In One Chart, Here's Why The Anti-War Movement Collapsed

[n2doc]

There's been a lot of talk about the absence of a strong and visible anti-war movement, the way there was during the George W. Bush Presidency.

While there are protests against intervention in Syria, in general the movement seems to be a lot weaker under Obama.

If you guessed that this had something to do with the fact that Obama is a Democrat... you'd be correct!

In 2011, Professors Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas published a study titled: The Partisan Dynamics of Contention: Demobilization Of The Antiwar Movement In The United States 2007-2009 which looked at nearly 6,000 surveys of anti-war demonstrators between January 2007 and December 2009.

This one chart basically tells the whole story. The percentage of Democrats attending anti-war protests collapsed at the end of 2008, and in early 2009.



As Democrats are the biggest block of any of these groups, this desertion of the Democratic party was the major blow.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-deserted-the-anti-war-movement-collapsed-2013-9

I guess the next time we have an 'R' as prez, they will be back....

[TM99]

1. I said this very thing just the other day in a thread here on DU.

Democrats have dropped the ball on this one. Now it is the Green Party and the Libertarian Party that are anti-war, anti-surveillance state, and organizing protests.

They are marginalized further by the fact that the Tea Party Republicans took over the worst aspects of the Libertarian Party (i.e. Ayn Rand instead of Harry Browne) and Democrats ignore the Green Party because of some imagined slight against Nader and election 2000 which was Gore/Liberman's to lose.

[n2doc]

3. The green party is a threat to mainstream/corporate Dems

So there is a constant pressure to ignore them and to be reminded that we have 'no other choice but to hold our noses'. That may be true. For now.

[Autumn]

7. Agree, that may be true for now.

I'm beginning to think that that bucket has a hole in it.

[99th_Monkey]

16. 10+ nt

[Cryptoad]

21. Never thought I would see the day that so many Americans would defend Assad's gassing

of his own country's children without facing any retribution!

Shameful!

[zeemike]

28. I never thought I would see the day that so many Americans

would fall for the false dichotomy of with us or against us...
Ether you are for war or you support Assad gassing his people...
And now the democrats are using it against us.

[Cryptoad]

36. Yea we know,,,,,,,

Hitler was just misunderstood and ADD,,,,,,geeez!

[zeemike]

46. Yep Hitler is always a good straw man.

Godwin's law does not apply to straw men.

[Cryptoad]

66. You are the one pretending

that Assad's crimes against humanity are unworthy of Justice---- so you can claim your straw man!

[zeemike]

71. I am not pretending anything

I was not there and I don't know...only what I am told, just like you.
You are the one telling us it is a fact...a slam dunk as if you know about it personally.
And the ones presenting the evidence have lied to us before...and generally if this were on a jury that would make what they say this time suspect.

[blackspade]

29. Strawman fail.

Nobody is defending Assad.

[Cryptoad]

38. and you are not calling

for retribution, heh?

[blackspade]

99. Why would I be calling for retribution?

If this was really about poison gas we could have gone all Delta Force on him; black bagged him and then turned him over to the Hague for trial.

But it's not. It is about perpetuating a 'war' mentality for the the benefit of the MIC.
100,000 have reportedly died thus far and 1000 sarin victims are the tipping point?
Where were we when 1000's died in Homs from indiscriminate shelling years ago?

[ZombieHorde]

33. What would the bombing accomplish?

We can't bomb the chemical weapons and we are not going to bomb Assad. Why should we do something that will potentially kill innocent people?

[Cryptoad]

39. I haven't said anything about Bombings

no need to make up stuff as you type

[ZombieHorde]

40. OK. What kind of retribution did you have in mind? nt

[Cryptoad]

44. as long as he is not breathing when it is over with,,,,,is ok with me! nt

[sulphurdunn]

34. Try to grasp this:

The President is not legally authorized to declare unilateral war under our Constitution, the UN Charter and any number of international treaties going back to Nuremberg unless an immanent threat can be shown to exist against our territory. I would suggest that since you think Americans should fight to avenge Syria's children, it begin with you. Go to Saudi Arabia or Israel, I'm sure either of these countries would be more than happy to smuggle you and your self-righteous indignation to the Syrian rebels since they both have a dog in the fight, but couldn't care less about Syrians. Since tens or thousands of children have been slaughtered like sheep in the Middle East since 2003, I'm rather amazed you haven't gone yet, but since all sides have been shameless murderess of children over the last decade it might be hard to pick the right one. Good luck.

[sulphurdunn]

52. I'm not defending

anything. But, I am telling you that I am unwilling to shed one drop of American blood or spend once red cent of American treasure in Syria. Since the Syrian government has denied doing this and since no unimpeachable evidence exists to conclude otherwise, I'd suggest that if you want to pound your war drum that you go do that in Syria and stop using the slaughter of children as a pretext to slaughter more of them.

[Cryptoad]

64. That is to say you are defending him

if he bears no retribution for his Evil crimes against humanity .. you give the green light to do it again. He must bear the ultimate price for gassing and torturing his own people!

btw......there is no need to make stuff up as you type. I have not called the slaughter of children.

one single drone can deliver Assad's Justice!

[Mojorabbit]

94. Some great black and white thinking there. Life isn't so simply divided into good and evil. nt

[bvar22]

96. Well,,,,, apparently is IS,,,,

,,,,for some,,, deep thinkers.

[quaker bill]

90. The Green Party wishes it was a threat

It always has, I was a speaker at the organizing convention...

It is only a threat in extremely close and very rare elections.

[1-Old-Man]

2. The reason is clear, Democrats expect their Party to end wars, so no protests are necessary

Of course we are mistaken in that expectation.

[n2doc]

4. It seems like we vote that way

And then are told that the candidate really didn't say they would end wars/Gitmo/etc. And we are also told we must support our president no matter what, or we are "wanting Rand Paul/Sarah Palin/insert RW whackjob" to win, and how dare we?

[1-Old-Man]

8. You dam sure got that right.

[NYC Liberal]

72. When was it ever claimed that Obama would "end wars"?

How about a link to Obama himself or anyone else making that assertion?

As for Guantanamo, he has kept his promise there. One of his first orders was to shut it down. As I'm sure you know, Congress has overwhelmingly voted to block the funding needed to make that happen (or refused to vote to provide it) -- both Dems and Repubs.

[n2doc]

74. You warmongers are so tiresome n/t

[gulliver]

5. There's much less to protest thanks to Dems.

If doctors dispense less medication after an epidemic is over, it isn't necessarily a sign that they are hoarding medicine.

[Maedhros]

23. Sadly, no.

Signature strikes.
Double taps.
"All military-aged males are militants"
Yemen, Pakistan, Libya

[Fuddnik]

45. Dems, MoveOn, etc, traded activism for access.

Those of us who kept it up were "Fucking Retarded".

Turns out the access was just shoulder-rubbing and lip service.

[polichick]

60. Correct.

[Hekate]

61. Really? What "access" do MoveOn et al. have?

Please explain.

[bvar22]

97. Here you go:

Rahm Emanuel's Think Tankers Enforce 'Message Discipline' Among 'Liberals'---Jeremy Scahill

What is clear here is that CAP and MoveOn are now basically psuedo-official PR flaks targeting "liberals" to support the White House agenda. This, though, should not come as a shock to those who have closely monitored these groups.

They were the primary force behind Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI), "a coalition that spent tens of millions of dollars using Iraq as a political bludgeon against Republican politicians, while refusing to pressure the Democratic Congress to actually cut off funding for the war."

Now, according to John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, the Center for American Progress is now running "Progressive Media which was begun by Tom Matzzie and David Brock in 2008 and now 'represents a serious ratcheting up of efforts to present a united liberal front in the coming policy wars....' [These groups] are working hard to push Obama's policies, including rationalizlng or defending his escalation of the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan as "sustainable security."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/rahm-emanuels-think-tanke_b_185203.html

[Maedhros]

73. In my opinion, they've just given up.

They've accepted that our Republic is sliding into Empire and don't see the point in fighting it anymore. They figure the best we can do is try and have the gentlest Emperor possible.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Are the ones who abandoned their principles smirking and wearing cowboy boots?

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[CrispyQ]

9. You can't have social justice without economic justice.

I think 2008 showed many of us the truth of what we've thought for awhile - that economically, the dems serve the same masters as the repubs.

I hope the next time we have an R as prez, democratic party leadership will wake up & smell the desertion. You can't ride the gravy train & serve the People at the same time.

[AverageJoe90]

24. And, frankly, I would argue the opposite.

Economic justice is all good and fine.....but how do we get where we need to be, and *stay there* without SOCIAL justice?

Without social justice, there can be no true economic justice.

[KoKo]

50. Disagree... we need both...but without economic justice there's no chance for

social justice because there isn't room to move when all are close to or at the bottom as it is today with part time workers and no wage growth for over a decade.

But, we need both ...although feeding self and family and holding down a job has to be the priority as times get tougher.

[gopiscrap]

10. yup I've noticed that also but I also know personally that I am a lot less

inclined to protest about something I don't agree with when there is a Democrat in office.

[another_liberal]

11. If our President had only rejected the Afghan surge in 2009 . . .

We would never have gotten slaughtered in the 2010 mid-term elections if our President had only rejected the Afghan surge in 2009. What a price to pay just to prop-up Karzai for few more years!

[Hekate]

65. If our liberal activists had GOTV in 2009-10 we would have not lost ground in 2010

Instead our activist base was either too Bush-fatigued or too busy complaining about the lack of miracles to do the necessary work -- the work that is ours to do, that the president can't do for us. That's on us. If ordinary Democrats/liberals/progressives had done their job, the GOP would never have been in a position to gerrymander all those districts.

I really don't think the Afghan surge had much to do with it.

[another_liberal]

77. The President's decision certainly demoralized me.

I did support the President's election in 2008; I gave money to his campaign; I worked phone banks for hours at our local Democratic headquarters; I wore his campaign logo proudly and I stood for hours just for the chance to catch a glimpse of him and to hear his voice in person. When he defeated McCain/Palin that November, it seemed like I was living a genuine miracle. I really believed our country had been saved from the insanity of endless war.

I can still remember my disbelief, quickly followed by a sense of betrayal and culminating in a smoldering rage at his decision to add yet more American soldiers and more hundreds of billions of dollars to the mountain of wasted lives and fortune that has been our involvement in Afghanistan. I will always support Barack Obama as my President, and I did contribute to his reelection campaign in 2012, but I will never completely forgive him for that horrible mistake.

I was surely not alone in my disappointment. The impact his decision to emulate his predecessor in doubling-down on our involvement in a pointless war, I believe, was first seen in the lackluster turn-out of Democratic voters that led to the loss Senator Kennedy's Senate seat to a Republican in early 2010. The same disenchantment on the part of anti-war Democrats can be seen in low turnouts for the the mid-term elections that fall.

There can be little doubt our President did himself and our country a great disservice when he sided with his generals instead of the people who elected him. I fear he is about to make an even worse mistake by intervening in Syria. I and many, many others have been trying to tell him so. May he still hear our voices, swallow his pride, and decide not to attack.

[Hekate]

84. If "disappointment" and "rage" kept you home in 2010, the consequences were of no help at all...

... were they? If you want a president who can move on a liberal agenda, it sure would help if he had a congress full of members with (D) or (I) after their names, instead of low voter turnout with Teapartiers the most motivated and handing the GOP the ability to gerrymander like crazy.

Midterm elections bring out only the most motivated voters. Wingnuts are motivated. I'm not letting my fellow Dems off the hook on that one.

[another_liberal]

88. I did not say that.

I participated in 2010, as I always do. The stakes in this game of Republican versus Democrat are too high. I realized that many elections before 2010.

Still, I stand by my contention that low Democratic turn out in 2010 was considerably due to our President's regrettable early policy decisions.

[Art_from_Ark]

80. The party in the White House almost always sees a net loss in mid-term elections

During the last 26 mid-term elections, the party in the White House has seen a net loss of combined Senate/House seats in all but 3 elections-- In other words, the party in the White House has seen a net *loss* of Congressional seats in 23 of the last 26 mid-term elections. It has little to do with lack of effort of the activist base, and more to do with voters who easily switch from one party to another, or who only vote in presidential elections, or vote for local candidates for reasons that transcend party platforms.

The reasons why the White House picked up seats during those 3 elections can probably be attributed as follows:

1934-- public backlash against Republicans blocking key elements of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal
1998-- public backlash against Republicans for impeaching President Clinton over the Lewinsky affair
2002-- public support for bu$h's Afghanistan war

[uponit7771]

98. +1, but you know....fuck Obama!! cause...he controls airThing...

[AtheistCrusader]

12. How wierd the uptick in republicans protesting war mirrors the downtick in democrats.

That's just... weird.

[another_liberal]

22. Look again.

Republican support remains basically flat. It is the "No Party" support which climbs as Democratic support drops.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Oh, you're right, I totally misread that.

I wonder if that flip represents D's not against war, and I's against it, or a demographic shift between the two parties, and the anti-war opinion went with them?

Can't believe I misread the graph there. Thanks for pointing it out.

[joshcryer]

87. Which tells me that they simply dropped their affiliation.

Not that Democrats stopped protesting, they just stopped being Democrats.

This is a much different narrative than the OP wants to present, IMO.

[another_liberal]

89. Hmmmm?

That could well be true. People who hate war generally don't change their minds and start liking it.

[joshcryer]

93. Yeah, and they keep protesting.

Basically it's the difference between Democrats stopping protesting and Democrats stopping being Democrats but continuing to protest.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim the former when it's the latter.

[felix_numinous]

13. Seems like people only want to wake up so far

--and when the realization hits that the game is rigged, and the answer has to come from the citizenry, the blinkers are donned again and we hear, ' well maybe next election' or 'if an R gets into office, or some other disaster happens, maybe then we'll wake up and do something...
blablabla.

We ARE and have been at a crossroads--economical, social, military AND ecologically. IT IS INTIMIDATING.

I think people know there are big changes coming and want to hang onto the illusion of life as we know it as long as possible. It's human nature.

But we have to talk about this denial stage we're in, because we're in it big time.

I say WE because I'm intimidated by it all too.

[Rebellious Republican]

14. Thats bullshit, GW did not call upon congress to go to war!

How about we wait and see what happens with congress (when they come back off vacation) and the UN!

[bvar22]

62. You really need to brush up on History to avoid embarrassing yourself.

[font size=3]"The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq"[/font]
WAS
an Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq,
no matter how badly the partisan revisionists WISH it wasn't true.

[font size=3]The Democratic Party Honor Roll[/font]
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq (IWR)

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

Bush also went to Congress to get authorization to Use Military Force in Afghanistan,
and only Barbara Lee (D, California) voted NO. (gawd bless her)

So, NO. Your claim IS false.
GW did not call upon congress to go to war!

[Rebellious Republican]

95. Thanks for the education, I stand corrected.

As for embarrassing myself, it happens often around here. But that is why we have civil discussions without personal attacks.

[polichick]

15. Or not enough desertion.

[RainDog]

17. I stopped protesting

after the invasion of Iraq. I figured it was a worthless gesture.

So, it didn't have to do with a Republican v. Democratic president - it had to do with no one in power really giving a flip.

[tomg]

43. I can see your point. I sometimes agree, but

finally it is never a worthless gesture. At the least, you are telling them "you don't make war in my name." It is bearing witness. I saw that back in 2006 at a demonstration in NY against Iraq when I was marching and complaining about the rain and that I was too old ( I'm 63 now) to be doing this and it wouldn't do any good and blah blah blah. We turned a corner and singing away on the stage was Pete Seeger. My SO turned to me and said, "don't you feel like a damned fool." So this weekend, she and I will be in Washington.

[RainDog]

79. yeah

but in spite of his years of protest, Seeger has never stopped an invasion that I know of.

It's more about conscience and being visible as that conscience. That's a valid reason.

I'm also a single mom and had two kids and went back to school, while working, so I guess my conscience was more concerned with my day-to-day survival since no one else cared about it.

[progressoid]

18. Rec!

[KoKo]

19. Recommend....

[backscatter712]

20. It very well may uncollapse in a hurry.

Between the NSA PRISM thing, the treatment of whistle-blowers like Manning and Snowden, the continuation of the War on Drugs (on marijuana, specifically) and the continued threats of cuts to Medicare and Social Security, the Democratic base is losing trust in the President and in the government. So the anti-war movement may come back with a roar.

[RC]

25. This is what happens when you support the leader, because he is our guy, even though he continues

the policies of the other party. It is OK when we do it, but not when they do it. Hero worship will do that to a person.
The answer is to find a set of principals and stick to them. If it is wrong when the the opposition does it, it is still wrong when your own party does it. Apparently the flip-flopping some people do, doesn't hurt enough, when the Democratic party continues the policies they condemned when done by the Republicans.

[QC]

26. Yes, party before principle, or worse, personality before principle.

We have seen plenty of that around here these past few years, what with self-styled liberals and progressives loudly defending bombing campaigns, blanket surveillance, etc.

It's been disappointing, to say the least.

[cprise]

49. Then again here we are on *DU*

Where you're not allowed to support Progressives who are outside the Democratic Party.

Lovely.

We're even more wedded to party politics than are the conservatives.

[QC]

85. The "About" page here used to describe DU as

a "left wing forum."

That description is gone now.

[blackspade]

27. Not shocking.

[Marrah_G]

30. I suggest that will change if this president start a war

[Live and Learn]

31. Protesting is time consuming and exhausting.

Most of us can't keep it up for over a decade.

That said, we have a group of older folks in our community that have been at it faithfully every Friday since it started. I really admire them.

[tridim]

32. Less Democrats are protesting because the Democratic President ended Bush's wars, as promised.

SHOCKING!!!!!1111

[davidn3600]

35. And now starting new ones of his own to take the place of those Bush wars...

....even more shocking!

[tridim]

47. He's not starting a war.

[nebenaube]

53. just what in the hell do you call throwing a moltov cocktail into pit of gasoline? n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

68. Like it or not, bombing elicits a different response than committing ground troups

There will likely be zero US casualties as a result of any intervention there. Anti-war movements get a lot more popular a lot quicker when we know the people who are dying in the war.

[baldguy]

37. And the people that still want to protest can't see the difference between Bush and Obama.

Then they get all offended when you point out how ridiculous they look.

[UTUSN]

41. Neh, the height of the anti-war manifestation was under Dem LBJ and was about being DRAFTED.

That would be DRAFTED for bad reasons, but still DRAFTED. Tweety has been blatant about saying his MAIN motivation for joining the Peace Corps was to get out of going to Vietnam, with a dash of ethnic/Irish-Catholic-JFK-pride.

[Jim Lane]

51. Vietnam also had a strong partisan component.

Somewhere I read the observation that, on January 20, 1969, the center of gravity in the U.S. Senate on the war issue moved markedly to the antiwar side. There were Democrats who'd been largely supportive, or at least toning down their opposition, when the war was the project of a Democratic President. As soon as a Republican (Nixon) entered the White House, that party loyalty factor was gone.

Similarly, suppose Romney had been elected and had chosen to disregard his campaign statements and revert back to Liberal Mitt of his Massachusetts days. If he had proposed something very close to Obama's actual ACA, I'll bet he'd have gotten quite a few Republican votes in support of it. Conversely, some Democrats who voted for the ACA with reservations might have voted No on forcing people to patronize the private for-profit health insurance giants.

Politicians of both parties put a high priority on not kicking own goals.

[tomg]

54. And if you look at the age of those who were in the streets

against the Afghan and Iraq misadventures, I think you would find that a fairly high percentage were people well over 40 at the time, many of whom had first cut their teeth in the anti-war movement (at least that is my observation). I do agree with your point, but it is complex.

Many of us ( I am 63) first began in the anti-war movement out of self-interest presented as righteousness and idealism. I don't think that can or should be denied, but it also became a motivation for many of us in diverse ways. In my case, it helped me to become a conscientious objector and to stay active in progressive causes. It introduced me to left activism. It got some of us involved in union activities, or the women's movement, or the environmental movement, or the GLBT movement. It made my SO the progressive she is today.

I think that when the PTB ended the draft they knew exactly what they were doing ( as my SO says, "it was deliberate if not conscious&quot . Take out the immediate self-interest and not only do you lessen dissent among those most likely otherwise to dissent, but you do a number of other things: those who would be exposed to progressive ideas are cut off from them; the basic tools and networks to organize are learned with greater difficulty; those who should at their ages be figuring out their relationship to their culture - traditional rites of passage stuff, what does it mean to be an adult, to say "this is where I stand" - instead are infantilized. And that is what the PTB want.

I have four sons, one of whom - just 20 - would be of prime draft age ( and I said the same in 2001 when the others were). I never want my sons to go to war. But if there is a war, they should have to say where they stand ( had I daughters, I would say it of them I hope).

[Vinnie From Indy]

59. Good post!

Cheers!

[UTUSN]

81. Wow. You said it all: "self-interest presented as righteousness and idealism." n/t

[UTUSN]

82. That's why people hate me, the truth n/t

[Doctor_J]

48. pretty revolting

One reason the country is in such bad shape is that no one has any principles. Christ, a big chunk of du want to cut social security and corporatize schools because Obama suggested these things.

[lumpy]

57. Are you serious ?

[tridim]

75. The ODS is strong with that one.

OBAMA WANTS TO CORPORATIZE SCHOOLS!!!!!!!11111

[Doctor_J]

76. Yes

[BlueStreak]

55. The Democratic Party is right-of-center

Has been since the DLCers came in. This chart is just one way to visualize that.

BOTH parties are far to the right of the people.

[Hekate]

56. PBO's election did not start with a coup d'etat, for starters, but with trust

He did not lie us into war, but ended one and is winding down another. He didn't promise to be Mahatma Gandhi when he accepted the Nobel Prize, nor was he ever a pacifist, and the Nobel Committee surely was aware of that. He has told the Congress, publicly, that they should be dialing back Presidential power, and that the country's laws should not be on a permanent war footing.

Obama has not betrayed the trust he started his administration with, despite bitter opposition from wingnuts and the GOP Congress. He's done his best in extraordinarily trying circumstances, and has made progress that benefits us all.

Some here have shouted in all caps that trust is earned. Well, if you didn't trust him when he was running for office or after he had been in for a couple of months, there's no expectation that you will ever feel that he has earned your trust.

Given that one of the reasons we voted for him was his promise to end the Bush Wars, and given that you can't pack up and leave the first day, what earthly purpose would it have served for people like us to march on Washington screaming that we wanted him to end the wars? Because I did that for Bush, for more than one reason, and more than once. I know how it's done. I worked diligently in my community during those years.

Obama has carried out those promises he made, even though it takes time and it's agonizing to wait and will be agonizing to watch Iraq and Afghanistan devolve into chaos when we finally leave. Why would I continue my anti-war activities when he already knows how we feel, said he'd take care of it, is taking care of it, and is juggling so many balls that I wonder how any human can keep on?

I'm sure I speak for the majority of Democrats when I say that I have other fish to fry much closer to home. It only makes sense to continue anti-war activities when you are (a) a committed pacifist, or (b) not being listened to by the president. Most people are not pacifists, and most Democrats are satisfied with the job this president is doing in that regard. It could change -- but not yet.

What really disappoints me is the way that activists completely dropped the ball on other issues here at home right after he was elected, and didn't GOTV for the midterm 2010 elections. That hurt us. A lot. I understand the post-Bush exhaustion, but I don't understand at the very least getting out the vote. Now there's a chart I'd like to see.

[mick063]

63. "What really disappoints me is----------- and didn't GOTV for the midterm 2010 elections"

Ahhhh

The first GOTV cry I have seen in awhile.

The centrists don't need the "black helicopter" left.

Remember?


Can't wait for the next election. I will be heaving a huge smack down on those GOTV chants.

I will have a nice reply for every one I see.

[Hekate]

67. Do tell: it's not clear what your smackdown against GOTV is or will be. nt

[Doctor_J]

78. Yep. Start a new war, offer to cut SS, abandon unions, fail on background checks,

fail to change the filibuster rules, don't disclose the broad spying program, prosecute whistle blowers while leaving the banksters and Bush family alone, nominate Summers for Fed, put Duncan in charge of DoED...and then blame the lefties for the election debacles. They're kind of funny

[indepat]

58. Apt to be little anti-war sentiment in a political party whose only response seems to be:

give war a chance. The MIC gets further bloated with every war initiative, making it very profitable for a growing plethora of government contractors.

[Demo_Chris]

69. As seen above, modern party Democrats were never anti-war, they were anti-Bush...

However, there was a time when the majority of Democrats and Republicans were both united in their opposition to war. That would be in the 1970's and 80's, when the baby boomers were the largest demographic and were still young enough to serve. War was DEFINATELY not cool when they were the ones fighting. But once the 1990's rolled around and the boomers were too old to serve, their perspective underwent an amazing change -- war was suddenly freaking awesome. They couldn't get enough of it.

It has been non-stop carnage ever since. It's not going to end until they no longer have the votes to control everything.

[lunasun]

102. also then draft made a difference =lets go classless this time

draft with no exemptions
see who wants war then
when trustfund baby has to serve their country in military duty

[KoKo]

70. I'd also like to see a Chart of how the Environmental/Food Safety Movement has fared

Since 2008.

I've seen a decline in posts about Environment and Food Safety posted here on the most popular Forum which is "General Discussion."

I have a feeling...that the Chart might look the same as the Anti-US Involvement numbers.

It seems as if "Activism" got a Dirty Name in Dem Party once Rahm Emmanuel "let the dogs out" on all of that.

[joshcryer]

86. It looks more like people went third party to me.

I think that this is misrepresenting the graph.

[lunasun]

103. Totally agree and 3rd Ps present at protests this last week here

[annm4peace]

91. the antiwar movement people I know..

have been under Grand Jury indictment.. 8 of them subject to raids in minneapolis.

we have put 10+ years of our lives into trying to stop/end war. some of dropped back into their own lives. I wish I did the same sooner.

Many moved into the Occupy movement, and that has led to involvement into immigration rights, housing rights, and environment.

I belong to 3 antiwar groups and all have had donations go down 1/3 to 1/2 of what it was.

I tired of others talking anti-war but don't do anything than talk. they don't go to any of the marches or rallies, call their Congress persons.

Personally I'm tired.. but I still make calls, sign petitions, donate money to peace groups, and try to make the actions of Occupy.

but I'm tired. I don't know if I have the energy for Syria when the people in the peace groups don't even agree what is going on and who is doing the gassing.

[quaker bill]

92. Statistics can get real noisy

when the sample size trends toward zero over time. Where are these protests?

In 2003 I could have gotten 6000 responses at one event. I have not seen a protest or even the shadow of an anti-war movement here since say +/- 2006....

I am thinking the only places where there is such a protest movement left, are places where third party liberals are vastly more common.

[cprise]

100. I have to agree with you

Especially your point about third party involvement.

I'd like to believe that Democratic supporters are less steeped in the team loyalty mentality than are Republicans, but its just not true when it comes to grappling with most issues.

[quaker bill]

104. it is simpler than that

Most people just aren't really all that anti-war. When the wrong leader does it for the wrong reasons, you can get a crowd.

85% of us, across the board, were behind Bush* when he went to Afghanistan. His numbers only fell off when he shifted to Iraq, and even then, they did not plummet until the WMD claims fell apart. Wrong leader, wrong reason.

Of course even after all that, Bush* still managed to keep his approvals above 50 until he botched Katrina.

We, as a people, dems included, are really not all that anti-war.

In Vietnam, were we really anti-war, or just anti getting drafted and killed for no point? These things can seem similar in the street, but they are different.

[upi402]

101. I want my party back

IT left US.
We never went anywhere. THEY sold out and sold US out.