If one looks back on all the articles written on the peace movement in the past, it becomes obvious that what Ritter writes is unfortunately true. My own experiences affirm what he says.
In his article posted on Alternet.org titled, “The Art of War in the Antiwar Movement,” Ritter describes the peace movement as “poorly organized, chaotic, and indeed often an anarchic conglomeration of egos, pet projects, and idealism that barely constitutes a “movement” let alone a winning cause.” He adds that in the eyes of the media too often the movement shows a “lack of preparation and grasp of facts.” And with the way it desires to operate horizontally rather than with a vertical structure that may be deemed by the peace movement as “hierarchal” or “bureaucratic”, the movement, according to Ritter, “operates as little more than controlled chaos creating ample opportunity for the pro-war movement to effectively execute a divide-and-conquer strategy to minimize and nullify” the effectiveness and momentum of the movement.
My experience within the antiwar movement is that there is no division of labor and if the thought of establishing a division of labor is brought up, nobody is willing to organize it. Every action is hectically pieced together with a few individuals baring the brunt of the work. Lack of organization essentially means that there is no way of outmaneuvering the pro-war movement, which members of the peace movement desire to defeat.
We have a huge problem not so much with egos but with idealism. The idealism is like that of ANSWER and it produces disagreement with groups like United for Peace and Justice who wish to work within the confines of our democracy and focus on lobbying leaders in government to end the war. Bitter disagreement between radical elements of the peace movement greatly hinder the peace movement's effectiveness and momentum.
Ritter describes his experience with antiwar demonstrations as something “exclusive of the vast majority of moderate (and even conservative) Americans who might have wanted to share the stage with their fellow Americans from the Left.” To him, every demonstration he attends often seems like every left-wing cause is taking advantage of the event to promote a particular agenda, which means “Bring the Troops Home Now” shares the stage with environment, ecology, animal rights, pro-choice, and numerous other causes that dilute the antiwar message. Like Ritter, I too have observed the lack of clarity in delivery that results from the problem of idealism.
All of these peace groups with communist, socialist, progressive, libertarian, and anarchist backgrounds are damaging to the goal of a world that rejects war as an instrument of policy because communism, socialism, progressivism, libertarianism, anarchism, and all of these –isms create animosity in the minds of Americans who just want to speak out on war and not have to be asked to change their political mindset. To fight for peace as a way of promoting a party is to say that another party could not be pro-peace and will cause others to defend their pro-war values even more.
Primarily, the peace movement consists of progressive groups, which understandable because the rise to power over the past three or four decades has been led by a handful of pro-war Americans looking to control the world and do what’s in America’s “interest.” So, it makes sense that the opposition to the pro-war ideology in America would come from progressives within the Democratic Party or more inclusively, the Left. But, recently in the past year, with the surge of Ron Paul supporters who support his rejection of the Iraq war, progressives have ignored and in fact denied the right of his supporters to speak out for peace on the same level as they do.
Why might that be?
The peace movement has been unable to look past Ron Paul’s domestic policies and attitude towards abortion to pursue the goal they are fighting for: a rejection of war. In World Can’t Wait in particular, several members are outraged at the thought of voting for Paul because of what may happen. Their fear shows their incapacity to realize how powerful the pro-choice movement in America is. This outrage at Paul is testament to the fact that the antiwar movement is so prone to having its focus diluted.
The failure of the peace movement to capitalize off of Ron Paul’s insurgent candidacy may be the biggest failure in the past year (outside of the fact that Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel presented them strategic opportunities that they scrounged). Ron Paul has lasted up until this point and will continue on even if his campaign is small. In the name of ending the war, the peace movement could have thrown their support to him instead of supporting the popular ideology in America that we need to elect a Democrat that is capable of leading this war like Obama or Clinton. (Note that Ron Paul would cut military spending and close several bases around the world while Obama and Clinton would not.)
Strategies and tactics have been botched severely. Part III will cover some tips and perhaps expand more on the success and failure of the peace movement. Thank you, Scott Ritter, for producing such a magnificent book to help me address the peace movement. I and the peace movement are not worthy.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
