My Sunday post on the content of the anti-war demonstration led to a long discussion with a couple of readers. A lot of good thought went into the comments, and I appreciate them all. Some commenters think that I should be more willing to accept that putting the war into historical perspective, and questioning its legality, are legitimate parts of the anti-war movement. Maybe so, but I want to suggest that they study a few historical leaders to inform their movement. I'll pick one: Abraham Lincoln.
Some of the components of Lincoln's success as a leader were his ability to compromise, to subsume his ego in service of his strategic goals, and to make few permanent enemies. Reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's recent biography, I was struck time and again how he found areas of agreement between himself and others on both sides of the difficult issues of the day, how he refused to question the motives of those with whom he disagreed, and the way he immediately mended fences with those who ended upon the other side of an argument or political contest.
When I compare the way that Lincoln faced the great challenge of his time to the way that the leadership of the anti-war movement has faced theirs, I see a number of differences.
Let's begin with compromise. For Lincoln, it was key. He understood that his power was limited by what the people and their representatives would accept, and acted accordingly. Bold strokes were rare, while carefully calculated moves were common. Lincoln's ability to compromise was based in an exquisitely tuned sense of political realism which helped him to patiently and deliberately reach his ultimate goals.
I see little of Lincoln's ability to compromise in the anti-war movement. Reader Peter described my suggested position as "wishy-washy centrist views that will never stimulate any kind of lasting social change". But the example of Lincoln's leadership shows exactly the opposite. He was able to achieve great social change precisely because he was able to strike a series of compromises between the two factions of the day. His ability to compromise was the key to the lasting social change engendered by his administration.
As for subsuming one's ego in service of political aims, I don't see much of that either. The need to be shown to be right seems to trump the desire to attract a wide variety of supporters. The prime example is the need to drag in issues of US imperialism and the illegality of the war into what should be a simple petition opposing the war. (For those familiar with the history of the time, the position of the anti-war protesters reminds me of Salmon P. Chase.)
As for Lincoln's ability to patch up relations with his rivals, I don't see much reaching out in the rhetoric or actions of the anti-war movement.
The latest polls show that a staggering 70% of adults disapprove of the administration's handling of the Iraq war. Yet the anti-war movement stays at the fringes of our public debate. There's some media coverage, but I don't seem meaningful engagement with anything like 70% of the population. Perhaps the false consciousness of our consumer society is to blame, but I believe that a good part of the explanation is absence of leadership that follows the example of great politicians like Lincoln.
Comments
RC writes "Reader Peter described my suggested position as 'wishy-washy centrist views that will never stimulate any kind of lasting social change.' But the example of Lincoln's leadership shows exactly the opposite. He was able to achieve great social change precisely because he was able to strike a series of compromises between the two factions of the day." I apologize to everyone for any redundancies. I agree with RC, there has to be compromises. it is the only way legislative changes occur in our system. But in the process I believe it is important to incorporate some discussion about international law, history of U.S. intervention, human rights and maybe some media analysis--because if we don't how can we expect people to be aware and vigilant enough to make sure mistakes like the war in Iraq and everything that has happened since the invasion doesn't repeat itself...in say a country like Iran or Syria. The key is how to reach out to people and get them engaged in the conversation without alienating them and creating an atmosphere that is conducive to and welcoming disagreement.
RC goes on to write: "The latest polls show that a staggering 70% of adults disapprove of the administration's handling of the Iraq war. Yet the anti-war movement stays at the fringes of our public debate." I think there are a couple of reasons for this. One is apathy of the general public...which is due to a number of factors, including but not limited to the fact that there is no draft. Another reason is I believe that the anti-war movement is often mis- and under-represented in the mainstream media. And I would actually agree on your point that our consumer culture is also at fault to a certain extent.
again, I think this is an important conversation and think it has been a healthy exchange of ideas and ideals. Thanks...
Lincoln was a great leader and a great man, no question. But his administration had three things in common with Bush - serious military setbacks and anti-war protesters! He also had huge loss of life in his armies. The number most often quoted is 620,000 including both sides. Yet he had a vision, "stayed the course" and eventually won a great victory. Of course our country's strategic interests were much more important than in the current war, but it is fun to note the comparisons.
Peter: One thing we can agree upon is that the lack of a draft has definitely muted some of the potential anti-war protests. It's part of the general lack of national commitment to the war, which is one of Bush's main failings as a war leader.
Elmer: One of the huge dis-similarities between Lincoln and Bush is that Lincoln was willing to appoint a cabinet of men who were picked solely for their ability. He picked the best men for the posts, even if they disagreed with him on occasion, since he valued their advice. He also allowed them to disagree and listened to them when they did. Lincoln was also willing to relieve a general, though he did so reluctantly, whereas Bush sticks to this strange view that the Commander-in-Chief must passively listen to his generals. Anti-war protesters were not as big an issue for him as was the conflict between the border states, which had sympathy to the Confederate cause, and the rest of the Union. Here, Lincoln strove always to find common ground in the differing views that made up the union, and he would praise the patriotism of those who disagreed with some of his policies yet remained in the union. Bush's strategy is to always look for divisions and question the motives and patriotism of those who oppose him.
If you caught any of the Hillary-Yearly Kos video, or if you visit TPM, you might be struck as I am by the tension between the certainly valid arguments of the far left and practical politics. At the Kos meeting Hillary was booed for not rejecting contributions from "Washington Lobbyists." Similarly in comments at Talking Points Memo, any effort to compromise in order to accomplish a goal, such as getting a reasonable person elected to office is met with screams of sell-out and viable candidates are rejected out of hand.
I have mixed feelings about the (non-violent) radicals at either end of the spectrum. I think that by crystallizing an issue in purely moral or ethical terms, they contribute clarity to a discussion, but I agree with Rottenchester that their behavior and the extremity of their position turns off (frightens) the politicians and the voters in the center who really need to be educated.
Regarding Lincoln, Michael Ignatieff's piece in last Sunday's Times Magazine gets it right, IMO, regarding leadership and it's problems and responsibilities.
Vincent, I agree that having people at either end of the spectrum articulating their ideas is good. You mentioned Kos and TPM commenters - Ron Paul is someone who I think has a lot of interesting thoughts as a traditional libertarian conservative.
But, I agree that where they fall down is in sensing what's politically possible and advocating the compromise necessary to achieve some of their goals. In the Ingatieff piece, he makes this observation:
Knowing the difference between a good and a bad compromise is more important in politics than holding onto pure principle at any price. A good compromise restores the peace and enables both parties to go about their business with some element of their vital interest satisfied. A bad one surrenders the public interest to compulsion or force.
The notion that there's a difference between a good and bad compromise is something that eludes extremists on either side of the current debates. The position I hear more often is that all compromise is bad.
The number most often quoted is 620,000 including both sides.
Do you think Bush would still be staying the course if we'd suffered 620,000 casualties?
That's not a rhetorical question.
I think this is a bit trickier than you make it out to be, Rotten. I agree that some of the anti-Iraq war rhetoric could be modulated. We've told people time and time again on RT not to go on about how they hate George Bush (or Randy Kuhl) or whoever.
But I also think that George Bush is a madman. I do not use that term lightly. He is incapable of reason or compromise and he is unable or unwilling to accept any form or reality. At least, the way he governs suggests that this is true.
How do you find compromise with a madman?
If you do not accept that Bush is a madman, I think you are hopelessly naive and your analysis will inevitably be flawed.
That last part sounded a lot more shrill than I meant it to. What I mean is that any analysis that doesn't figure in George Bush's blindness and delusion is incomplete.
Exile - the antidote to Bush's blindness, madness, stubbornness or whatever else you want to call it is a veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress. The way to get there is to make every Republican believe that they are surely going to lose in 2008 if they don't change course on Iraq. This means that conservative Dems, Independents and Republicans will need to contact their elected representatives and advocate exit from Iraq.
The first compromise that I'm advocating begins with anti-war opponents agreeing to remove the rhetoric about US Imperialism, the illegality of the war, and the required apologies, from their petitions so that the average person who opposes the war doesn't have to swallow Noam Chomsky's views of US Imperialism in order to be able to sign a petition.
They could also stop the sit-ins, because that tactic requires people who are willing to get arrested, and those people apparently tend not to live in the 29th.
These are simple, practical compromises that might get the war opponents a few more supporters.
Exile - the antidote to Bush's blindness, madness, stubbornness or whatever else you want to call it is a veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress. The way to get there is to make every Republican believe that they are surely going to lose in 2008 if they don't change course on Iraq.
I couldn't agree more. If that's what you mean by "compromise", then I'm all for it.
In my opinion, Democrats in Congress are doing a reasonable job of moving towards this and I feel that many anti-Iraq war people have been too critical of Pelosi and Reid.