Page 1 of 4
What Happened to the Anti-War Movement?
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:27 pm
by Zarathustra
Well, we all know the answer: Obama was elected. It turns out that the anti-war movement does not depend as much upon our wars as it does the political party of our President. [Kind of like the pro-union protests in WI for a policy that's almost exactly what Jimmy Carter signed into law for the federal government union employees (and which neither Obama nor his defeated Democrat Congress ever made a move to change).]
From Reason.com:
Even as President Obama maintains close to 50,000 troops in Iraq and continues to escalate and expand the war in Afghanistan, the antiwar movement in America continues to shrink (PDF).
So, what happened?
Reason.tv visited two antiwar protests—one left-leaning, one libertarian—in an attempt to answer that question. Author and historian Thaddeus Russell and Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty also weigh in.
War, it seems, is a bipartisan venture, which is reflected by the fact that Democrats have a favorable view of Obama's foreign policy, despite its remarkable similarity to George W. Bush's foreign policy. And though there have been rumblings of antiwar sentiment from some on the Right, Republicans remain strongly in favor of an interventionist foreign policy.
Although public sentiment is turning against the war in Afghanistan, the always-shifting withdrawal deadlines and the unwillingness to touch defense spending mean that this bipartisan war is likely to continue far into the future.
reason.com/blog/2011/01/20/reasontv-wha ... ned-to-the
The video is worth watching. It documents Obama's numerous broken promises, and the miniscule anti-war protests of today. Proof that it was never about war, but merely politics.
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:37 pm
by sgt.null
are you saying that Obama did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:38 pm
by Hashi Lebwohl
This is what happens when people blindly follow a party or a person.
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:19 pm
by Cail
Obama pronounces "nuclear" correctly. Clearly he's the better president.
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:24 pm
by Savor Dam
Is that what you call a pronounced difference between leaders?
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:26 pm
by Cail
Savor Dam wrote:Is that what you call a pronounced difference between leaders?
I believe so.
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:46 pm
by Vraith
I'm sure the whole "party loyalty" thing has something to do with it...but really, I think it's mostly cuz other issues have taken precedence. Whether they should have or not is another matter.
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:04 pm
by SerScot
Cail,
Cail wrote:Obama pronounces "nuclear" correctly. Clearly he's the better president.
That is a plus. Not that I'm fond of Obama but the habit of pronouncing Nuclear "Nukular" drives me mad. The word is not that difficult.
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:04 pm
by Orlion
Vraith wrote:I'm sure the whole "party loyalty" thing has something to do with it...but really, I think it's mostly cuz other issues have taken precedence. Whether they should have or not is another matter.
That's true. Before hand, we were well enough off to start imposing ourselves into other people's business... now, we're focused on individual matters like gas prices.
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:03 pm
by sgt.null
anything obama does proves him abetter leader. even if it stuff he promised not to do or stuff bsuh did that obama is still doing. because he is just so awesome. makes me feel a thrill down my leg, he does.
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:22 pm
by Zarathustra
Vraith wrote:...I think it's mostly cuz other issues have taken precedence. Whether they should have or not is another matter.
I definitely agee with the last part. If a downturn in the economy is all it takes for anti-war protesters to lose their enthusiasm, then that means that caring about human life is merely a luxury for them, something they only have time for when the unemployment level is below 6%, for instance. However ... with all the unemployment out there, you'd think that people would have *more* time to protest, not less.
Nah, I think it's pure politics. Just like you don't see as many Dems complain about the deficit or the homeless when a Dem is President, even though we have greater deficit and more homeless. It's pure hypocrisy. Just like Gitmo apparently doesn't create terrorism anymore, as they claimed for years.
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:40 pm
by Vraith
Zarathustra wrote:Vraith wrote:...I think it's mostly cuz other issues have taken precedence. Whether they should have or not is another matter.
I definitely agee with the last part. If a downturn in the economy is all it takes for anti-war protesters to lose their enthusiasm, then that means that caring about human life is merely a luxury for them, something they only have time for when the unemployment level is below 6%, for instance. However ... with all the unemployment out there, you'd think that people would have *more* time to protest, not less.
Nah, I think it's pure politics. Just like you don't see as many Dems complain about the deficit or the homeless when a Dem is President, even though we have greater deficit and more homeless. It's pure hypocrisy. Just like Gitmo apparently doesn't create terrorism anymore, as they claimed for years.
A downturn in the economy IS all it takes, not just for the protestors, but the media that covers it, and the politicians who talk about it...a down economy trumps EVERY freakin thing in this country, it's been demonstrated over and over.
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:44 pm
by Kinslaughterer
This is a perception problem. War protests are still occurring. Numerous petitions are stilling being sent to the president for the closing of Gitmo. You just don't hear about it. The Tea Party is the new hip thing so they've stolen the media's attention for the past two years. I get about a dozen emails a week with information about this rally or to sign this petition. It's old news to protest the war.
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:50 pm
by Cail
"Obama Lied, people died" just doesn't sound as catchy, truth be damned.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:59 am
by Zarathustra
Vraith, I understand that a downturn in the economy trumps a war protest in terms of news coverage and public perception (which goes to Kin's point, too), but that's because it effects more people, including those who are not anti-war activists. For the activists themselves, I don't see how a recession turns an activist into someone who stops going to rallies. Kins is right: there are still anti-war rallies. But they only have a fraction of the attendance as they did under Bush (which means it's a lot more than a perception problem, Kins; attendance numbers are objective).
We had an economic downturn under Bush. It took several years for the tax cuts to have an effect and turn the economy around. But the downturn didn't stop the protests under Bush.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:19 am
by Avatar
I think Kins makes a good point...just because coverage has disappeared, doesn't mean nobody is protesting it.
That said, there could be something to the idea that who's in charge makes a difference. The democrats had to toone down opposition, because their pres is doing the same thing as the last one, and the reps didn't protest it when Bush was doing it, so they can't really protest it now...
--A
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:36 am
by Cail
Avatar wrote:I think Kins makes a good point...just because coverage has disappeared, doesn't mean nobody is protesting it.
That said, there could be something to the idea that who's in charge makes a difference. The democrats had to toone down opposition, because their pres is doing the same thing as the last one, and the reps didn't protest it when Bush was doing it, so they can't really protest it now...
That assumes stasis. 8 years ago I was all for both wars. Now, not so much.
And I can tell you that there have been exactly zero major anti-war protests in DC since November, 2008 (the biggest one since then drew about 2,000 people). I have also seen no more than a literal handful of the bongo-playing peaceniks across the street from the White House at any given time since November, 2008. People may still be protesting the war, but they're not doing it in DC.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:14 am
by SerScot
Avatar,
It's frustrating for those of us who don't care for Obama to see the way the most Media sources in the U.S. coddle him.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:15 pm
by Rawedge Rim
Cail wrote:Avatar wrote:I think Kins makes a good point...just because coverage has disappeared, doesn't mean nobody is protesting it.
That said, there could be something to the idea that who's in charge makes a difference. The democrats had to toone down opposition, because their pres is doing the same thing as the last one, and the reps didn't protest it when Bush was doing it, so they can't really protest it now...
That assumes stasis. 8 years ago I was all for both wars. Now, not so much.
And I can tell you that there have been exactly zero major anti-war protests in DC since November, 2008 (the biggest one since then drew about 2,000 people). I have also seen no more than a literal handful of the bongo-playing peaceniks across the street from the White House at any given time since November, 2008. People may still be protesting the war, but they're not doing it in DC.
Whatever happened to "what's her face" who purchased land next to GWB so she could protest the war right next to his property? Where the F**k has she been since the community organizer took office? Same war; what? Different party?
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:36 pm
by Cail