EXPLOITING THE 'PERPETUAL PEACE' MOVEMENT
by Thomas M. Sipos, managing editor.
[April 8, 2007]
[HollywoodInvestigator.com] In 1984 Orwell observed that the State uses war to rally unquestioning support
for its policies. Thus 1984's
three States sought perpetual war.
Yet it occurs to me that
the opposite is also true. Some people hope to benefit from a peace
movement. And if so, surely they have an incentive to desire a perpetual
peace movement -- which can only be achieved through perpetual war.
It does seem that various
elements of the Left are less interested in stopping the war than in exploiting
the peace movement. Voters
for Peace wants to unite the peace and "climate change" movements. But that's no way to build an antiwar coalition. A "coalition" is
a union of disparate groups around a single issue.
introduce other "progressive" issues, you drive away libertarians and conservatives
who oppose the war, but who disagree with the "climate change" crowd.
book at Amazon.com!
the Left more interested in building a large antiwar movement (the best
way to stop the war), or is it more interested in exploiting the
antiwar movement as a recruiting drive for its other efforts?
writes that United for Peace and Justice is preventing
Libertarians and Greens from speaking at their rallies, so as to curry
favor with the Democrats. Again, is the peace movement to be a broad
coalition that can effectively stop the war, or is it to be a subsidiary
of the Democratic Party, to be used to co-opt voters for the "antiwar"
pine for 9/11. Much as they may regret the tragedy of that day, I
sense from reading their posts and blogs that a dark side within many "conservatives"
misses those feelings of national unity, everyone rallying around Republican
leaders, flags everywhere. Heady days. It's not something they
dare admit even to themselves, but yes, many "conservatives" do miss 9/11. (See Sorry,
Haters for an interesting indie film about a disturbed woman who misses
"progressives" any better? I think not. I suspect that many
of them pine for the 1960s peace movement, which they owned, and jealously
want to own again. They don't want their precious and fun-filled
peace movement spoiled by the presence of libertarians and conservatives,
however helpful the latter groups may be in shortening the war.
else progressives dare not admit to themselves: a fun-filled antiwar movement
requires a war. So for "progressives" to enjoy the 1960s (whether
to relive it, or for the first time), the war must continue. A perpetual
peace movement requires a perpetual war.
pick on conservatives and progressives? I've met libertarians, both
pro- and antiwar, with ulterior motives. I know one Libertarian Party
officer who quietly supported the war (refusing to oppose it when I twice
confronted him in 2002). But by 2004, when the war was a done deal,
and he saw that his prospects in the Party were best served by spinning
himself as antiwar, he began to sell himself as an antiwar leader.
I also know of pro-war libertarians who hope to curry favor with the Republicans. These pro-war libertarians are sell-outs, but they are more pathetic than
Republican or Democratic sell-outs, who at least sell out for real power. What can one say of Libertarians who sell their "sacred honor" for crumbs
from the table? For an invite to a beltway party, or for a nice mention
from some celebrity pundit or politician? Such Libertarians not only
sell out, they sell out cheap.
there are people across the political spectrum exploiting the war/antiwar
issues for their own ulterior motives.
suggestion: those who sincerely oppose the war should set aside extraneous
issues (like "climate change") and focus on building alliances with anyone
of any ideology who opposes the war.
Copyright © 2007 by HollywoodInvestigator.com.
Tell Us What YOU Think! -- On Our Message