With the poll numbers looking more and more bad for Bush and his war, it's interesting to note that the tide has turned against the administration WITHOUT the benefit of a high visibility anti-war movement. That is to say, there haven't been the large scale anti-war demonstrations that marked the Vietnam era, or even those that occurred immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are we to make of this?
Could it be that a "soft", underground opposition to the war, such as what is happening in the blogsphere (mostly on the Left, but increasingly on the Right) is actually MORE effective than mass physical demonstrations?
Furthermore, if mass demonstrations are mounted, could that actually have a DETRIMENTAL effect on the anti-war sentiment that has been fostered so far?
I've heard that mass demonstrations are being planned by ANSWER and Not In Our Name for this coming fall. If these are conducted in the same way that demonstrations leading up to the war were done, we who oppose the war could be shooting ourselves in the foot.
One of the most maddening things to me about the previous demonstrations conducted by ANSWER was the diversion of focus from the war in Iraq to a smorgasbord of OTHER Left causes, from pro-choice to Puerto Rican nationalism to freeing Mumia Abu-Jamal. I watched the coverage on C-SPAN and I remember a period of more than two hours where not a single speaker at the rally in DC actually addressed the war itself, but instead campaigned for whatever was their pet Leftist cause de jour.
Such a lack of focus can't help but drive moderate and the few conservative people who believe the war is a deadly mistake away from supporting the anti-war movement. A conservative person who sees a speaker pushing to free Abu-Jamal, who they see (rightly or wrongly) as a convicted cop-killer trying to dodge execution by any means possible, is going to write off ANSWER and the entire anti-war movement as a Leftist scam. Guilt by association.
Even when confronted with such a complaint, those who spent their 15 minutes of fame at the speakers podium pushing something other than opposition to the war stated that:
(a) their cause is part of the entire "continuum" of right-wing oppression of freedom and democracy, and the opposition to the war can't be considered in a vacuum separated from it.
(b) the anti-war rally gave them a precious moment in a public forum, and they were going to take advantage of it, because how often do they get a chance to be heard on C-SPAN?
I find (a) to be at least arguable. Yes indeed, the war can be considered merely a "symptom" of the greater malaise of society under GWB and the Republicans, but is diverting attention from the war -- something that is costing real lives of real people every day it drags on -- worth getting that chance to seize the microphone for ten minutes? If Abu-Jamal is executed, that's one person dead. Tens of thousands of people are already dead in Iraq. Is fronting for Abu-Jamal worth the price of allowing the war to go on for even one single day longer? Do these people who advance causes other than opposition to the war at an anti-war rally really think they are going to change a single person's mind, or is preaching to the choir all they really want to do? Or if they change any minds, how many people of moderate or conservative beliefs are they going to drive away from opposition to the war in exchange for each mind changed? What kind of caricature is the right-wing going to create to denounce all anti-war supporters as crazy pinko leftists?
I find (b) to be utterly reprehensible, an expression of sheer egotistical hubris on the part of those who claim such a thing.
So if anti-war rallies are in the works, I can only hope that the organizers are going to demand that any speakers they put on that podium in front of the cameras are going to talk about THE WAR, only THE WAR, and refrain from pushing agendas other than ENDING THE WAR.
If they do this, it will actually aid them in the long run in promoting all these other worthy causes. If ANSWER succeeds in mounting a strongly focused attack on Republican war policy, and the tide of the country continues to turn that way, including moderates and conservatives, then when this is finally over they will have a structure and "bully pulpit" in place which they can then use for other causes. What's required is for the supporters of other causes to take a back seat FOR NOW, and focus like a laser-beam on one thing: ENDING THE WAR IN IRAQ. Once that's accomplished, turn attention to other causes. War is a time of sacrifice. Promoters of other causes need to sacrifice attention on their pet projects for the greater good of ending the bloodbath in Iraq.