April 6, 2003 Antiwar activists: In addition to protests and marches,
ballot box will carry message By SCOTT HADLY A busload of Santa Barbara activists headed to Los Angeles on Saturday, not just to march for peace but also to attend a rally in support of a presidential candidate who opposes the war with Iraq. Earlier last week, another group of activists met in a downtown cafe to discuss the candidacy of another presidential hopeful with a peace platform. "People are trying to channel some of this energy and frustrations that we've seen in the streets," said Lane Anderson, a member of Veterans for Peace, who was at both events. Beyond the weekly demonstrations in Santa Barbara against the war, some activists are mobilizing for more than marches. They want their protest to be heard through the ballot box. It's something that is being mirrored nationally as the peace movement struggles with what to do next. While some within the movement believe that blocking traffic or staging die-ins or some other type of civil disobedience is the best way to protest the war, others want to lay the political groundwork to defeat President George Bush in 2004. Although many political observers doubt that tapping into the protest constituency now will help a candidate in a year, when the war is likely to be long over, others believe the energy within the current protest movement can be used to make broader political change. Mr. Anderson, a Vietnam veteran who was a chairman for the Peace and Freedom party in the 1970s and later helped rally support for George McGovern's failed bid for president in 1972, believes the kind of grass-roots constituency building for peace candidates like Ohio Democrat Denis Kucinich and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean goes beyond the conflict in Iraq. While he concedes that candidates like Mr. McGovern, in 1972, and Eugene McCarthy, in 1968, failed at the ballot box, he believes that organizers can learn from those experiences. "This isn't just about the war," he said. "Right now that's the most important thing, but when it's over there is the whole question of whether America can mend its relationships with the Muslim world and whether we want to continue this policy of trying to use military force to shape the world. I just don't think a Democrat that presents himself as 'Bush lite' is going to fly." Mr. Anderson, a Democrat who is also a member of the Green Party, said he has been registering voters and passing out literature on Mr. Kucinich and Mr. Dean. Both candidates strongly oppose the war. Of the nine Democrats who've decided to run for president, four -- Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Dean, Carol Mosely-Braun and Al Sharpton -- have consistently opposed the war. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was actually booed for his support of the war at the California Democratic convention recently. But core party activists tend to be farther left than the rest of the party, and none of the four antiwar candidates have generated much broad support among Democrats. In various polls over the past three months, none of the four candidates polled more than 4 percent among Democrats. The current leading contenders, Sen. Joe Lieberman, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. Edwards, are garnering support among Democratic voters three and four times higher. Mr. Dean has raised about $1.5 million, which pales in comparison to what's in the coffers of Sen. Kerry, Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Edwards. With current polls showing a majority of Americans in support of the president and his policies, some local conservative political consultants said they are salivating at the prospect of Democrats being associated with the antiwar movement. Richard Cochrane, of the Tartan Group, said last month that voters would likely see Democrats who started bashing the president on the war or using the conflict to gain political advantage as opportunists. "Voters don't like that," Mr. Cochrane said. David Kreiger, of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, sees the election as an important crossroads for Democrats. Although the foundation does not take political stands, Mr. Kreiger said he believes it's imperative for Democrats to become a true party of opposition. He believes the country has lost allies, undermined international law and hurt the security of Americans. "I certainly hope that responsibility for this war and its consequences are laid at the feet of the Bush administration, not to mention the nearly supine Congress," he said. Dan Ancona, a software engineer who works at UCSB, recently formed a group called the United States Progressive Coalition, meant specifically to push the Democratic Party. "The relationship we're looking at is similar to the one between the Christian Coalition and the Republicans," Mr. Ancona said. The difference is that unlike the Christian Coalition, which has helped nudge the Republicans to the right, he wants to push the Democrats to the left. "This isn't just about the war," Mr. Ancona said. "Yes, there is a natural constituency there, but what's really motivating people is this frustration on so many other levels about the directions things are going. It's the outrage factor." But some question whether that outrage can translate into real political clout. "To be honest, a year from now the economy will trump everything else," predicted UCSB professor Eric Smith. While postwar Iraq, how the war affects the economy, and whether or not there are terrorist attacks over the next year may play a role in presidential politics, Mr. Smith doubted that the war will be a decisive issue in how most voters cast their ballots. "The war is the only issue some of these folks have got," he said. "The other disadvantage is that they have almost no money. I just don't see it playing a big role in the election." |
Are you affected by the possible war
with Iraq? |