We tried this. Antiwar.com and libertarians WERE part of the anti-Iraq War movement. So much so that Ron Paul largely ran his campaigns by leaning hard on anti-interventionism, which attracted people across the spectrum. What did we get for this? Eventually he and others like him turned into the loons calling Obama a Socialist, and red-baiting everything left of center.
Simply put, the complete schism between public opinion and public policy has made antiwar organizing almost pointless. It is much easier to galvanize people to vote on what are considered "domestic" issues. And on those matters, there's no nexus for organizing with the right.
Murtaza, you wrote about US conservatives: "appealing to them on the basis of their national identity and interests is an obvious way to get them to support or oppose a given policy. "
What could be more a part of the national identity than "liberty and justice for all"? What could be more opposed to it than ethnic cleansing and apartheid? yet we have just seen full out support by our President for the slaughter in Gaza, putting Zionism first even at the risk of having Americans die to defend it.
Supporters of Israel appear at the current campus demonstrations waving, at the same time, American and Israeli flags. What could be more contradictory, particularly in view of the fact that Jews in America are fully accepted citizens with full rights but have the unique ability to go to Palestine and take land from people with no rights whatsoever? Jews in America have found success in every field and at all levels right up to the top and that is fine. What is not fine is demanding a place on the other side of the world exclusively for Jews with full on eviction and unlimited killing of the natives.
If this blatant, flagrant contradiction presents no problem to conservatives then what hope is there for your proposals? No less a champion for individual rights than Ben Shapiro, who has become wealthy promoting that, has completely capitulated in favor of going after Americans who are exercising those rights to oppose Israel, a foreign country.
Interesting argument, although I am not sure I agree with all it. I’m not convinced that it really is the crux of the issue as opposed to general apathy. However, as a non-American not living in America I have often thought that one of the problem with these protests is that they tend to be dominated by whichever particular group is more directly impacted and then your forever protesting Lenin-Trotskystes types. It’s why I make a point of dressing well, whether in my more business clothes or weekend wear.
I have similar memories and anguish of the 2003 failed antiwar movement (I was a grad student at Berkeley during 9/11, Iraq War, and 2nd intifada days) and see a lot of uncomfortable parallels to today’s youth movement and it’s inefficacy against the Gaza War.
I think the antiwar left should pragmatically look for alliances and embrace a range of arguments that are likely be persuasive to as large and diverse an audience as possible. However I am skeptical of this idea of embracing a kind of nationalistic framing of the antiwar position for a few reasons.
1. in this cynical age, sincerity matters. As a left-liberal dove, my anti-interventionist stance comes from a belief in justice, righteousness, against the moral hideousness of endless war, hatred of cynicism and corrupt power-concentrated militarist ideologies, and respect for the rule of law. I am likely to be more persuasive when I make my case accordingly rather than just adopting a contrived “peace is patriotic” stance.
2. Promoting endless wars, mega arms sales to Gulf oil tyrants, and catering to foreign lobbies is great for American defense contractors, security think tanks, and the American economy as a whole, at least in the short-term. You know, war actually still is a racket. This puts antiwar nationalism at a huge handicap.
3. Most pro-interventionist arguments by the foreign policy establishment today adopt the neo-con false and selective moralism of “good guys” vs “bad guys” and that “moral clarity” should override concern about international law or norms or long-term strategic interest: The good guys have a moral imperative to simply do what they must. This tends to resonate with Americans already. Why yield the moral high ground to the warmongers?
We tried this. Antiwar.com and libertarians WERE part of the anti-Iraq War movement. So much so that Ron Paul largely ran his campaigns by leaning hard on anti-interventionism, which attracted people across the spectrum. What did we get for this? Eventually he and others like him turned into the loons calling Obama a Socialist, and red-baiting everything left of center.
Simply put, the complete schism between public opinion and public policy has made antiwar organizing almost pointless. It is much easier to galvanize people to vote on what are considered "domestic" issues. And on those matters, there's no nexus for organizing with the right.
Murtaza, you wrote about US conservatives: "appealing to them on the basis of their national identity and interests is an obvious way to get them to support or oppose a given policy. "
What could be more a part of the national identity than "liberty and justice for all"? What could be more opposed to it than ethnic cleansing and apartheid? yet we have just seen full out support by our President for the slaughter in Gaza, putting Zionism first even at the risk of having Americans die to defend it.
Supporters of Israel appear at the current campus demonstrations waving, at the same time, American and Israeli flags. What could be more contradictory, particularly in view of the fact that Jews in America are fully accepted citizens with full rights but have the unique ability to go to Palestine and take land from people with no rights whatsoever? Jews in America have found success in every field and at all levels right up to the top and that is fine. What is not fine is demanding a place on the other side of the world exclusively for Jews with full on eviction and unlimited killing of the natives.
If this blatant, flagrant contradiction presents no problem to conservatives then what hope is there for your proposals? No less a champion for individual rights than Ben Shapiro, who has become wealthy promoting that, has completely capitulated in favor of going after Americans who are exercising those rights to oppose Israel, a foreign country.
Interesting argument, although I am not sure I agree with all it. I’m not convinced that it really is the crux of the issue as opposed to general apathy. However, as a non-American not living in America I have often thought that one of the problem with these protests is that they tend to be dominated by whichever particular group is more directly impacted and then your forever protesting Lenin-Trotskystes types. It’s why I make a point of dressing well, whether in my more business clothes or weekend wear.
I have similar memories and anguish of the 2003 failed antiwar movement (I was a grad student at Berkeley during 9/11, Iraq War, and 2nd intifada days) and see a lot of uncomfortable parallels to today’s youth movement and it’s inefficacy against the Gaza War.
I think the antiwar left should pragmatically look for alliances and embrace a range of arguments that are likely be persuasive to as large and diverse an audience as possible. However I am skeptical of this idea of embracing a kind of nationalistic framing of the antiwar position for a few reasons.
1. in this cynical age, sincerity matters. As a left-liberal dove, my anti-interventionist stance comes from a belief in justice, righteousness, against the moral hideousness of endless war, hatred of cynicism and corrupt power-concentrated militarist ideologies, and respect for the rule of law. I am likely to be more persuasive when I make my case accordingly rather than just adopting a contrived “peace is patriotic” stance.
2. Promoting endless wars, mega arms sales to Gulf oil tyrants, and catering to foreign lobbies is great for American defense contractors, security think tanks, and the American economy as a whole, at least in the short-term. You know, war actually still is a racket. This puts antiwar nationalism at a huge handicap.
3. Most pro-interventionist arguments by the foreign policy establishment today adopt the neo-con false and selective moralism of “good guys” vs “bad guys” and that “moral clarity” should override concern about international law or norms or long-term strategic interest: The good guys have a moral imperative to simply do what they must. This tends to resonate with Americans already. Why yield the moral high ground to the warmongers?