Donn't chase the conservative chimera - You'll catch nothing but wind

I met a man recently running for governor of Illinois on the Constitution Party ticket. He hopes to gain the support of the many supporters of a defeated conservative candidate in the Republican Primary who lost out to establishment backed nominee. I wished him luck and hoped he would be able to bring many of these supporters into his tent, but I also gave him a piece of advice.

Don't chase the "conservative" chimera.

You'll capture nothing but air.

A person running for office has to have more than just have an appeal to ideology. Ideology is just but one-dimension to the average voter but there are so many more. Like where that voter is from, the voter's religion, schooling, employment, friends, business associates and the like. Even what car they drive.

Non-major party candidates make the mistake of thinking that a simple appeal to ideology will be enough to carry them. Oh, if only voters voted with their hearts more often. They rarely do, their heads play a big role along with their identities as well.

As I told this gubernatorial candidate from Illinois, don't just appeal to ideology. Appeal to the fact you're the lone downstate candidate in the race. Appeal to the fact you are the lone Protestant in the race. Appeal to people you're background in the Marines and as businessmen. A good campaign is a good narrative. If you provide a voter a story, a background that goes beyond politics that they can latch onto and see you for more than just another politician, the better off you will be. Look at how much mileage Virginia Governor Tim Kaine received playing up his time being a missionary in Central America. Look at how Jimmy Carter played his many backgrounds as farmer, nuclear engineer, Navy man and Sunday school teacher into winning the White House. Voters want to hope and to believe they're voting for more than just someone looking to sleep in the governor's mansion.

Beyond this piece of political science 101, there's something else that should be pointed out to show why ideology alone is a loser in U.S. politics.

Pure conservative ideology, like pure liberal ideology, just doesn't sell.

I know that may come as a shock to all those who are regular listeners to talk-radio programs and think they are part of an army of millions just waiting for the call to attack, but it's the hard truth and if you don't believe me, just look at the Alabama GOP gubernatorial primary.

What was first thought was going to be a competitive election between incumbent Ed Reilly and former state supreme court chief justice Roy Moore, is turning into a walkover if you believe the polls, a 64-20 percent spread according to recent numbers in Reilly's favor, the establishment backed candidate who tried to raise state income taxes.

Now why would this be? Where are all the so-called religious conservatives that are supposedly so numerous in Alabama? Where did they all go? Where did all voters go that supported Moore in the past? Why have they deserted him all of sudden? Moore is a very conservative man, a very religious man; shouldn't that be more than enough in Alabama? Who says you can't be conservative enough?

Well, apparently the voters are saying this if you believe the polls. And it really isn't surprising if you recall there were very few people willing to stand on the steps of the state Supreme Court building in Montgomery willing to block the deputies from removing the Ten Commandments monument that Moore had installed when he became chief justice. There weren't that many at all. Moore's conservatism, like that of the Constitution Party, is one that requires people to stand up and fight and resist. If there was little resistance to removal of the monument, then there's going to be few followers for his campaign like it or not. Voters in Alabama were apparently willing to give Moore their votes to sit on the bench, especially after he captured GOP nomination to run against heathen Democrats. But in a Republican primary and for the office of governor, an executive position, ideology matters little here, especially if Reilly hugs a conservative line as well. If Moore were to somehow pull off the upset, it would have to be because he gave voters more of a reason to consider him beyond his views.

It's sad to see those who profited from Moore's coattails at the polls and then betrayed him when push came to shove would triumph over him, but it just proves the chimera conservatism has become. Most candidates may pay lip service to its ideals and talking points and give a nod to Ronald Reagan as their inspiration, but you would be hard pressed to find Burkean scholars among them as they push for more government spending. What does its say when Milton Friedman gets more publicity these days than Russell Kirk does? It says that politics still has an edge over ideology because most voters aren't conservative scholars nor should we expect them to vote like such.

This does not mean, nor am I trying to say, that candidates like the one I met should hide their views, fudge or hedge or equivocate their ideas. There's too much of that going on these days and it really wouldn’t make much of a difference. What it does say is that any candidate for office has to present themselves in as many dimensions as possible to voters who vote in many dimensions. And the same goes for parties as well. Trying to out-conservative the Republicans may gain the CP a few converts, but it's not going to make them a more effective party by appealing to just ideology alone. There's got to be more there for people to take notice.

Minnesota LP candidate to run for GOP endorsement

I received a head's up on this from Politics1.com and got the story from WCCO's website out of Minneapolis. Jeffers has been prominent challenging anti-smoking ordinaces that have been popping up all across the state of Minnesota recently (moves originated from the Green Party no less, a direct LP-Green challenge). It will be interesting to see if there's any discontent out in the GOP electorate that she can capitalize on. Either way, Jeffers has taken a page right out of the NPL handbook trying to get a major-party label endorsement. No LP members would have done this even two years ago. It shows some new thinking is entering the world of non-major parties and that's good to see.

---Sean Scallon

Jeffers Challenges Gov. For Republican Endorsement
(AP) Minneapolis Sue Jeffers, who entered the governor's race in January as a Libertarian candidate, is now challenging Gov. Tim Pawlenty for the Republican Party endorsement.

But party officials say the 49-year-old bar owner is not a real Republican and are blocking her efforts.

"We cannot give (Pawlenty) a free ride," said Jeffers, who owns Stub & Herb's, a Minneapolis bar near the University of Minnesota campus.

"I am the only fiscal conservative running in this race," she said.

Jeffers has helped lead the fight against local smoking bans. She pushed successfully for Hennepin County to soften its smoking ban, and has also spoken out against a proposed statewide smoking ban.

Republican Party chairman Ron Carey noted that until recently Jeffers was running as a Libertarian Party candidate and has its endorsement. The state convention "is reserved for Republicans and Republican candidates," he said. "We can monitor who we want there."

The party's executive committee will not provide Jeffers with the lists of about 1,500 recently elected state convention delegates, which is an essential tool for organizing an endorsement campaign, Carey said.

Convention rules, which are not written yet, might include requirement for a minimum number of signatures from delegates for a candidate to be allowed to compete, Carey said.

Jeffers describes herself as both a libertarian and a "lifelong Republican." She said she has always voted for Republicans, volunteered for the Pawlenty campaign in 2002 and has served as a Republican election judge.

She said she began talking to delegates and other activists about the switch in her candidacy a few weeks ago and plans to make an announcement next week.

Pawlenty campaign chairman Mike Krueger said Jeffer's criticism of the governor is not fair. He said Pawlenty is "one of the most fiscally responsible governors in modern history."

(© 2006 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Constitution Party causing concern for GOP in Montana

Happy Easter everyone! I wanted to make sure I got this story in before in went off the main page at ThirdPartyWatch.com where I linked to the article found in the Helena, MT. newspaper. The Constitution Party of Montana is perhaps the only one in the country right now that's becoming an electoral concern to the GOP. Obviously gathering in disgruntled Republicans is important to the growth of the CP but it can't be the only group to build upon. But it is a good start. I suspect that a lot of the CP people I met here in Wisconsin were once GOP activists at one time or another, or as they like to say "a recovering Republican."

--Sean Scallon

Constitution Party has GOP worried about power
By MATT GOURAS Associated Press
HELENA — The conservative Constitution Party, which calls the Republican Party too liberal, has fielded a record 20 state legislative candidates for this fall’s election, a turnout that some Republicans worried could hurt their own party.

Although still little more than a political curiosity, the Montana Constitution Party is already influencing, at least to a small degree, campaign decisions made by Republicans this year.

In one legislative district, Republicans didn’t even offer a candidate because they didn’t want to split conservative votes with the Constitution Party candidate and end up handing a the seat to a Democrat.

And worse, Republicans say, the Constitution Party could steal enough conservative votes to give Democrats wins in two other districts.

With the House currently tied 50-50, even just one loss in a conservative area could really sting.

‘‘I am seriously worried it could cost us a couple of seats, and as tight as things are in the Legislature, it could cost us a majority,’’ said Chuck Denowh, executive director with the Montana Republican Party. ‘‘We not only have to promote our candidates, but we also have to let people know what the stakes are and how important it is to vote Republican.’’

The Constitution Party opposes what it calls ‘‘undeclared wars’’ like the one in Iraq, any type of abortion, the United Nations and the Patriot Act. It wants to return the country to the gold standard, abolish property taxes and have parents pay for their child’s own schooling.

The number of legislative candidates who filed this year is up from 13 in 2004.

‘‘Every election we get bigger,’’ said Jonathan Martin, chairman of the Montana Constitution Party that was formed in 1999. ‘‘We’ve seen a tremendous surge, especially this year, as far as interest goes.’’

In 2004, the party had 13 legislative candidates, but none got elected.

Martin said most members of the Constitution Party are disgruntled former Republicans.

‘‘We don’t take one single vote from Republicans. They give them away,’’ he said. ‘‘The Constitution Party is here because the Republicans have left their principles. It is more important for them to have a majority in the Legislature than to stand to conservative principles.’’

Most Constitution Party candidates are given little chance at winning, but Martin said that’s not the point.

‘‘We have two parties that both realize to be re-elected they have to do the same thing. To one degree another they both do the same thing,’’ he said. ‘‘To us it is not the most important thing to win, it is to stand up and speak the truth. If people are not ready for it, there is no sense in being elected anyway.’’

In House District 12, Constitution Party candidate Rick Jore is considered to have a good chance at winning. In fact, Republicans hope he does — and didn’t even field a candidate in the race to help Jore corner the conservative vote.

In 2004, Jore split a lot of conservative votes with Republican Jack Cross. Democrat Jeanne Windham was declared the winner over Jore after a court battle in the close race.

Denowh said Republicans are threatened in two districts — House District 1 in Libby and House District 59 in Red Lodge — where the third party could take enough votes to give Democrats the wins.

Craig Wilson, a political scientist at MSU-Billings, said he believes it’s unlikely the Constitution Party is going to make much of a dent in other races.

He said most legislative races in Montana are won by large margins, and Constitution Party candidates don’t have the means to mount active campaigns. Stealing just a few percentage points of the conservative vote probably won’t be enough to cost Republicans any wins.

Plus, some of the votes given to the third party candidates are simply ‘‘protest’’ votes that could come from the left or the right, he said.

‘‘I think it’s open question to what extent they will hurt the Republicans,’’ Wilson said. ‘‘But if you really go back and look at the results from prior races, you are going to find in lots of instances its a small percentage of the vote.’’

He said you have to go back at least half a century to find a third party candidate that won a state legislative race.

——— On the Net: Constitution Party: http://home.centurytel.net/amfam/CPOMT/ Montana Republican Party: www.mtgop.org/

Thanks to all those who bought my book at recent state conventions

I recently attended the Wisconsin state Libertarian and Constitution Party conventions in Madison last weekend (semmed like everyone had business in Madison last weekend, the state capital was teeming with out-of-towners.

I want to thank all of those who bought Beating the Powers that Be. I'm not much of a salesman and I don't know how many times I had to explain what my book was about and comming up with a different answer each time. But I felt very successful getting my ideas across to the delegates which was the purpose in being at both conventions (They were just down the street from each other. The LP met in the Coliseum Bar in the morning and the CP was at the Sheraton Hotel in the afternoon.) Hopefully those ideas can germinate and grow.

I also got to meet the CP's 2004 presidnetial nominee Michael Peroutka. A very fine man and good speaker as well. It figures, Constitution Party, Constitutional lawyer a presidential nominee, why not? It was bound to happen. What was interesting was that Peroutka did not sell himself as being the favorite for the CP's 2008 nomination (althought everyone at the convention would have supported him it seems) nor gave any hints or plans that he was running in two years. Yet what he was doing was selling DVDs and tapes and pamplets and books teaching, what else? the Constitution. If anything, Peroutka understands that his mission is as much about education as it is getting votes which impressed me.

Hopefully in the coming years we'll see more of the kind of activism the Greens already do being emulated by the CP and LP. Many members of both parties didn't realize the Greens help to organize those antiwar referdums in Wisconsin. When I told them that they could do the same thing, you could just see the idea bulbs turn on in their heads. It's a great way to keep a small party active during the down times or non-even year elections and way to project influence beyond electing a candidate.

I sold 15 books and I honestly don't know how many more I've sold so far (and won't know until August.) Amazon.com tells me I've sold enough to be in their top 25% of books but what that means is anyone's guess. I have to keep pluggintg away this spring and summer and hopefully good word mouth will mean good sales.

FSP/NHLA helps defeat smoking ban

This article appeared in the April 6 edition of the Manchester Union-Leader and talks about a state-wide restaurant smoking ban that was defeated in the new Hampshire State Senate thanks to lobbying from the Free State Project and its political wing, the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance.

The FSP may well be far from its goal of 20,000 members but its having an impact.

---Sean Scallon


Restaurant smoking ban fails in Senate
By TOM FAHEY
Union-Leader State Capital Bureau Chief
Thursday, Apr. 6, 2006


Concord – A proposed ban on smoking in restaurants and bars fell one vote short in the Senate this morning. It was killed by a 12-11 vote.

The bill had passed the House by 33 votes last month, and was the subject of one of the most intense lobbying efforts several senators could recall.

A poll that smoking ban supporters commissioned showed public support ran at 79 percent for the ban in House Bill 1177.

The issue was painted as one of public health, especially for restaurant workers who must breath second-hand smoke throughout their time on the job in businesses that allow smoking.

But senators who spoke against the ban said ownership of each restaurant should make the decision on its own.

“It is not the proper role of government to try and control competition between businesses,” said Sen. Chuck Morse, R-Salem, chairman of the Finance Committee that tied last week on whether the bill should pass.

Sen. Robert Odell, R-Lempster, co-sponsor of HB 1177, said that even with the state’s “Live Free or Die” motto, it is the duty of lawmakers to protect the public.

“Cancer is caused by second-hand smoke and people smoking. That’s a fundamental,” he said. “If the votes aren’t here today, I’ll make a prediction, that today is a simple step in march of history and this body will eventually do the right thing.”

Sen. Carl Johnson, R-Meredith, said lobbying on the bill crossed the line, saying he had been harassed at his home by telephone and with a massive flood of emails that he said were ghostwritten by lobbyists.

“This movement has done nothing to further its cause and . . . in my opinion (took) a giant step backwards,” he said.

Senators voting to kill the bill were Morse, Johnson, Senate President Ted Gatsas, R-Manchester; John Gallus, R-Berlin; Joseph Kenney, R-Wakefield; Robert Boyce, R-Alton; Robert Flanders, R-Antrim; Sheila Roberge, R-Bedford; Robert Clegg, R-Hudson; John Barnes, R-Raymond; Andre Martel, R-Manchester, and Robert Letourneau, R-Derry.

A Nation of Immigrants - By Sean Scallon

The U.S. received its Camp of the Saints moment recently, just as France did a few months ago.

In Los Angeles, over 500,000 persons demonstrated against a U.S. House of Representatives bill that called for increased security on our nation's borders and for making illegal immigration into the country an official crime with penalties forthwith.

While our Camp of the Saints moment was peaceful compared to France's, the effect was the same, complete with Mexican and other Latin American flags being the demonstrator's preferred flag of choice. Right now the U.S. is having the same debate over immigration that Western Europe had nearly 30 years ago. Unless we want to wind up in the same boat as our European brothers, then we'd better make better decisions than they did.

The first decision, of course, is to secure the borders and it looks like that will happened regardless what immigration reform bill passes Congress. Only 14 years ago, Pat Buchanan was ridiculed for his "Buchanan line" idea, a fence extending across the whole of the U.S.-Mexico border. Now such a fence is close to being reality (or at least a better guarded and constructed one with the latest in security technology). Of course, it sadly took 3,000 deaths on 9-11 to make such a fence a reality but at least now no one is laughing about it, not when Washington Post columnists like Robert Samuelson is saying a fence is needed. Only the most fanatical of the open borders/unlimited immigration crowd (located in the Wall Street Journal editorial page redoubt) is opposed to the fence idea and they're become more isolated. And hey, there should also be a fence on the Canadian border too, which is even more unguarded and more vulnerable to terrorist incursion that the Mexican one is. Why just pick on Mexico?

The second decision concerns a guest worker program. The gastarbeiters of Europe are the ones who shot Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gough in Holland and burned cars in the Paris suburbs. Is this what we want in the U.S.? Most people of course would say but most people in the U.S. do not have the power to make this decision. Several of those who are in favor of such program and they include, as Edward Abbey would put it, liberals who want their cheap cause and conservatives who want their cheap labor. It's a truly bipartisan issue.

Fortunately even some of the elites are starting to gag even on a guest worker/amnesty plan. New York Nerwsday columnist James Pinkerton pointed this out in a recent column pointing out that NewYork Times economist Paul Krugman is against a guest worker program for what it does, further depress wages, further erode the middle and working classes and both officially and legally create a separate class of people for the first time in U.S. history who's only worth in the eyes of government is the hard work that they do cheaply and in some cases dangerously by employers unwilling to pay American's citizens an honest day's pay for honest work (in past with many immigrant groups it was unofficially and illegally). One may think earning four times what one would make in the home country is enough to satisfy people into being good little workers, but long will it be before they start demanding their dignity along with more money. Then what will the demonstrations look like?

The third decision comes over immigration law enforcement and here is where it gets tricky and complex. For the reality of any law enforcement is its community's willingness to enforce it and unfortunately such sentiment is not uniform all over the United States.

By some estimates there are over 11 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S. One could classify illegal aliens as criminals officially speaking, even though they are already breaking U.S. law, as the House bill proposes. That may make some feel better, but it's not a practical way of dealing with the problem. There's also no way you could deport every illegal immigrant all at once and all at the same time. And the reason for this is that such deportation could never occur over the entire nation.

Many communities across the country have instructed their police forces not to ask about a suspect's immigration status. Many communities have sanctuary movements that protect illegals from being caught by the police. Some communities, especially those with lots of immigrants living in them, will not even enforce the nation's immigration laws. Indeed, even if the House bill passed, it would probably be as enforceable as the Fugitive Slave Act was. In that case the state of Vermont declared the measure null and void within its borders and many northern communities made it impossible for slave catchers to find runaways. How will catching illegals, when there are so many willing to help them, be any different? The reason the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform measure failed was that vigorous enforcement never followed for one reason, nobody wanted to enforce the law to its full extent. Thus it became worthless law other than a s a leverage to provide amnesty to 3 million people and draw more millions to the U.S. as a result.

Besides, any bill that has more penalties for the migrants than for the ones who employ them is not one that seriously addressing the immigration issue. The Republican Party, being the party of state capitalism, will try in any fashion to shield the employers of illegals from the penalties they honestly deserve, namely to be declared the traitors that they are and dealt with on that basis along with losing their business licenses. No one is prosing we do that.

So if there's no chance at a uniform law enforcement of the immigration issue unlike the setting up a border fence, then the issue must be decentralized. States and local communities must decide for themselves what their immigration policy to be. They have to decide for themselves if they can bear the costs, if they can maintain the cultural balance and if immigration helps their economy. It's really the only way out. Some communities, for sure, will welcome immigrants with open arms and others won't. At least then the migrants can got to where they are wanted and not to where they are not wanted. And vise-versa when it comes to rest of us.

If the law enforcement aspect of immigration is already decentralized when it comes to a community's preference for immigration and tolerance for enforcement, then so should the policy be. Protect our borders yes, but let San Francisco be San Francisco and let Utah be Utah when it comes to immigration. It's the least painless way to extract the U.S. from the immigration briar patch it is currently in.

24 Wisconsin communties vote against Iraq war

My home state of Wisconsin lived up to its historical antiwar reputation when 24 communities reputiated the neocons war in Iraq.

That number includes cities as big as Madison and small as Exeland in the Indianhead region where I live. Granted it only represents 325,000 people out of a state of 5.3 million and the vote totals in many places were very close, hardly overwhelming sentiment either way. It clearly shows how divided the country is. If a place like Madison is against the war then there are many in Milwaukee that would support a pullout. If small towns like Frederic, Amery and Exeland are opposed to the war then other would be too (especially where I live because it was once a stronghold of the old Progressive Party). And likewise if a Republican, religious conservative stronghold like Watertown is still in strong support of the war then so are many other communities like it, although in some GOP communities, like those in Door County, the vote totals were again, close and Sturgeon Bay voted decsively to pull out.

This was a big win for the Green Party and hopefully it will show other third parties in the state where they can make their impact through this referendum process on a whole host of issues. I hope more take advantage of it.

Here's the story on last night's vote from the Wisconsin State Journal (www.madison.com)

---Sean Scallon


24 communities want troops brought home now; 8 are opposed
By GEORGE HESSELBERG

Wisconsin communities Tuesday sent a message through blunt referendums that they want American troops brought home from Iraq immediately.

From the tiny northern village of Exeland to Madison, voters tapped a seldom-used referendum opportunity to consider a version of the question: Should the United States bring the troops home now.

Madison served up the largest yes vote, and Watertown the largest no vote.

The effect of the referendums, which drew national and international media attention but carry no official status, depends on which side is answering the question.

The "Bring the Troops Home Now" side was jubilant Tuesday night, celebrating an organizing effort and promotion buttressed by the state and national Green Party and from the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice.

Packed shoulder-to-shoulder in Hawk's, a State Street bar, supporters noisily cheered a buoyant Janet Parker as she stood on a chair to shout the returns from several small northern communities with double-digit voter turnouts.

"What counts is seeing a democracy in action," said Parker, "and many of these returns are in communities where Bush won in 2004."

Opponents, such as the "Vote No to Cut and Run" group based in Madison, said a referendum is a poor way to determine policy and that a call to bring the troops home immediately is bad for morale both on the homefront and the battlefront.

Of the early returns, Bill Richardson, a leader of the Vote No group, said, "This is a fraction of a fraction of the public, a very small sample."

The group hosted a more subdued gathering at the Esquire Club, where Richardson sipped a beer and said the referendum victories "don't mean much. . . . It's the agenda of the Green Party wanting to embarrass the president."

Parker noted, however, that the referendum victories reflect recent national polls showing a growing disenchantment with the war and the president.

The Bring the Troops Home Now organizers countered accusations of being manipulated by a national agenda by pointing to the grass-roots efforts necessary under a seldom-used law to get the referendum on ballots. But they also agreed they want the Wisconsin results to feed a national movement to end U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

Steve Burns, a director of the WNPJ and leader of the Bring the Troops Home Now group, traced the state's anti-war referendum organizing effort to June 2005 and the hope to emulate anti-war campaigns in the state of Vermont.

"We sat here in this cramped (State Street) office and wondered if we could do that here, and with our loose connections, we decided to go out and test the waters," he said.

The communities with ballots represent 325,000 of Wisconsin's 5.3 million residents.

The variations in the wording of the referendums cover mostly timing. "Now" and "immediate" were the keys, though several of the questions extend the direction to "begin withdrawing . . . and continue steady withdrawals" and "begin an orderly and rapid withdrawal . . ."

At least 51 state service memBers have died in Iraq, three in Afghanistan. More than 18,000 Wisconsin troops, active duty and reserves, have served or are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait.

Richardson also worried that victories for the anti-war referendums might be misinterpreted, since spring election turnouts are historically small, and a referendum passed may not mean a mandate delivered.

Scholars generally applauded the process, if not the product, of the unique state referendum, noting it put the public on the ground floor of a policy debate and sent a direct message from voters to elected representatives.

In a unique case of dueling loyalties, voters in Evansville narrowly approved an anti-war referendum, 444 yes to 425 no, and by an even smaller margin turned down a proclamation supporting the president by 397 no to 386 yes.

The question will live on in future elections, as Ozaukee County and the city of Milwaukee have anti-war referendums on the November ballot, and organizers have promised to add to the list.

Think Local, Act Local

Doug Fuda has it right in this post from Anti War League blog that I found on Antiwar.com. I don't think people realize that marches on Washington is not what accomplishes change, it's happens in their own towns and states that make the change. He notes the forces of decentralization that I point out in my own book. It's the kind of thinking that's going on with these anti-war referendums in my home state of Wisconsin. I think decentralization is finally starting to spread and sink in with people, one hopes.

---Sean Scallon



Local vs. Federal --
the Antiwar Home Field Advantage

by Doug Fuda
April 1, 2006
antiwarleague.com



The American "War Party," led by the neocons and including virtually all national Democratic and Republican political leaders, is becoming increasingly isolated. Public support for their insane “war on terror” is collapsing, and opposition to their interventionist foreign policy is widespread throughout American society. Sometimes it seems as if politicians are the only remaining enthusiastic supporters of the Iraq war even as they lay the groundwork for the next war with Iran. And yet paradoxically the antiwar movement is weak and ineffective.

Here is how one report describes the current situation:

"But even as the war and occupation reach the three-year mark, even as opposition to the war has solidified, it has not translated into a true, mainstream anti-war movement. Local demonstrations are numerous but small. Some have fallen by the wayside."

In order to understand this problem it is important to look at recent history. In spite of the frightening events of September 11, 2001, and all the scare tactics about WMD, a large and diverse antiwar movement arose in America before the Iraq invasion to oppose the war plans of the US ruling elite. It turned out that the death of the "Vietnam Syndrome" (the refusal of Americans to support war) had been declared prematurely after the First Gulf War. But President Bush and the Neocon Warlords had a plan and they carried it out ruthlessly. They knew that they could rely on the assistance of the compliant corporate media and the overwhelming power of war, the ultimate social engineering project, to weather the initial storms of popular discontent. This was a severe blow to the assumptions of the antiwar movement about the power of people in the street.

The second crushing blow was the presidential election of 2004. Popular antiwar sentiment was expelled from the political arena and the antiwar movement was badly divided over how to respond to this abject failure of "politics as usual." This situation continues to this day as the so-called opposition Democrats lead the charge calling for confrontation with Iran as they prepare us for the next installment of the endless "war on terror."

In a recent article Butler Shaffer describes our quandary as follows:

"The American state does not reflect the image we have been conditioned to see. The political system and its processes are under the control of major corporate interests, whose ownership of major media outlets propagandize the public on behalf of such narrow interests. The appearance of a democracy collapses into the reality of a one-party system – the 'Establishment Party' – which, election-after-election, provides voters with choices between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. So-called 'popular democracy' long ago faded into a plutocracy, with only the independently wealthy having a realistic chance of getting elected to high office. Nor did the election returns of 2000 – in Florida – and 2004 – in Ohio – instill confidence in the voting process itself."


What does this all mean? It means that we cannot fight the war machine by trying to change the federal government. The War Party's control is absolute in D.C., bolstered by a cheerleading media, byzantine secrecy, and massive quantities of military/industrial complex dollars. The War Machine operates on automatic pilot from inside an impregnable American "Green Zone." That's one reason why the overwhelming and growing antiwar sentiment in the US does not translate into a powerful movement. People feel there's nothing we can do, so they shake their heads and go on about their business and try to survive. The job of the antiwar movement is to adapt its strategy and tactics to give people a sense of power and hope again.

Here is Mr. Shaffer again:

"We can no longer afford the absurd delusion – brought about by our efforts to reconcile the contradictory nature of the political system – that the Constitution is what keeps the government from doing all the terrible things it does...

...the nature of the political system that has long ruled this country must be examined. At a time when decentralizing forces are bringing about the collapse of vertically-structured institutional systems; and when horizontal networks of spontaneous and autonomous order are emerging, the corpse of constitutional government needs to be laid to rest."

These "decentralizing forces" are the key for the antiwar movement for they are the only peaceful weapon which we have at our disposal which can allow us to prevail. We should employ the full force of a decentralization strategy against the warmongers and the Federal Leviathan.

Such a strategy can provide us with a new tactical standard for deciding what to do. The antiwar movement should not try to change federal policy directly; rather it must actively refuse to cooperate with it at the level where we can fight effectively -- the local and state level.

Here are some examples of things to do:

1. Actively obstruct the military recruitment of our kids. Parents, teachers and students should demand of local school officials and city government that they defy the federal "No Child Left Behind Law" and expel the recruiters from our schools even if they threaten us with a cutoff of federal funds. We must not "sell" our children to the Masters of War for federal blood money. Tell them to shove it.

2. Indict Bush and/or his accomplices. The movement to bring war crimes charges against Bush should not rely on impeachment or an International War Crimes tribunal but should turn to local and state courts and law enforcement officials and demand that they investigate the possibility of a conspiracy by federal officials to start a war of aggression.

3. Oppose federal control of state National Guard units. In Massachusetts last fall there was a signature campaign for a ballot initiative to bring home the Massachusetts National Guard from Iraq and prevent further deployment in overseas wars.

4. Refuse cooperation with the totalitarian Homeland Security project. Demand that our state and city governments and community leaders break the ties that connect out local communities and institutions to the Orwellian "War on Terror." (For example we should abolish the Fusion Centers.)

Such projects of resistance and refusal may already be underway in many places but we need to duplicate these efforts in thousands of communities and we need to make our decentralization strategy explicit. We should declare that we have a home field advantage against the War Party and that we intend to use it to peacefully but decisively dismantle the war machine.

Desperate times demand desperate measures and I agree with Noam Chomsky who recently said that “under the current U.S. policies, a nuclear exchange is inevitable.” You can't get much more desperate than that. The weak and divided antiwar movement must learn from experience in order to transform itself into a formidable organized force that can inflict real political damage on the enemies of peace. Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter recently wrote, in referring to the US military policy known as "full spectrum dominance," that there is an "infantile insanity ... at the heart of present American political philosophy." Sensible mature Americans from all walks of life must step forward in their neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, cities and towns to challenge the local manifestations of this militaristic pathology which threatens to destroy us all. It is time to put the grown-ups back in charge before it is too late.


Doug Fuda, a Boston resident and member of the Antiwar League, can be reached at dougfuda@aol.com

Referendums on war in Tuesday's Wisconsin spring election

This story appeared in the Wisconsin State Journal newspaper out of Madison (www.madison.com) Sunday. It shows some of the debates going on concerning several town referendums on the war in Iraq across the state. One of the main sponsors of these referendums is the Green Party. Once again the Greens shows that they "get it" when it comes to effective non-major party politics by sponsoring such local referndums that, if they go overwhelmingly against the war (or even for the war for that matter)and be a big news story and will influence the debate, far more than running someone for President.

The Greens are following in the tradition of our cousins across the Atlantic in merry olde England. During the Revolutionary War, which was an unpopular war in the mother country, many citizens could not vote but found ways of expressing their local sentiments against the conflict through the petition process i.e. petitions that were gathered and signed and eventually presented to the king or to members of parliment. Such petitions and popular meetings against the war eventually weighed -in on policy makers by 1782 and the final defeat at Yorktown. The war was unpopular, catastrophic defeat took place and there was no sense of continuing on. Likewise, if a good number of Wisconsin towns vote against the war, the Powers that Be may very well look harder for ways to end an unpopular war.

----Sean Scallon

Fighting the war at home
By GEORGE HESSELBERG

In December in the town of Perry, population 754, the Town Board agreed to raise the wages of the recycling attendant, increase the dog license fees to $6.50 per neutered dog, and look into bringing the troops home from Iraq right away.

"Every time I watched the news or read the paper, more of our soldiers were getting killed, it made me sick," explained Roger Kittleson, a farmer, carpenter and the Town Board member who first suggested an anti- war referendum might be a good idea.

"We decided to urge the people to vote and to vote what their hearts felt," he said.

"The other thing we decided was to send the results of our referendum to all our elected officials, right up to the president, yes or no, just so they know how we feel."

Board chairman Pat Downing joined Kittleson, voting 2-1 to put the referendum on the Tuesday town ballot, joining 31 other Wisconsin municipalities doing the same.

The no vote came from Larry Price, who said he doesn't think "a national issue is an appropriate question for a town ballot."

From Exeland to Mount Horeb, from La Crosse to Madison, voters Tuesday will ponder the wisdom or the danger of withdrawal from the war in Iraq.

Thirty-two towns, villages and cities, with a total of about 325,000 of Wisconsin's 5.3 million residents, are weighing in on the war with referendums that vary only slightly in wording.

Though the general description of the referendums has been "anti-war" because in all but one municipality the genesis for the effort has come from people against the war, the issue is presented as a choice.

And that means, said UW-Madison political science professor Kathy Cramer Walsh, the supporters are also taking a chance.

"When people put something like this on the ballot, they are acknowledging that this may be defeated. They are acknowledging that they may be activating their opponents as much as activating their own point of view," Cramer Walsh said.


'A gut check'

What the anti-war referendum supporters, organized loosely under the banner of "Bring the Troops Home Now," activated were opponents such as William Richardson, of Madison.

"When I saw what the Madison referendum said, it was a gut check for me," said Richardson, whose military service came as a musician in the U.S. Marine band from 1966 to 1970. Father of three sons, he taught and played trombone at UW-Madison for 30 years.

Richardson doesn't think the referendum question is worth debating, the question to him is so clear cut: "They say bring the troops home now; we say vote no to cut and run, bring them home when the job is done.

"In business it is called attitude, in the military it is called morale. You can have the best- trained, educated, led and equipped soldiers in the world, but if they don't want to fight, you have nothing."

The referendums on the war have a "corrosive" effect on that morale, he said, and "they help the morale of the enemy, boosts the morale of the terrorists."

Richardson sees the anti-war referendum organizers as shadowy manipulators of an attempt to start an "impeach the president" movement.

He worries the Wisconsin referendum campaign will be exported to other states.


In Green Party

That's a great idea, said Steve Burns, coordinator of the Bring Our Troops Home Now group based in Madison. Burns works part time for the group, on "loan" from the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, an important financial and organizational backer of the referendum effort and active in the state's peace movement since 1991.

Burns is also part of the Wisconsin Green Party, which contributed volunteers and structure to anti-war referendum organizing efforts in many areas, an effort Burns said began in June 2005.

That explains some of the attraction of the effort in rural areas, where the Green Party appeals to a traditional independent streak among residents.

"They want to be left alone," he said, but "they don't like to be told to sit down and shut up."

The national Green Party has made no secret of its desire to promote and organize such referendums nationwide, and its call to impeach the president. The Greens are watching Wisconsin results closely, as are the national media.

In Wisconsin, along the way to getting the question on to more than 30 ballots, the organizers learned some lessons, Burns said. In Watertown, for example, a tricky interpretation of the law was eventually decided in the organizers' favor in court.

"That was important because it set a legal precedent," Burns said.

"The debate is important to show people that the war is a local issue," said Burns, seated in the group's crowded State Street office, shared with the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice.

The effort in Wisconsin was "inspired" by a similar effort in Vermont, said Burns, and made possible by a unique but little- used Wisconsin law that allows such questions to be presented to the voters.

Responding to Richardson's criticism that the Wisconsin effort has been orchestrated from afar, Burns noted that "it has been the local people deciding to put this on the ballots, the local people chose the language, and it is the right of the citizen to set limits on government.

"This is fundamentally a conservative thing to do, insist that we have a say in the government that is taking money out of our paychecks, people out of our communities."


Wisconsin in war

Hovering over every argument for and against the referendum, but seldom specifically mentioned, is the very real, flesh and blood, connection Wisconsin residents have with the Iraq War.

The most recent statistics show 51 U.S. service members, with official residence in Wisconsin, among Iraq War fatalities. That does not include three Wisconsin dead in Afghanistan, according to Lt. Col. Tim Donovan of the Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs.

The Department of Defense numbers as of Jan. 31 showed 9,053 active duty troops from Wisconsin who have served or are serving in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. To that, Donovan said, add "more than 9,000" Wisconsin troops from seven military reserve components.

There are currently just more than 4,000 Wisconsin troops serving in those areas, Donovan said.

Each soldier has a family, a hometown, a high school, a web of connections back to communities in the state.

It is not a given in this election that those connections translate into opposition to the referendums.

In Madison, for example, the family of Army Sgt. Mark Maida, who was killed in the Iraq War in May, has been active in support of the referendums.

But last week in Evansville, which has competing referendums to consider in support and against the war, Iraq War veteran Sgt. Kevin Lewis expressed frustration at the anti- war question. In an emotional, impromptu discussion following a panel presentation, Lewis said the anti-war effort has a negative effect on troops.


Effect on policy?

Whether referendums have any effect on government policy has emerged as a key supplemental question in debates.

Richardson said no, and his group even refuses to publicly debate the referendum: "There are all kinds of more effective venues for people to voice their opinions. You can call, or e- mail, it's not a big secret of how to get hold of your congressman.

"This is just a technique of the far left, which they will now use on every issue," he said.

Cramer Walsh, the political scientist, said the effect of using this tool, however, is more far- reaching and, she said, inspirational in a democratic society.

"I don't think the referendums resolve whether we should be in Iraq or not," she said. "But they matter because they are very visible symbols of public opinion. It is much different than a poll. This is a demonstration of opinion among the most active segments of the public.

"Whether or not it has an effect on policy, it is an important use of a tool that is not all that common in Wisconsin."

From a more distant view, even the results may not be the most important part of the effort, she said.

"A lot of people will look at it and say what a waste of time, but it gets a lot of attention and that is something in and of itself. And it gets people talking. And politicians take notice when citizens get mobilized and do something collectively."

A referendum is not, she said, a practical way to decide all policy.

"We have representatives for a reason. If we decided all policy this way, it would be ridiculous. But the folks who wrote the Declaration of Independence were very patriotic people, and what they said very clearly was that you have a right and a duty to get involved when you think the government is not acting in the people's interest. It is not unpatriotic to disagree with policy, it is unpatriotic to do nothing."


Rhetoric on the Web

That patriotism question comes up in discussions, too, but the past months' of campaigning have been - aside from rhetoric on Web sites and radio talk shows - mostly absent of public name-calling.

In one extreme example in Whitefish Bay, according to newspaper reports, a village board trustee, Jim Brennan, was severely criticized after he wrote a letter to the North Shore Herald weekly accusing the 1,000 people who signed a petition that got the anti-war referendum on the ballot as being guilty of treason.

"They are just as guilty as those who are killing and injuring our soldiers and our airmen," he wrote.

Chuck Himsel is the fire chief in Mount Horeb, where a referendum is on the ballot. His is the rare home in the village with a "Vote No To Cut and Run" sign, but unlike some, he is not questioning the patriotism of the referendum backers.

"It is not my intention to be a flaming patriot, and I can't stand up and applaud slaughter. But cut-and-run is a signal that says to the terrorists, come and get us again. I am not preaching or condemning those who disagree with me. Somebody jumped me and said he didn't appreciate my yard sign. I said it's my yard, my house, my sign and God bless America."

Kittleson, the town of Perry farmer, points out the inconsistencies in many of the debate points. The Green Party, for example, had nothing to do with getting the referendum on that town's ballot.

"I guess I wasn't really for starting the war when Bush decided to do it. If there were weapons of mass destruction, well, yes they should be taken care of. But we have been there three years. We have captured Saddam. They are still killing our soldiers. They supposedly have a new leader. It's time for the people of that country to run it themselves. I understand war is war, but I don't think we are going to change the Iraqis way of thinking. I'm not liberal or conservative, I guess I am a little bit of both."

Fran Zell, a member of a group in Evansville that helped organize the successful anti- war referendum petition drive, said the turnout for a panel discussion last week was a positive sign for both sides.

Before the referendum issue arose in Evansville, "no one would talk about the war. This is bringing the discussion out into the open."

The discussion will not end Tuesday. Voting residents of the city of Milwaukee and Ozaukee County will face the anti-war referendums on ballots in November.

Burns said the referendum effort will continue and it is "very likely" more communities will be added to the November list