Obama Needs the Peace Vote: Can he get it? Does he deserve it? Can he
win without it?
By Kevin Zeese
ccun.org, September 22, 2008
There is a phrase that has been applied to dating, sports and politics –
“dance with the one who brung you.” Darrell K. Royal, a College Football
Hall of Fame member and the winningest coach in University of Texas
Longhorn history used the expression to make the point that you go with
the players and plays that brought you to the championship. This
is a lesson that Senator Obama needs to apply his election campaign.
Obama was able to defeat Senator Clinton in large part due to his speech
against the Iraq war before he was in the U.S. senate. This speech
excited the anti-war vote because he said much of what anti-war leaders
were saying in opposition to the war. Throughout his campaign he
emphasized that he would “end the war” in his stump speeches, a phrase
that was an applause line throughout the country – not surprisingly
since opposition to the war is over 60% among U.S. voters.
But, as the campaign developed and the details of Obama’s plan to “end”
the war became clear, peace voters realized Obama was not a peace
candidate. His exit plan for Iraq left a large “residual” force of tens
of thousands of troops along with more than 100,000 private security
troops (aka mercenaries) in Iraq. Then Obama announced he wanted
to escalate the war in Afghanistan despite strong arguments that more
troops will actually make things worse. Then, his selection of
Senator Joseph Biden as his running mate dampened the support of
anti-war advocates. Biden supported attacking Iraq before Bush and
participated in the misleading of the public and his fellow senators by
holding one-sided hearings in support of the war before the committee he
chaired.
Now, polls show the post convention election to be either tied or
favoring McCain-Palin over Obama-Biden. The most pro-McCain poll,
the USA/Gallup poll released on September 8, shows McCain leads Obama by
four points among registered voters (50%-46%), when he trailed Obama by
seven after the Democratic convention (50%-43%) -- an 11-point swing.
Among likely voters the poll shows McCain leading by a land slide of 10
points (54%-44%). It is evident the race is going to be more
challenging for Obama-Biden than expected.
Obama may have made a mistake in taking the peace vote for granted.
Opposition to the war is a super-majority position of American voters
but Obama is not getting their support. Polls show that three
independent and third party peace candidates could influence the outcome
of the election. An
August 27th Time/CNN poll shows Ralph Nader polling 8 percent in New
Mexico, 7 percent in Colorado, 7 percent in Pennsylvania, and 6 percent
in Nevada. Nader’s support
has been increasing throughout the summer. Similarly, Bob Barr
has been
polling between 1.5 percent and 4 percent in swing states.
Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, who is rarely asked about by
pollsters,
is polling at 2 percent in Colorado and 3 percent in Nevada.
The common denominator of all three of these candidates is they are
clearly opposed to war and a foreign policy dominated by military
intervention. When their polling numbers are added together they
total a minimum of 5 percent up to more than 10 percent of the votes in
key states. Right now these voters are unlikely to support Obama
or McCain due to their pro-military policies. Some anti-war voters
will support Obama merely because McCain is so aggressive in his use of
the military and his neo-con approach to foreign policy, but others are
not satisfied to vote against McCain.
Today, September 10, Ron Paul is holding a press conference with four
third party and independent candidates – all of whom oppose the war – to
reportedly urge support for them rather than for McCain or Obama.
The peace vote is being told it has somewhere else to go.
As Bruce Peterson of the Peace and Justice Radio Network said on a
discussion list for United for Peace and Justice: “If everyone who
called themselves ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ voted for a third party
candidate, we would actually have a chance at making real change in this
country.” More and more anti-war voters are concluding that a vote
against the militarism of the two major parties will do more to change
U.S. foreign policy than a vote for Obama.
Of course, some peace voters have concluded that they should support
Obama. Indeed, this is probably still the majority view but they
criticize Obama’s militaristic foreign policy viewpoints and argue that
he is better than John McCain. Tom Hayden, the 1960s anti-war
activist who went on to become a Democratic state legislator puts
forward this view on behalf of Progressive for Obama.
On the Voters for Peace discussion list there was an exchange about the
question of peace voters and their role in the election.
Carl Davidson of Progressives for Obama: “Kevin, I scold the Obama team
at least once a day. Sometimes they listen and sometimes they don't.
They have a lot of forces scolding them from every direction.
“But right now, I'm far more interested in 'scolding,' 'nudging',
'haranguing' or inspiring all the left activists down on the ground,
where it counts most, to get off their butts and get to work, if they're
not already doing so, defeating McCain. Obama is what he is, and the
differences between the two camps, the progressive- center alliance vs.
rightwing populism, should be fairly clear to everyone, especially since
the GOP's show in St. Paul. If you still can't see it, there's not much
more I can say to help you at this point.
“We think globally but act locally. Anyone who thinks they're at all
progressive has no business remaining passive and not mobilizing THEIR
OWN PERSONAL BASE, whatever the warts with Obama's effort.
“It's not hard. Just register every young antiwar and antiracist new
voter you can, at your local high school or community college, keep a
list, and get them all to the polls on Election Day.”
Jodda Mitchell responded putting forward the view of some peace
activists: “I do a lot of local work to get McKinney elected. I
talk to people everywhere I go, and let them know there is an
alternative to the two wings of the war party. I let them know
that there is a candidate whose voting record should stand as a shining
example to all the rest, someone who represents real change, someone
with the balls to go after Bushco for war crimes, someone who actually
embodies what the people in this country say they want in a candidate.
I made copies of McKinney's voting record and platform, and pass those
out along with the buttons and bumper stickers I got from her website.
No one can accuse me of not working to elect a good candidate.
“There is no way in hell I would try and get people to vote for Obama,
as I actually give a damn about all the innocent men, women, and
children he is threatening to murder in the Middle East. I will
not be complicit in their deaths.”
Similar arguments are made on behalf of Ralph Nader who opposed the war
before it began and for the last four years worked with
Democracy Rising to help end
the war. Nader has spoken at anti-war rallies and
written
extensively in opposition to the war.
Voters for Peace is a
non-partisan organization that not advocate for any candidate.
From the emails I receive from our members some peace voters are like
Jodda – they see the Democratic Party leadership and Obama as continuing
the current direction of U.S. foreign policy and will not support them
deciding instead to vote for a third party of independent candidate who
stands against militarism. These voters see that voting for what
you want – an end to militarism – is more likely to get what you want.
The history of the U.S. is replete with examples of voters whose issues
were “off the table” forcing a paradigm shift by voting outside the two
parties. Examples include abolition of slavery, voting rights for women,
ending child labor, the forty hour work week, health care for the poor
and elderly – all these issues were off the table until voters organized
outside the two parties of the era.
Others are shocked to hear about Obama’s positions. They do not
want to believe that his “ending” the war does not mean withdrawing all
troops and mercenaries from Iraq. They do not want to know that Biden as
Chairman of Foreign Relations aided Bush in misleading the country about
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by holding manipulated hearings.
When these voters hear these and other facts they waiver, no longer sure
for whom to vote.
Others take the Hayden position that Obama is the best peace voters can
hope for, despite his flaws, and once he is elected he is more likely to
be a president who can be influenced by public opinion.
But, the election is close that Obama needs the peace vote – all of it.
Can he get it? Does he deserve it?
At this point it is up to the peace movement to demand Obama earn their
votes and get on the side of the super majority that wants the Iraq war
and occupation ended – really ended. Obama has the Iraqi
government, the Iraqi people and the American people all in support of
this position. Certainly he is a capable enough pol to side with
the majority.
If Obama is unable to capture the vote of the vast majority of voters
opposed to the war he has little chance of winning this election.
Kevin Zeese is executive director of Voters for Peace (www.VotersForPeace.US).
Fair Use
Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.