Thoughts on Obama and the Zimmerman Acquital

Myopic Outrage At A Clear Injustice: In the Aftermath of the Zimmerman Verdict by Steve Clemens. 7/15/13

[Disclaimer: As a white male it is virtually impossible for me to fully understand and appreciate the burden of being a black male in this society. Even though I’ve been arrested and in jail and prison, lived in the inner city and rural South, I can only approximate what that experience is because I was always a phone call away from “connections” to the world of privilege and (somewhat limited) power – unlike Travyon Martin and others like him.]

It was a Facebook posting by a friend of mine, quoting President Obama after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the slaying of a young black man in Sanford, Florida that got me riled up.

"The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin." - President Obama

Somehow listening to one of the most egregious law-breakers in the history of the Presidency (a "kill list", refusal to prosecute under the Convention Against Torture Treaty, blatant disregard of eavesdropping restrictions, continued operation of GITMO and hundreds of CIA black sites, .... – the list could go on ad nauseum) say we are a "nation of laws" makes me ill. To add "a jury has spoken" without referencing the inherent racism of our present judicial system that so clearly favors the wealthy and powerful makes his statement inane. Coming from a former Constitutional law professor, it seems clear that power has corrupted and absolute power has corrupted absolutely. So forgive me if I can't appreciate words from this man, however honorable his intent might have been.

Reflection, while necessary is not to be confused with restitution or reparations. Calm reflection? How about heated and angry reflection if we can truly understand that Trayvon could have been our son or daughter? I suspect that the President could draw on his own background; even while basking in the privilege of Harvard I’m sure the color of his skin and texture of his hair led some of his classmates (and maybe a few of his professors) to respond to him differently than the white majority. I know my own white privilege and well-educated male status has both protected and perverted my understanding of the realities of the Trayvons and others who are routinely profiled – and worse – threatened and attacked. If the jury verdict can’t even approach justice for the life of a 17-year-old, it will be a much longer time before restitution will ever be considered in that courtroom.

Yet, standing in the crowd gathered outside the Hennepin County Government Center this evening I was uncomfortable with the chanting: “What do we Want”? “Justice!” is the reply elicited. “When do we want It”? “Now!” is the response. But when the chant leader asks the crowd, “Who do we want it for”?, the crowd is encouraged to shout out “Trayvon” and/or “Terrence” (referring to Terrence Franklin, the young black man recently shot five times in the head and twice in the black by two Minneapolis police officers who have yet to be charged while the police “investigate” themselves.) I want to respond instead with “Everybody”. Justice for Travyon and Terrence? Yes! But also for many, many others.

The verdict in Florida was not a shock for someone who has lived in the Deep South for 16 years before moving to Minnesota - especially since I’ve been reading Glenn Greenwald’s excellent-but-disturbing book, And Justice For Some. The double standards and outright hypocrisy of our judicial system and the fawning defense of it by the corporate media have most often led to one standard for the elites and another standard for the rest of us. And that is for most of us in the 99%, both blacks and whites, and peoples of other hues as well. When coupled with the deep embedded racism within all American institutions (remembering the absurd voting rights decision of the Supreme Court less than a month ago), there is little “justice” one can expect in court.

Maybe in sensing the grief and pain of Travyon’s (and Terrence’s) parents, our Commander-in-Chief might also “reflect” on the parents of the children and youngsters blown to kingdom-come by the drones which have become the beloved instrument of choice for the former law professor who seems to wish to forgo even the formalities of a day in court for the accused if they are Arabic-speaking Muslims.

Yes, the President is right that this verdict could very well enflame racial tensions and hatreds. Asking Americans to reflect rather than just react is probably the right course of action. Yet despite having an African-American Attorney General and a biracial President, the past five years haven’t seen the gross racial disparities in our prison system change and the egregious corruption, unpunished, of Wall Street and the too-big-to-fail banks that disproportionally victimized the poor and people of color. When is the venting of outrage appropriate?

As the elites see more and more evidence that the empire is collapsing around us, they are rightly concerned that many of us will rise up and demand a change; a change many were conned into believing would come with a vote for this biracial President. Hope for change flared once again with the Occupy movement. Will this Zimmerman verdict spark a demand for deeper change? Not likely unless many of the 99% realize that most of us are Travyon Martin in this story. The “Stand Your Ground” laws and the property laws weren’t promulgated for your benefit or defense but rather to keep on-track this economic system which demands winners and losers, rewards greed, and keeps us divided. No wonder Catholic Worker co-founder Dorothy Day called it a “filthy, rotten system.”

I know if feels insensitive to my black friends to say this but George Zimmerman is also a victim in this tragedy. Yes, a perpetrator can also be a victim, even if to a lesser degree. If we are left to fight over the scraps that fall from the abundantly-laden tables of the elites, there will be a lot of pushing and shoving in the competition to grab what is left or discarded.

Greenwald’s penultimate paragraph of And Justice For Some helps sum it up: “ At some point, serious social unrest is the inevitable result when a population is forced to suffer mass joblessness and deprivations of every kind while it sees a tiny sliver of elites enjoying gilded prosperity; when ordinary people are threatened with imprisonment for petty offenses while they see elites illegally spying, invading, torturing, and plundering with near total impunity. Such a two-tiered setup is simple unsustainable.” [It is no accident that whistle-blower Edward Snowden sought out Greenwald with the revelations and details of massive eaves-dropping by our government on its own citizens and most of the rest of the world as well.]

Who knows how President Obama really feels about the verdict? Unless there is a radical reordering of present policies, who cares? He is more likely interested in maintaining a status quo that ensures his elite position than raising questions which might lead to more than calm [and necessarily shallow] reflection.

Regrets? I Have a Few

Regrets? I Have a Few by Steve Clemens. November 16, 2008

It is now almost two weeks since the landmark political tsunami of the Obama election occurred. I think the fact that my working as an election judge until past 11PM on Election Day might be one reason for my obtuseness. I didn’t get to see the images on the widescreen TV from Chicago where a quarter-million or more had gathered in Grant Park to await their hero/leader, the President-elect. I missed the iconic image of Jesse Jackson standing near the platform with tears running down his face. It was the same Jesse who stood over the body of his slain mentor, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., forty years before. Was this at least a partial vindication of Martin’s dream?

I didn’t see that image live –I saw it replayed the next day or two along with the video of Oprah standing in the crowd, her head buried for a time on the shoulder of a man she never met before - a billionaire, standing among the “hoi polloi”, the common folk, awaiting the appearance of Barack, Michelle, and the Obama children.

I should have known. After all, his best-selling Autobiography was entitled The Audacity of Hope. This hope that garnered nearly 63 million votes on November 4, 2008 was audacious all right! Some people merely wanted a change after being tired of fear, isolation, and a culture of greed gone bankrupt. But others voted with HOPE, an audacious hope that America might regain some of the “innocence” lost or squandered over the past eight years.

The HOPE of still others -who never were distracted by the fairy tales of the culture which spun such naïve claims of “innocence” for a nation whose history reeked from the stench of genocide of indigenous peoples, the enslavement of others, wars of conquest and aggression against Spanish-speaking neighbors and those in islands across the Pacific – was more historically grounded. It remembered the country responsible for war-time internment and later the use of the nuclear bomb against those of Asian ancestry. The list of offenses that any empire leaves in its wake could fill this page. But, despite knowing this shameful past, some still went to the polls the first Tuesday in November thinking “I’m gonna vote for HOPE”.

For some, Obama was the embodiment of the change. His multiracial and multicultural past was a central part of that symbolism. For others, Obama was primarily an imperfect vessel who might be a figurehead for a movement which was clearly more progressive than he was willing to be as a candidate. At least in Obama, a fresh face on the political scene, there could be a politician who might listen and practice a politics of humility and inclusiveness.

It took me several days and experiences before recognizing the powerful explosion of HOPE that erupted all over the world at 10 PM CST when the TV commentators declared Barack Obama as America’s 44th President-elect. Demonstrations happened worldwide. People danced in the streets. Parents named newborns after the electoral winner. Having arrived home too late to watch the returns, and, working so hard that day that I decided to sleep in the next morning rather than attend the weekly Alliant Tech vigil, I processed most of the election results privately.

My first inkling of the HOPE revolution came with our Minnesota Peace Team meeting on Thursday. It was confirmed at the gathering at St. Joan of Arc Church on Sunday to hear John Dear and again that evening with my own faith community, the Community of St. Martin. Everyone wanted to celebrate and talk about what a hopeful moment this was! Same thing happened at my Sabbath Economics group circle on Monday evening and at the Vets for Peace gathering for the Armistice Day remembrance a week after the election. It seemed everyone was expressing their hope and optimism – even though it was still “guarded optimism” from some. The Alliant Tech vigil a week after the election results continued this theme. Here were some hard-core activists, some I knew shared my skepticism about Obama’s campaign positions, especially on military spending, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine, the death penalty, … the list could go on. But still, the over-all atmosphere of HOPE.

Thursday evening I attended an anti-racism lecture by Victor Lewis. He positively glowed as he danced, pranced, and sang at the beginning of the talk –celebrating the incredible events of the past week. Over and over people said, “I never believed I would see this in my lifetime! I knew it would happen eventually, but so soon?” So soon? We’ve been in the wilderness the past 40 years after our cultural prophet was slain. And Barack is no Martin.

What is audacious to me is thinking that this change might happen with somebody so middle-of-the-road politically as Barack Obama. I was expecting and dreaming of a prophetic voice like that of Dr. King to move the masses. Yet I heard African-American fathers talk about how they could now honestly tell their sons and daughters, “You can aspire to any position you want!” Somehow, by not talking about race, not talking about class, discrimination, and other injustices, people have HOPE for CHANGE. Obama may not be the embodiment but at least he is the messenger.

I’m saddened that I failed to see the depth of the political symbolism of HOPE the Obama campaign obviously engendered. Oh, I saw the importance of the symbolism worldwide of a multicultural person as the titular head of government – so often referred to as “the most powerful person in the world”. The U.S. President may be –in that he nominally controls the deadliest arsenal of military weapons. But, as the world so clearly sees now, our lame-duck emperor has no clothes and very little political or persuasive power. Even John McCain shied away from his embrace during his campaign.

Who is “the most powerful person in the world” today? It might be Obama in that he has captured the imaginations around the globe of new possibilities. It might be Nelson Mandela or the Dali Lama. Military power is only one type of power; the power to stir the imagination and mobilize people is clearly another. Fear is a powerful motivator – but has it met its match with HOPE?

Two weeks ago I thought the symbolism of my vote for a Lebanese-American, Ralph Nader, also could send a powerful message of supporting a person of Middle-East descent as my President. I didn’t have any illusions that he could win the election but felt that his positions most clearly meshed with mine. But I failed to fully comprehend the wellspring of HOPE that Obama’s election would generate. Oh, there is plenty of work to do – we must pressure Obama to do the right thing in many areas. I don’t have the illusion that he is even a progressive – despite the McCain mantra that “Obama is the most liberal person in the Senate”. If true, we are really in trouble. But “HOPE springs eternal”.

May the HOPE engendered in this election be embodied in both “our physical bodies and the body politic” as my friend Ched Myers describes the call of the nonviolent, activist Jesus. When Jesus healed individuals, he also addressed the politic/social injustice that oppressed them as well. May it be that kind of HOPE that we embrace.

You Can Blame Me: My Vote in 2008

You Can Blame Me: My Vote in 2008 by Steve Clemens. Election Day +2, 2008

If Al Franken fails to surpass Norm Coleman in votes after the state-mandated recount in the next several weeks and Norm is sworn in for another 6-year term, I guess you can “blame me”. I just couldn’t justify filling in the oval before his name on the ballot. No, I didn’t completely lose my mind or my conscience and vote for Norm Coleman! Nor did I succumb to the tempting “a pox on both your houses” for such a plethora of disgusting negative adds by the Franken and Coleman camps by supporting the libertarian ideas embodied by Independent candidate Dean Barkley.

I don’t like voting against others. When given a choice, I prefer to vote for what I want - rather than against others. So I wrote in Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer for Senate. None of the candidates whose names appeared on the final ballot have laid out policies and ideas that take seriously the environmental and economic crisis that awaits us if we fail to rapidly address climate change challenges that Jack’s campaign chose to tackle head-on. None of the other candidates addressed the need to drastically cut military spending by significant amounts (50%, for starters) if we wish to reject American exceptionalism and imperial claims.

This Senate vote was an easier one for me despite the projected closeness of the race due to the personal nastiness of the Franken campaign during the DFL caucus and endorsement process. My vote for President, however, caused me much more anguish. During the primaries and most of the general election campaign (after Kucinich and Edwards dropped out), I wanted Obama to prevail over the policies and record of Senator Clinton – but I was clear that Ralph Nader would once again get my vote as in 2000 and 2004.

I started to vacillate after hearing Tom Hayden explain his support for Obama despite many of the positions taken in debates and on the campaign trail. At one point even icons such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn advocated voting for Obama with the proviso of doing so without any illusions about the real nature of his positions and our need to continue to pressure him to change policy once elected. Zinn later recanted and advocated only supporting Obama in close swing states but to support Nader in states where the vote would not likely to be close.

An extra dilemma in this campaign is the dreaded “Bradley effect” – the notion that the public opinion polls won’t accurately reflect the deep-seated racism in some people who won’t admit they won’t ever vote for a person of color but can’t overcome that bias when marking their ballot. Should I cast my ballot for this person of color even if I don’t agree with some of his crucial positions to “correct” for the racial bias in our society?

So, about a week before the election, I had decided to reluctantly vote for Obama – to choose the possibility of “hope” and “change” that might go beyond the limits of a campaign where candidates vie for “centrist” positions. Obama at least might listen and consider progressive positions once elected. At least there is that possibility of hope. But, to assuage my conscience, I felt I also needed to write to him about some of the important areas where we parted ways so he wouldn’t take my vote as a carte-blanch endorsement of his campaign and policies. Here is what I started to write:

Open Letter To Barack Obama: My Vote in 2008 by Steve Clemens

Only twice in the nine Presidential elections of my adult life have I marked my ballot for a candidate of one of the two major political parties. I lived in Massachusetts in 1972 so I voted with the majority when George McGovern carried that state as his only electoral victory. The other time was after eight straight years of “Ronnie the Popular” with wars still raging in Central America; I felt to elect the former head of the CIA who had served as the Vice President during those years was too much. Even though I detested the vacillations and compromises of Michael Dukakis, and thought his ridiculous posing in a tank to show he was not “soft” on national defense was pandering, I voted for him primarily in opposition to his main party opponent. To help assuage my conscience, I also wrote him a letter attempting to clearly spell out to him what my vote was NOT endorsing in his platform and campaign “promises”.

And so, Senator Obama, I feel the need to share with you why I will (with hesitation but also hope) cast my ballot for you to serve as our 44th President. It is not an easy decision for me. While I feel the symbolism of your election would have tremendous benefits for our national reputation and relationships around the world, I’m very concerned that some of the positions you have taken to secure your electoral victory do not signal the changes (or continuations) I wish to see.

I would love to see the titular head of our government represent the growing diversity and multiculturalism of the USA. It is also important that the electorate send a clear message of the wrongness of our on-going war on and occupation of Iraq. Your opposition to the war plans back in 2002 are noted and appreciated by many of us in the peace community. However, your announced desire to increase military personnel in Afghanistan makes me seriously question both your judgment and analysis of the misguided “War on Terror”. There are no military solutions to genuine security and justice concerns throughout the Middle East and particularly Afghanistan. It is not a helpful response to fight terror with terror and the record of killing civilians in Afghanistan by our bombing attacks will continue to be counterproductive.

Your equivocation on the death penalty disturbs me. The entire world looks at our criminal justice system as deeply flawed by the racism evident in its world-record (per capita) prison population. We need clear, principled leadership from all our main branches of government to change these regressive and demoralizing policies that most other governments around the world already have done so.

I am deeply concerned about the nature and design of the massive economic bailout of Wall Street …

I planned to finish writing this on Election Day. But the night before, a friend who is an election judge asked me if I could help him out by working at a polling place with him as a deputy election judge. I felt it was my civic duty and ended up working more than 15 hours, thus failing to have the time to write to/about Obama before he was declared the President-elect.

The specter of past campaigns came to haunt that decision to vote for Obama. I got an email from the Nader campaign that Ralph would be interrupting my plans to hand out goodies to the neighborhood kids on Halloween night by speaking nearby at the University of MN. Although Obama has a book called The Audacity of Hope, it is really practiced by Nader - when his campaign asked for a $10 “donation” ($5 for students) to attend his speech! I guess when you aren’t raising hundreds of millions like Obama, and you aren’t likely to get any donations from Wall Street or corporate tycoons, and you get shut out of the national TV debates, you need to pay the bills somehow.

Ralph Nader doesn’t have the charisma or eloquence of Barack Obama. But he is very clear about his analysis of our present situation and the need for our political leaders to address it honestly without pandering or caving in to the wealthy corporate interest groups. It is more important that my vote reflect my convictions than merely be an expression of “hope” that this politician might change. Is the analogy similar to the woman who marries hoping to “change” her husband down the road? Why not find the right partner who can grow with you rather than always feel the need to change them?

Many observers commented about “fear” as an issue in recent American political campaigns. I decided I couldn’t let fear of a Bradley effect or a McCain win affect my vote any more than “fear” of “terrorists”, “immigrants”, “gay marriage”, or other issues that might affect other voters. Even “fear” of a Sarah Palin presidency should a cancer-ridden John McCain not survive a full term is still a vote out of fear rather than conviction.

That Halloween night, I decided to cast my ballot for the Nader/Gonzales ticket. I say this somewhat confessionally. There are many good reasons why almost all of my close friends voted for Obama (and probably Franken as well). I don’t sit in judgment on them and their reasons to do so. Frankly, the decision was easier for me because it became apparent in the last month of the campaign that Obama would easily carry the electoral votes in Minnesota – thus giving me the “luxury” of favoring my conscience over the expediency of trying to keep McCain out of the White House.

Had I finished my letter to Obama, I would have addressed core issues for me in the political realm: War and “defense”- what makes us more “secure” and what threatens our “security”, Wealth & poverty- care for the marginalized, Healthcare and the need for a single-payer/universal coverage system, Human rights, Environment, …

What I will commit to is to continue to work for creating political space (an opening) for progressive change by doing my day-to-day work of nonviolent direct action, educating myself and my neighbors and fellow citizens about issues confronting us, trying to give a voice to and on behalf of the poor and marginalized. My vote on Election Day is less significant than what I do on behalf of my nation, our citizens, and our world the other 364 days of the year. If we create the political space, maybe courageous politicians will arise to embody our values and convictions. And, someday, maybe we can elect them! In the meantime, we have to continue our work.

Obama's "Problem" With William Ayers

Obama’s “Problem” with William Ayers. By Steve Clemens. October 11, 2008

Recently the Presidential campaign of 2008 has taken a nasty turn. As the McCain/Palin ticket continues to fall behind to the Democratic team of Obama/Biden, allegations are flying to discredit Obama. Some of this is not new. Even during a spirited Democratic primary campaign, pictures of Obama in traditional Kenyan dress were posted to imply this candidate was Muslim - as if that were automatically a dirty term. Rumors that Obama attended a madrassa for school in Indonesia were floated to further the “smear” that our first bi-racial major party candidate was in league with “terrorists”.

Now, Sarah Palin, on the defensive for her pathetic performance in an interview with CBS’ Katie Couric, has claimed a close relationship between Obama and former Weatherman radical, William Ayers. Even though Ayers is now a respected professor in Chicago, his past leadership in a violent, radical, anti-war group in the 60s has provided new ways to link Obama to “terrorists” because Ayers held a fundraiser for Obama more than 13 years ago!

I don’t wish to defend the political actions used by the Weathermen group that split off from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) over a disagreement with tactics. As the Vietnam War continued on and on with the resulting deaths of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese, the Weathermen movement sought to bring some of the costs of the war “home”. They planted bombs in buildings and caused several deaths and much fear in some circles. While Ayers is routinely castigated for actions taken 40 years ago, John McCain is lionized for his.

Do we need to take another, more critical look at this “national hero”? Why was John McCain held as a Prisoner of War for more than five years? What had he been doing before he was “captured”? As a US Navy pilot, McCain flew many bombing raids over the capitol city of North Vietnam, Hanoi. Dropping bombs from an airplane –even if the targets are considered “military” when located in a very populous city – will inevitably kill “civilians” or other “non-combatants”. Although this practice has continued since the end of World War I, aerial bombardment clearly violates International Law of War restrictions on the use of weapons that are “indiscriminate”.

We don’t know if McCain’s planes also dropped napalm or Agent Orange. We do know that he is responsible for much more destruction and death than William Ayers. But because he was wearing a uniform at the time, does that obviate the need for critical analysis? Was the Vietnam War a “just war”? It certainly wasn’t a declared war by the Congress even though most members continued to fund it with young men and money. Even in a so-called “just war”, there clearly are actions that are morally impermissible. Would dropping bombs on a city fail such a test?

Make no mistake; some of the actions John McCain took as a prisoner of war were heroic – even if the circumstances of capture were the result of criminal acts. While he must be held accountable for his own actions, certainly those political and military leaders directing the policy and execution of that war are more complicit. Now that John McCain is a US Senator and a loud proponent of the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he is more culpable for the bombing of civilians that are happening every week in both those wars – even though the mainstream media refuses to cover it. But the McCain campaign ads slam Barack Obama for criticizing “our troops” when he condemned some of the killing of civilians in Afghanistan.

I don’t know if Ayers has “repented” for some of his anti-war tactics and actions back in the 60s. The neighborhood organizing and other political and community-building work he has done more recently demonstrate at least a change of tactics if not a change of heart. Can we say the same of McCain? Who is the present supporter of “terrorism”?

Anti-War Icon Visits the Twin Cities

Tom Hayden At Metro State. October 8, 2008 by Steve Clemens

Speaking without a microphone, clearly tired from five previous speaking engagements that day, an anti-war icon from the 60’s clearly engaged a predominately college-aged audience in St. Paul. A founder of Students For a Democratic Society (SDS), co-defendant in the classic trial against political dissent, The Chicago 8 (or 7 after the racist Judge, Julius Hoffman, bound and gagged Black Panther leader, Bobby Seale, and then removed him from the courtroom), former California state legislator, and author, Tom Hayden is travelling the country helping build a movement to hold our next President accountable.

Hayden clearly supports and expects Barack Obama to be elected as our new President a month from now. But the way he started his address Wednesday evening at Metro State startled me. Having cut his political activist teeth in the deeply segregated South in the late 50’s and early 60’s, Tom Hayden announced that 50-60 years ago we never could have imagined where we are today. Well into the struggle for Civil Rights, it was illegal to even conceive Barack Obama. It was against the law in several states for inter-racial marriage; now we are on the threshold of electing a mixed-race politician to the highest office in the land!

Even though Hayden has endorsed and is working diligently for Obama’s election, he was frank (if understanding) about his differences with the campaign and his candidate’s positions. He scoffed at Obama’s bluster about tracking down Bin Laden by increasing troop strength in Afghanistan and putting military and diplomatic pressure on Pakistan. Hayden believes there is no way the U.S. can win militarily in either country as the British learned so graphically over the past two centuries.

Make no mistake, Hayden thinks Al Qaeda is a threat to both the U.S. and Europe – but our present strategy of killing others to try to decapitate their leadership has only increased the number of recruits for that movement. Instead of “treating them [Afghanis, Pakis, Al Qaeda] as evil incarnate”, we need to explore what are their grievances? Yes, the occupation of Palestinian areas by Israel is a factor; so is having U.S. troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. But why do so many Afghanis and Pakis hate us? Hayden pointed out that U.S. foreign (non-military) aid is less than one-half the amount today than when JFK was President. In referring to the notorious Bin Laden, Hayden claimed, “You don’t have to be in a cave to plot attacks on the U.S.” and went on to say that such attacks can come from anywhere- even from someone in this auditorium!

Hayden described the Machiavellian tendency of politicians doing “whatever needs to be done” to maintain incumbency (be reelected). He used the analogy of a military commander in battle – if one sees their right flank as being exposed or vulnerable, you move more troops to that side. Obama ran as a clear anti-Iraq War candidate but in running against John McCain, he needs to “shore-up” any vulnerabilities he may have on his right flank. We should not expect Obama to take some of the positions those on the political left want him to with only one month to go until the voting. But what Obama will need after the election is a strong progressive movement to steer him and his policies toward a more progressive agenda.

President Franklin Roosevelt ran as a fiscal conservative but labor unions and other strong voices for change pushed him to make policy changes that became the New Deal. Lincoln did not run on a platform calling for the end of slavery but the abolitionist movement pressured him to change his position. It becomes our task to push, encourage, and demand that Obama reassess his announced strategy of more military troops in Afghanistan. Obama already knows the inherent unfairness and corporate bias of NAFTA and other “Free Trade” agreements – but the progressive forces need to urge President Obama to renegotiate trade agreements so that more than just investor profit is considered – like environmental protection, labor and civil rights, and the will of the people over rapacious global corporations.

Hayden described the collapse of “finance capitalism” that has been manifest in the past several weeks as a huge challenge facing us. We are like dinosaurs, he claimed, looking at the extinction of much of our society if we don’t find creative remedies. We need another New Deal and we will have to democratize these economic discussions. We can’t expect those “experts” who got us into this mess to decide our way out. We will need real oversight of whatever is put into place and find who is qualified to do it? We need to get money flowing again quickly –How can we do that? Hayden suggested an immediate cut by one-half of the Iraq War budget to free up $80 billion and closing of the Bush-created tax loopholes for the rich and corporations to get another $80 billion freed up. Then we use that money to relieve the foreclosure crisis by renegotiating the home mortgages which threaten so many families. Hayden reminded his college-age audience, “This is about the affordability of your future.”

We can’t wait until the third week in January to begin this process, Hayden concluded. “Obama must start planning how to address this crisis on November 5th and sit down with President Bush to have policies in place before the inauguration. And we in the peace and progressive movements will have our work cut out for us in holding that new and necessary vision in front of our new bi-racial President. When questioned about “stolen elections” in Ohio and Florida over the past eight years, Hayden predicted that the most significant problem we’ll face this election is having enough machines and polling places to accommodate the huge numbers of voters who will turn out to support Obama. Then, after the election, we can work to replace the anachronistic Electoral College and other election problems we face. Now is not the time to let up and, although tired, Hayden is ready to continue to contribute to making this a more just and peaceful society.

The Problem with Appeasement.

The Problem with Appeasement
Steve Clemens. May 21, 2008

It has become the all-too-common political slur de jour: any indication that one is willing to sit down and talk with an adversary is painted with the slanderous epithet used to describe British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain acquiescing to the diabolical ambitions of Adolph Hitler – appeasement. Technically, “offering concessions in order to secure peace” is the definition but modern abuse of the term to slander another seems to involve even recognizing the humanity of the other.

When efforts at diplomacy are categorically dismissed as being “weak”, “un-Presidential” or might be construed as too “effeminate”, then the only “weapons” political leaders are left with are the deadly, military ones. Bombast and bluster become backed by bomb blasts and cluster bombs. Today’s political climate doesn’t even allow for the Manifest Destiny swagger of Teddy Roosevelt: “Speak softly but carry a big stick.” Somehow, even speaking softly to one’s adversary is suspect today. Don’t speak to your adversary – only speak at him.

Barack Obama is denounced by President Bush in a speech to the Israeli Parliament as an appeaser for offering to sit down and talk with President Ahmadinejad of Iran. Even Hillary Clinton has to rush out and threaten to “obliterate” Iran rather than to appear weak or effeminate on the campaign trail. Most Americans have finally come to reject Bush’s “shoot first” policy that has resulted in a quagmire in Iraq. But now the demonization that once belonged to Saddam Hussein has now been transferred to the elected Iranian leader and the mainstream (read “corporate”) media and the American public uncritically follow suit. One wonders what the “media” in Iran reports about us.

Although the verbal demonization of the enemy (or “axis of evil”, “rogue state”, or other connotation of sub-humanity applied) is directed primarily at one as the epitome of evil, the militarized response is seldom as restricted. But what’s a little “collateral damage”?

In his powerfully disturbing new book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters (Orbis, 2008), Catholic theologian and peace activist Jim Douglass argues that President Kennedy was targeted for assassination by the military-industrial-intelligence complex because he was willing to explore dialog with Khrushchev and Castro rather than risking the extinction of humankind by unleashing our nuclear arsenal. Although we now have clear evidence that Castro had interest in negotiation (Douglass’ book is carefully footnoted), the killing of the President in 1963 has given us 45 years of on-going failed policy with Cuba. What might have happened if dialog was pursued instead of military and economic threat?

This isn’t a uniquely American problem. Douglass also records the assessment of Khrushchev’s son of his father’s need to keep the secret correspondence between the US President and the Soviet Premier from the prying eyes of the Politburo. Khrushchev ran into the same problem as Kennedy – elements within his own government who thought they had more to lose with peace than war. The chief question arises: who profits from increasing world tensions rather than trying to sit down and resolve differences?

President Eisenhower warned three days before he left office about the undue influence in the corridors of power of “the military industrial complex”. While prescient in recognizing it’s power, he was less knowledgeable of the growing subversive power of the CIA as well as the rise of corporate media and the distortions of the 24 hour news cycle where certain sound bites are drum-beaten over and over into our collective consciousness without any real contextual analysis or historical context.

Psychologists tell us that we’re often unaware of our “shadow” self, the dark side that our adversary sees to which we are often blind. We need the adversary to mirror back to us the image we project. During the Cold War, Americans were quite aware of the (negative) role the Soviets or “red” China played. Now, as we better re-learn our own national history, we can see more clearly some of the brutal, oppressive governments we supported or created to combat the others’ “evil”.

The problem with appeasement is that concessions are needed on both sides of a conflict for there to be peace. When only one side or perspective dominates, the result may appear “peaceful” but it is the enforced “peace” of the Pax Romana or Pax Americana rather than a negotiated settlement. The model which is more helpful in this regard is that of conflict or dispute resolution that is growing as a substitute for older models in the criminal justice field. It is possible that the proper terms should be arbitration instead of appeasement, mediation rather than “missile diplomacy”, dispute resolution rather than “defense” [sic] appropriations, negotiation rather than the nuclear option.

Arbitration, mediation, or conflict resolution takes the first step in recognizing that there is a problem. The “problem” doesn’t have to be between “equals” (one side is often perceived as more powerful than the other) but for there to be a genuine solution, there must be “buy in” from both sides. Politicians who like to slander their opponents with epithets like appeasement aren’t often looking for solutions that result in peace but rather stirring the pot and keeping the conflict going. That is why it is so important to look beyond the conflict to see Who Profits?

The present political system in the U.S. is broken. Scoring points against the opposition has become more important than solving seemingly intractable problems. As long as “We, the people” allow or encourage these dysfunctional partisan attacks to dominate, we will continue the downward spiral of a superpower/empire in decline. While the decline of our “super” status will likely be a good thing for the rest of the world, there is still much good that can be shared with our fellow world citizens if we are willing to also learn and receive from others as equals rather than ones to dominate.

Someone needs to be talking to Iran rather than just threatening. There are genuine differences that must be addressed and hopefully resolved. Like alcoholics on the road to recovery, we need to take the first step and admit we have a problem. The problem with appeasement is the one-sided concession the public has given the politicians who would rather inflame and aggravate than do the hard work of genuine peacemaking. President Carter sitting down with Hamas is a much more helpful model than scapegoating Ahmadinejad.

If we want real peace, all those with a vested interest in the outcome must be invited to the table. The model of restorative justice suggests that all those who are impacted by harms done (or threatened) must be part of the decision-making. All those who might be impacted by potential agreements need to be included. The path to peace means a lot of difficult work. Maybe the real “appeaser” is the politician who panders to the public with sound bites but isn’t willing to invest the time and resources for genuine dialog which could lead to a peaceful resolution.