Anti-war Democrats. They still exist.
Fifty years ago--1971--The Democratic Party was the "peace" party.
It doesn't seem so impossibly long ago for Boomers who were alive to remember 1971. The music was great. Jane Fonda and Cher were young and beautiful. Young people grew their hair out.
The colleges at the time were filled with people of draft age who had the motivating issue of stopping a war in Vietnam. By 1971, at least for people who had "tuned in" to the reality of the American meat grinder of war, the Vietnam war was worse than an error. It was a crime. Its ostensible purpose, to stop the dominos of countries in SE Asia falling to "Red China," was a fraud. The real reason for continuing the war was face-saving for President Nixon. He didn't want to preside over a lost war.
From the presidential tapes of March 19, 1971, Conversation 471-002, we observe Nixon and Kissinger discussing the need to keep up appearances until the 1972 election was won:
Secretary of State Kissinger: I think that there’s a chance of a negotiation with some of them. Again, it’s less than even, but it’s—
President Nixon: Well, it might be. In a way, I think, Henry, I’ve never been much for negotiation. . ..
Kissinger: Well, we’ve got to get enough time to get out. It’s got to be because—
Nixon: Oh, I understand. . ..
Kissinger: Our problem is that if we get out after all the suffering we’ve gone through—
Nixon: And then have it knocked over. Oh, I think [unclear]
Kissinger: We can’t have it knocked over—brutally—to put it brutally—before the election.
Nixon: That’s right.
Kissinger: And . . .
Nixon: So that’s why, that’s why this strategy works pretty well, doesn’t it?
Kissinger: That’s right.
People of draft age in 1971 have reason to be cynical about war. Young men die so that old men can hold political office. It is the way of the world. We saw it.
What might, possibly, get the countries of the world to re-direct their energies? Rick Millward says it is the distraction and re-direction of a common enemy, climate change.
Rick Millward is the right age to be cynical--a young man of draft age in 1971--but he wanted to continue with another Guest Post on behalf of world peace. He is hopeful, and insists he is not being unrealistic. There is an opportunity here to do something big. Never waste a crisis.
Guest Post by Rick Millward
Research by social scientists from Durham University and Lancaster University shows the U.S. military is one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more CO2e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) than most countries.
The antiwar movement has roots going back to the founding of this nation and before. From its beginning there has been a fundamental understanding that World Peace would require universal cooperation between all nations. Up until now this has only been a philosophical concept, and regarded as only possible in the face of a worldwide threat, for instance an alien invasion. Climate change is the first time in human history that such a threat has emerged, one of our own making, and one as impervious to the 174 armies on the planet as a ship from the Andromeda galaxy.
My proposal is not made lightly or in jest, though some may think so, and perhaps this is the biggest hurdle mankind must overcome if the threat of climate change is to be met with any hope of success. I admit it is a utopian idea, and as such a target for cynicism and ridicule from those who have difficulty seeing the path forward from where we are now. Overcoming what are basically fatalistic, or what some call "realist", attitudes requires an enormous a leap of faith and a commitment to optimism that seems naive in these times, but completely necessary if we are to survive as a species. Realism never takes one forward, only calcifies the status quo.
Worldwide disarmament seems impossible, but only if one only looks backward. Regressive attitudes have held back progress, but the last century has opened up possibilities that were unimaginable to those living in the age of the horse and buggy. Technological advances have democratized information, educating more people and making it more difficult for repressive governments to control their populations through fear and greed. The Progressive issue of wealth disparity influencing politics that began at the turn of the 19th century has paralleled the Information Age giving the vision of Lennon’s “Imagine” more power than a hopefully wistful pop song.
As each decade passes we come closer to an unknown future that may--and at the very least we must admit this possibility in the face of unprecedented events--one day place humanity at our own moment of extinction as this planet becomes uninhabitable.
Humans emerged from the jungle and developed civilization, and societies that each in turn have improved the human condition. But in the course of this progress we have neglected to consider its impact on the environment that nurtured and supports life on Earth. This is a fact, and the consequences now endanger that very progress. Like the fabled frog in the boiling water the effects are imperceptible until the frog is cooked. One of the points of "An Inconvenient Truth" was that CO2 in the atmosphere spiked sharply in the recent past, evidence that our pot is coming to a boil.
Humans are unique on the planet. On the geological scale our ascendence is virtually instantaneous, a result of what is theorized as "The Great Leap Forward" in intelligence.
Such a leap is required now.
We are capable of it, but it will be necessary for humans to choose to make the change. We don't have millennia to adapt. It's way too easy to look back and conclude that what we call human nature prevents us from doing what will become necessary to save the planet and ourselves.
Human nature is what we make it.
--- --- ---
Note to Southern Oregon readers: Rick Millward’s songs are mostly about love, heartache, and joy, not the politics of peace. He will be performing an all original set of songs on Saturday, June 26, 2 p.m. at RoxyAnn Winery in Medford.
Here is a sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5Lu-0GpLPU
10 comments:
“When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” ---Jimi Hendrix
Imagine.
The sunlight striking the Earth’s surface in just one hour delivers enough energy to power the world economy for one year. Learning how to efficiently harness this endless resource will require some investment, but we’re currently investing about $20 billion in the form of subsidies to fossil fuels. European union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually. Meanwhile, the adverse environmental, climate, and public health impacts of our fossil fuel use are estimated to have totaled $5.3 trillion globally in 2015 alone.
All we need is for conscience to exceed greed.
Thanks so much for allowing me to contribute.
I would add that wealth inequality is connected to climate action, or lack of it. The paradigm shift we are advocating for began in the '60s, and yes, Vietnam had a lot to do with it. We were raised to believe that the atomic bomb, "mutual assured destruction", would end all wars, and that betrayal spurred a generation to activism.
Cynicism and Progressivism are not compatible. Optimism is a choice. Despite what the future holds for us, I'm confident it's the right one.
I was idealistic like this when I was in high school in the early 1960s. I founded a chapter of a group called SANE that advocated for total nuclear disarmament.
Many years later, thanks to having gained a lot more knowledge and maturity, I realized that the only thing that had prevented World War III from breaking out between the United States and the Soviet Union was the existence of nuclear weapons and the deterrent value of mutually assured destruction. I am karmically fortunate that I did not have the power to put my youthful idealism into practice.
Completely disarming the world is the global equivalent of “defund the police.“ and it would work out far worse than that particular exercise in idealism has.
War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Except maybe stopping Hitler and Japan, maybe Russia would just invade Eastern Europe, Arab countries attempting to obliterate Israel. I sure like the idea though.
Does anybody else remember “duck-and-cover” drills?
Believing that Mutually Assured Destruction protects us from anything is the adult equivalent of children believing their desks will protect them in an atomic attack. If people knew how close we’ve come to using those atomic weapons, going MAD might not seem so appealing.
It’s a shame that so many people equate “maturity” with the abandonment of youthful ideals and values.
Mike,
In Brooklyn NY, where I grew up, we did not do duck and cover drills. Instead, they issued metal dogtags to us kids. Since we were kids, we didn't realize the dogtags were so that in the event of a nuclear attack they would be able to identify which lump of charcoal was who. We just thought they were way cool. You could adjust your skates with them!
I didn't say that mutual assured destruction was something perfect. It just gave us a chance at avoiding World War III, and luckily that chance came through for us.
Absent nuclear weapons, World War III was a certainty, and it would have been worse than World War II.
I look back with some chagrin at my youthful idealism, and with gratitude that I (and other people) didn't have to suffer the consequences of my putting it into practice. But for the grace of God, I could be living with karma as bad as that of a Red Guard.
It's not "ashamed" that we grow and get smarter over time. It saves all of us from a lot of suffering.
Michael:
"Absent nuclear weapons, World War III was a certainty, and it would have been worse than World War II."
There is no way to be so certain of that, since it didn't happen. Nuclear weapons do nothing but maintain the balance of terror, thus promoting more arms sales.
Growing in wisdom involves learning to apply our values in spite of obstacles, not discard them. Otherwise we're just getting older and wider.
In 1970 I lead our students and set a curriculum for Earth Day. We devoted a full week to environmental issues ending all other classes on campus for the week. We struggled with the disenfranchised students that saw curbs on natural resource use as slamming the door on them to have the opportunity their white student’s parents had used to become wealthy. It was an us and them issue. Protect the environment, limit growth, use, reuse, recycle and waste it. How to get buy-in from the Black Student Union? Make them ambassadors and security for the event! To do that their members needed to know the schedules, arrange for speakers, know who was speaking and where they should go and who should and should not be on campus. Enjoying the Northwest out of doors was limited by their belief that Black people should not be there. Very hard to get people to save and protect something they are denied. Vietnam was still raging. It was a stark contrast to the message Save The Planet while nightly we saw bombs dropped and defoliant sprayed on vast sections of what we had recently learned to call Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and parts of Burma. The message of the day amongst the students towards some of the presenters was “You’re a talking and a walking hypocrisy!” Small groups decided to take direct action and staged sit-ins and marches, others wrote petitions collecting signatures on their issues(s) than taking said petitions to governmental officials, and being very involved. In the end, a paradigm shift occurred. The realization that we were destroying the planet and somehow we had to also survive by working in exactly the same kind of work that was harming the planet. We’re all in our late 50s to early 80s now and the problems are worse. But it is so sad to say “We told you so!” For so many years. So much time has be lost to greed as tradition and status quo continues to sweep us into tragedy of one form or another. Rick’s post is timely. There is still hope and music.
We all get older and wider regardless of whether our values evolve as we learn (or don’t) from experience
As a note for Peter's readers, he and I were on the same high school debate team for 3 years, graduating together in 1967.
Interestingly, at least in "ancient times", all Oregon debate teams were tasked with researching and developing opposing arguments for an annual topic. As I recall, one of the annual topics concerned nuclear disarmament. We would spend hours together as a team, often in the basement of the Medford library, assembling 3 X 5 cards with documentation that we felt could substantiate either side of the all important issue. We needed to be prepared to argue either side at a moment's notice.
While Peter went on to Harvard, I was drafted in May 1968. To avoid the infantry, I volunteered] the the following year hoping it would keep me off the line. I was successful in that effort, but still received an invitation to the party.
I left for Vietnam on 3 February 1971 and returned physically intact exactly 1 year later. I was discharged the following day and was in Medford on 4 February.
My experiences in Vietnam didn't make me any more anti-war than I was before landing "in-country". What it did achieve was to add a serious case of moral injury to my thinking. While I didn't serve in the bush, I saw a lot of wailing and crying by "friendlies" who had been terrorized by both sides. At the age of 21 I had civilians working for me who had family members murdered because they wouldn't quit their employment. We had "friendly fire" deaths and all manner of incidents creating lifelong trauma.
I have been a long time member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In every case of chickenhawk saber rattling that arises, I turn away from the supposed threat and toward the soldier. I see him/her in the micro sense. Because of my experience, I know that this young person's (child?) soul will morph. There will forever be a black spot in their heart. Period.
So it's not that I "have reason to be cynical about war". Having experienced it, my cynicism is unavoidable.
Post a Comment