Reflections on the Welch incident and the bigger picture.
Well, then. I had no idea the Welch meeting piece I did on Sunday night was gonna get the exposure it did. Unfortunately, most of the traffic went to Kos and GMD. C’mon, people. Show me some love, you ungrateful bastards. I don’t do this stream-of-consciousness type writing too much, but this meeting and the resulting coverage and responses took up a huge part of my emotional and mental landscape for the last 48 hours, so here it goes.
The attention paid to the article was kind of unsettling for me. Part of it was on a front page article in the Times Argus (which I didn’t even find out about until after dinner). I did the WKVT radio show today, which was actually pretty fun. It was in the rec’d column on Kos for most of the day yesterday. I was told that it was mentioned on Mark Johnson’s interview with Michael Colby yesterday. And it got a huge response over on GMD.
So where’s my goddamn check?
I’ve talked to a lot of people since this thing happened, including quite the back-and-forth with one of the principal organizers, who surprisingly called my article ‘fair’ (which was my intention – the fact that I’ve received zero personal attacks or backlash means I might have actually written a rather fair account).
But seriously, it got a lot of discussion going, which I guess is a good thing. Yeah, there’s a lot of angles one can look at it… tactically, politically, expressively, whatever. I see it mostly from a tactical angle. Sure, anger is good. If the intention was simply to express intense anger, and nothing else, well, it did the trick. But that’s expression, not a tactic to an end in itself. But if its intention was, as stated, to have a dialogue with Welch and hopefully have both parties come away with some better understanding of each other, I think it failed miserably. There simply was no room for that. Since then, there’s been a lot of defensiveness and finger pointing about who started what. I’m not going to get into that, because at this stage of the game, I don’t care anymore.
Both at Kos and GMD (sigh) when there was tense conversation, something often heard was “What will it take?” That’s a good question. What will it take? Some actions, such as the most recent sit-in at Welch’s office that prompted this meeting, are highly effective AND expressive. It had a positive result, and the participants were able to express themselves. Others, such as a march I participated in a few years ago in B-town on tax day, which culminated with a bunch of people standing outside an empty General Dynamics building were expressive, but utterly pointless. I had to split when people started singing Imagine. And that’s what I want to discuss. Tactics. What will actually work? What will it take? More importantly, what needs to change?
Sure, I’m a jaded, cynical bastard at this point of the game, but with the current makeup of the Senate, I don’t believe there’s a chance in hell that this war is going to end as long as Bush is in office. Even if through some realignment of the cosmos the Senate ended the war, Bush would ignore it. You know that. He’d get the money somehow, and with a compliant press on board, you know he’d pull it off. You think I’m wrong? Ok, explain it to me how it’s gonna go down. I can’t wait to hear this one.
Now, I don’t mean we should stop what we’re doing. At the very least, if it keeps ramping up, it’s going to be harder to attack Iran, and the next President is going to have that much more pressure to end this thing. So what is to be done? More importantly, what will be effective? And by effective, I don’t mean “you feel better because you yelled/smashed a window/belittled someone who doesn’t share your level of commitment.” Which is where I see many people coming from, especially in this Welch fiasco. They feel better because they expressed their anger. I understand that. We feel very disenfranchised right now. To yell and scream at Welch was empowering for many people. I understand that. I’m angry too, but I don’t view the primary goal of effective activism as something to make me “feel better”. And I’m certainly not going to pass that behavior off as ‘brave’, as some who have defended it have. Empowering, sure. Bold? Nah. You got to yell at a congressman. So fucking what. How many Iraqi kids did it save?
I understand that Welch isn’t where many of us (myself included) would like him to be. Some of his justifications for inaction are ridiculous. But he’s one congressman. One of 435. Even if Welch did come around, how much difference would it make? Not to say we shouldn’t try, but if we have to focus on actions with potentially substantive results, why aren’t we going after Leahy and Sanders with the same vigor as we are for Welch? Senators have a lot more procedural tricks at their disposal. You mean to tell me that Bernie couldn’t shut down the Senate? Has Leahy done everything in his power to stop the war? And with four current senators ass-kissing New Hampshire on a regular basis while running for Prez, why aren’t we dogging them constantly, in particular Clinton and Obama? It ain’t that far to travel, and there’s some national press to be made out of it if it’s done effectively. Sure, stay on Welch’s ass, but jeez, there are bigger, much more powerful people to go after. Welch is an easy target. Put one of those flaming explosive-Rambo arrows in your bow and aim higher.
I point that out, not to give you ideas, but to prove a point. Where is the best place to put the energy for the maximum desired result?
And another thing that gets lost in all of this is that well-worn cliché, “winning hearts and minds”. Because I think that also gets overlooked. Sure, lots of people are upset about the war. And then they go back to whatever was on the TV at that particular moment, and it gets lost in the mix of everything else. So do you write those people off? Try to gain their sympathies? I don’t know. I’m asking you, because the numbers of those who genuinely give a shit are not as big as you think they are. Don’t kid yourself. If they were, there would have been a thousand people at that meeting, not a hundred. So how do you get more people along for the ride? Do you want to? I certainly hope so. This ain’t the 60′s anymore, people. There’s “American Idol” competing with us now.
Let’s talk about division for a minute. It’s really inspiring to see the wide diversity of opinion on our side. And infuriating, when we fight amongst ourselves, as in this case. Often, a common theme I hear is, “Oh yeah, what did you do?”, as if because one chooses not to get dragged away in cuffs or didn’t scream and interrupt congressmen, that they are somehow less concerned about the war, or not as “pure” or whatever.
That needs to stop. Now. It’s bullshit.
Some people have a high tolerance for risk. Perhaps their financial situation allows them even more room for risk. They won’t think twice about getting arrested, or possibly even beaten to advance their cause. Some people are intensely opposed to this war, do what they feel they can to be active in opposing it, and do not want to go to jail, be hit by police, or anything like that. Maybe they just can’t afford to miss a day of work, because their kids have to eat. Is that first person “better” than the second because of that? Because it certainly feels that some people feel that way. I really don’t get the whole idea of demonizing someone who supports the same aims as you, just because they don’t share your level of commitment or tolerance for risk.
That also needs to stop. Now. It’s not about “you”. It’s bigger than that.
There’s a war going on. Not just the one with the bombs and dead kids. It’s larger than that. We all have different weapons in our arsenal, but ideally, we’re aiming them in the same direction. Or we should be, at least. Think about that. How bad do you want it? Do you want to rock the boat? Or sink it?
November 14th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Thanks for finally putting some alternative ideas out there. I think the visits to New Hampshire to have fun with Hillary, Obama and Edwards, et al would be a hoot. Sign me up. When do we go? I’d also be happy to get involved in an anti-war initiative against Leahy and Sanders. Again, when and where?
That’s why we’re asking the question of “what’s your anti-war plan?” We’ve been meeting weekly to ask ourselves that question and we’ve come up with numerous suggestions and acted on a couple of them. I’m sorry if people get defensive with that question but that’s an issue for them and their therapist. I mean, it’s not as if we’re randomly grabbing people on the street and asking the question. It’s a legitimate inquiry to those who are rather actively critiquing our agenda but claiming to be on our side. As I’ve said on my blog, we’re all ears. We know it’s going to take more people and that’s why we’ve been having public meetings.
And, frankly, I think it does take courage to pick an issue, make a plan, roll it out to the public and then own it — certainly more courage than the folks who didn’t even bother to attend the event but sit back and — after the fact — tell us how it should and could have been done. Especially, I might add, when they still don’t bother to act on any of those plans themselves.
I was told yesterday to take a deep breath and go look at the GMD comments to your piece. My goodness, what a waste of time and energy — with nary a good suggestion of their own. Imagine, for example, if one of those folks would have said something like, we don’t like how their meeting came off but we totally support their anti-war position and we think people should call Welch’s offices and tell him that he needs to step up his anti-war action. I mean, how could any of you be happy with Welch’s answers regarding his refusal to vote for war reparations or to bring Blackwater home now or to ban depleted uranium or to rescind his MoveOn condemnation vote or, if it’s your cup of tea, to vote for impeachment? Where was the talk of these ISSUES over there and a plan to let him know he’s betraying us on them?
That, my friend, is why we ask “what are you doing”? And, again, we ask oursleves that question constantly.
I have to give a special mention to the person posting as “Brattlerouser” over there because his posts seem to be the epitome of the arm-chair activist on this matter. In one post (he does seem to have a lot of time on his hands), he scolds the activist knowledge of the organizers of the event, basically saying we need to study up on folks like Saul Alinksy. “I bet,” to paraphrase the fellow “these people don’t even know who Alinksy is.”
Well, Mr. Brattlerouser, where do I begin. First of all, if you knew who Alinksy was, you’d know that the meeting we had with Welch that you’re so upset about was run according to a model created by Alinsky. It came from the Midwest Adademy, a group that trains activist in the Alinksy methods. And, as you should know, Alinksy was all about turning the tables on the powerful in such meetings by claiming the power that is rightfully ours. In this case, it was about the empowered people setting the agenda. And, as a reminder, let me say again: Welch was told three days before the meeting that this was the model we were going to be using. So, yes, Brattlerouser, we know Alinksy well. And you?
But, JD, your words above are the kind of words and thoughts we need to go forward. Sure, it’s got some jabs and stabs, but it\’s also got some good suggestions for moving us ALL forward. Now let’s figure out how to act on them.
And if you arrange that bus to New Hampshire, I’d like to sit next to Brattlerouser. But you might have to trick him into thinking he\’s going to a picnic in order to get him on the bus….
November 14th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Thanks for responding, MC. A few things.
Ideas and action are group efforts. I put those ideas out there. But organization is most certainly not one of my strengths, both because I’m a friggin’ hermit and I have limited time and resources. And if I make it to one of the meetings., I’ll most certainly bring it up, and if I don’t, please do. I think they’re good too, because they could really have an impact if done properly. All eyes will be on NH in the coming months, and we’d be fools not to make that a battleground. Good, attention getting things that are hard to ignore. That involve nudity. Or theater.. or anything but the usual. Count me in.
Sure, I’ve got some jabs and stabs in there. Why shouldn’t I? I strongly disagree with some of what went down at the meeting. But the fact that I put those jabs and stabs in there without resorting to personal attacks (and your similar response), is part of the larger point I’m trying to make here. We may disagree on tactics. We may even think that another group fucked something up, behaved poorly, or whatever. Or that another group didn’t go far enough. And that’s ok. But it’s not kumbaya bullshit to just agree to disagree, move on and fight the next battle. That’s really all I’m trying to get across here. I may bitch and grumble about the way you did or didn’t do something, and likewise, but the poison and the fire and such should really be directed at our common enemy, don’t you think?
November 15th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I stand corrected Michael. Thank you for filling in the blanks on this event and the one prior to that.
The way some Brattleboro activists described the event (and knowing some of them who went up from our crazy town) did not describe it the way you did on our local radio show, "Live & Local." This person who described it on the radio is someone that irritates the hell out of me, so it was more or less directed at this person as opposed to the tactics.
You are right. The model/tactics you adapted are much like the model used by Midwest Academy. So I stand corrected, I apologize, and hope to work alongside you somewhere somehow. Just save me that seat on the bus.
In solidarity,
Brattlerouser
November 16th, 2007 at 12:37 am
This is a nice follow up to the GMD media prize you posted Monday. Nice work.
I may be a little less jaded/pessimistic than you on two points: first, the question of the effectiveness of Sunday’s meeting with Welch, which I did not attend, shouldn’t be measured on immediate outcome, or even against the stated intention.
Actually, perhaps I need to pause and reflect if I may actually more jaded than you as I come out with this whopper: I never expected this event to be what it said it would be. We both now some of the organizers, and it really shouldn’t have come as a surprise that they may have baited Welch on purpose, for reasons and outcomes only they can provide. A dialogue with Welch? Better understanding? Given the lead-in events at Welch’s office, it might be naive to have expected an actual meeting without some measure of media grabbing hyjinx. It’s simply part of the spectrum in activism, and what’s surprising is that everyone seemed to not expect anything to happen.
But back to the point: I think this event is seminal in Vermont to a rising voice of action against the war. If only 11% of Vermonters are really concerned about the issue as per a Bill Doyle or WCAX poll (I’m being somewhat facetious here — but Vermont polls are pretty lame), yet 70% of Americans are against Bush, then it can be reasonable to suggest that perhaps something like 59% of us have succumbed to Iraq War media fatigue. After all, how many days, weeks, months, or years in a row can you swallow another death, another set of lost limbs, burned faces, raped women, etc. etc. etc. before you start to tune out. Tuning out doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter to you — it might mean you might have more fun cleaning horse stalls or watching the beauty pageant/primary than watching the latest report from Iraq. It might mean you given up hope and bought into the notion that nothing will happen until the next President is elected. In my opinion, a lot of Vermonters are really dissatisfied with the war, and perhaps there’s even a critical mass that will start making noise in their own way (winning hearts and minds, perhaps) now that a small group of people have started the ball rolling.
The second point, which I won’t be so verbose on, is a little stickler of disagreement regarding Welch’s position in the House, as vs. Leahy and Sanders. Now, I’m skeptical that the organizers were thinking along these lines, but Welch has a unique position that he has earned based on his strong ability to play inside baseball. He’s already rec’d the attention and recognition of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. This means he’s not just another congressman in a House of 435; he’s closely connected to the power cords of the majority. If he’s getting enough heat from home to make him believe he may actually have a challenger at some point, then there’s a better chance that he might have a private conversation with Pelosi suggesting that he needs her help to demonstrate something is getting done. Without any heat on him at all, and a “wait until ’08″ attitude from constituents, then you’re right — belief will become reality.
Respectfully submitted,
Nate
By the way, check out my latest attempt to win the hearts and minds with a little song a posted over at GMD.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Where is mainstream America seeing these images, Nate? That’s another obstacle; they’re not seeing them. And yet again… tactics. Why aren’t we going after the media? Want press? Have a silent demonstration where people stand with large color photos of dead Iraqi kids. See what happens then. There are other ways to do it, some guerilla tactics that put those pictures where people least expect them. It just takes the will and some creativity. And perhaps an ad hoc group is not the best outlet for certain methods, an affinity group may be a more effective outlet.
I really don’t think Welch has much sway with Pelosi. Unfortunately, I think it’s the other way around. It’d be nice if he’d play hardball with him, but she could just as easily make sure he doesn’t sit on that powerful committe next time around either.
Welch is an easy target. You mentioned "If he’s getting enough heat from home to make him believe he may actually have a challenger at some point," well, who is having that discussion? It’s easy to say "Oh, well, the Dem party machine will never let that happen, and yes, it’s an uphill battle, but if the money and public support is there, it will happen. For all the talk I’ve been hearing about ‘democracy", I can’t believe how little talk there is about a primary challenge. But another obstacle to that would be certain people would have to put aside their moral purity and vote for a Democrat. I don’t care what ya say, that’s the only way Welch will go down with our current voting system.
Regardless, our senators are getting a pass on this. And I’m not necessarily conviced that anything’s going to happen once the next president is elected. Neither Clinton or Obama really scream "courage" to me. They’ve made their careers in part by playing it safe, if not outright pandering.
Thanks for your comments, Nate. When do we get to hear the song?