easier for people to be willing to reject their party's candidates and policies and hold them accountable. That idea scares the "you must be loyal to us!" parties to death.
Tough.
Frankly it is hard to take you seriously as a person who truly is for peace and is not a Democrat who votes for party over principle based on this simple fact.
Paul and Kuchinich just stepped up the other day to fight against the Iran sanctions bill which only escalates hostilities just the other day.
Google Rocky Anderson / the Justice Party.
Consider his positions on health care, education, the social safety net, tax reform, business and finance reform / regulation, the Federal Reserve, the environment, foreign policy, human rights, equality, the Constitution, and more.
Good stuff!
Serious answers to the serious issues of our troubled times.