Posted on 09/06/2013 9:57:59 PM PDT by oxcart
A mere 72 hours after President Obama delivered an encomium honoring the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, he announced his intention to pound yet another country with bombs. The oxymoron last week was noteworthy for how little attention it received. Yes—a president memorialized an anti-war activist who derided the U.S. government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.” Then then that same president quickly proposed yet more violence—this time in Syria.
Among a political press corps that rarely challenges the Washington principle of “kill foreigners first, ask questions later,” almost nobody mentioned the contradiction. Even worse, as Congress now debates whether to launch yet another military campaign in the Middle East, the anti-war movement that Dr. King represented and that so vigorously opposed the last war is largely silent. Sure, there have been a few perfunctory emails from liberal groups, but there seems to be little prospect for mass protest, raising questions about whether an anti-war movement even exists anymore.
So what happened to that movement? The shorter answer is: it was a victim of partisanship.
That's the conclusion that emerges from a recent study by professors at the University of Michigan and Indiana University. Evaluating surveys of more than 5,300 anti-war protestors from 2007 to 2009, the researchers discovered that the many protestors who self-identified as Democrats “withdrew from anti-war protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success” in the 2008 presidential election.
Had there been legitimate reason to conclude that Obama's presidency was synonymous with the anti-war cause, this withdrawal might have been understandable. But that's not what happened - the withdrawal occurred even as Obama was escalating the war in Afghanistan and intensifying drone wars in places like Pakistan and Yemen. The researchers thus conclude that during the Bush years, many Democrats were not necessarily motivated to participate in the anti-war movement because they oppose militarism and war—they were instead “motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments.”
Not surprisingly, this hyper-partisan outlook and the lack of a more robust anti-war movement explain why political calculations rather than moral questions are at the forefront of the Washington debate over a war with Syria.
In that Beltway back and forth, the national media has focused as much on the horserace (will an attack politically weaken the president?) and political tactics (should the president have submitted to a congressional vote?) than on whether an attack would actually make things better in Syria. Similarly, a top Democratic strategist told CNN that potential Republican opposition to a Syria attack “will coalesce Democrats around the president” in support of a military strike. Confirming that dynamic, Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton said a war resolution will pass not because of the supposed merits of an attack on Syria, but simply “because of loyalty of Democrats” who “just don't want to see (Obama) shamed and humiliated on the national stage.”
This is red-versus-blue tribalism in its most murderous form. It suggests that the party affiliation of a particular president should determine whether or not we want that president to kill other human beings. It further suggests that we should all look at war not as a life-and-death issue, but instead as a sporting event in which we blindly root for a preferred political team.
An anti-war movement is supposed to be a check on such reflexive bloodlust. It is supposed to be a voice of reason interrupting the partisan tribalism. When it, too, becomes a victim of that tribalism, we lose something more than a political battle. As the distorted debate over Syria proves, we lose the conscience that is supposed to guide us through the most vexing questions of all.
The same thing that happened to the pacifist movement when Hitler attacked Russia-it revealed its true colors.
Where are all those 99% clowns?
Seems they would want part of this action.
Liberals now approve of war. What a difference a day can make
Only if a war is proposed by a liberal president.
Wars executed by conservative presidents are still not okay with the liberals.
Not quite. It suggests that, to Democrats, staying in power is sufficient justification to kill other human beings. Democrats are worthless in a real economy, and are incapable of sustaining themselves unless they are in power. Their only source of cash flow is power for sale. To them, power is life or death. Nothing, not even the lives of other human beings, will stand in their way.
What difference does it make. Wait I think someone else said that. Hey Libs, haven’t the last 6 months been sort of a downer? Is there any hope for the liberal vision. OK. Good, Success. All that comes from the universe is against you. We will step as side but keep an eye on you.
I wonder if more than 1% of the American people know about how the Reds suddenly dropped out of the Common Front after August, 1939?
They are Useful Idiots—it’s to be expected of them.
A warmongering Democrat happened to them.
“It suggests that, to Democrats, staying in power is sufficient justification to kill other human beings. Democrats are worthless in a real economy, and are incapable of sustaining themselves unless they are in power. Their only source of cash flow is power for sale. To them, power is life or death. Nothing, not even the lives of other human beings, will stand in their way.”
That’s really telling it like it is. Can it get any more shameful and vile?
....... to Democrats, staying in power is sufficient justification to kill other human beings. Democrats are worthless in a real economy, and are incapable of sustaining themselves unless they are in power. Their only source of cash flow is power for sale. To them, power is life or death. Nothing, not even the lives of other human beings, will stand in their way.
Excellent!! You sum it up as well as I’ve ever seen.
Excuse me for pointing out that:
Boehner and Cantor support Obama
I think Mitch McConnell is neutral.
McCain and Graham vigorously support Obama.
Several GOP ex-Defense Secretaries and ex-Intelligence
Chiefs support Obama.
All RINO’s, Neo-Cons, and northeast Republicans support Obama.
The “Anti-War” Movement was NEVER about the Wars, it was ALWAYS about getting George Bush, and being used by the Radical Socialist Democrats to take power.
This was widely reported when it first started, but largely ignored.
So to be antiwar was really just anti Bush (anti Reagan, etc.) And was mostly about opposing tax cuts and promoting socialism. Nice.
Maybe Obama will win the Nobel Peace Prize again - this time for standing with Al Qaeda and setting the stage for World War III...
A few days ago the news was reporting some anti-war demonstrations (which included a lot of black people); they just decided to stop showing them, but they are there (and have stopped Obama from acting unilaterally).
I mentioned Cindy Sheehan a few days ago; she didn’t disappear when Obama was elected - she was MADE TO DISAPPEAR. They simply stopped covering her.
There was never an anti-Vietnam War Movement. The minute the draft ended in 1972, the “anti-Vietnam War Rallies” evaporated. It was always a “I don’t want to serve” movement instead. The war continued for three more years, ending in the Communist takeover of SE Asia and the slaughter of eight million — that’s MILLION — blameless civilians who were deemed “unsuitable for the revolution.” No one who wore eyeglasses in Cambodia was alive after 1977. The same cowardly 60s U.S. “anti-war” pukes are now running our colleges and press and kissing Obama’s butt.
When someone is “Anti-War” it means they believe we are fighting for the wrong side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.