Taking our protests to the streets and (sometimes) to the halls of Congress is a healthy flexing of our democratic system. Our legislative agenda is best served when it is initiated and advocated from the ground up, but, at some point, to convert those ideas into action, our agenda need to be assigned to our legislators we elect to public office - the caretakers and managers of the levers of our democracy.
Baynard Rustin, a key organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, argued in his book, 'Strategies for Freedom', that for a movement to have a permanent and transforming imprint, it should have a legislative goal attached which will transcend the whims of the emotions of the moment. Describing a different struggle that America faced with the advancement of civil rights, he wrote that:
"Moral fervor can't maintain your movement, nor can the act of participation itself. There must be a genuine commitment to the advancement of the people. To have such a commitment is also to have a militant sense of responsibility, a recognition that actions have consequences which have a very real effect on the individual lives of those one seeks to advance."
"Far too many movements lack both a (legislative) perspective and a sense of responsibility, and they fail because of it," Ruskin wrote.
"My quarrel with the "no-win" tendency in the civil rights movement (and the reason I have so designated it) parallels my quarrel with the moderates outside the movement," Rustin wrote in his book, Down the Line. "As the latter lack the vision or will for fundamental change, the former lack a realistic strategy for achieving it. For such a strategy they substitute militancy. But militancy is a matter of posture and volume and not of effect.
Another important point Ruskin made in reference to unity among blacks within the movement rings true for our own diverse anti-war coalitions which have massed to march together in protest, and will be advocating within the system (together or independently) against the occupation. "In a pluralistic democracy," he wrote, "unity (among we who agree) is a meaningless goal. It is far more important to form alliances with other forces in society which share common needs and common goals, and which are in general agreement over the means to achieve them."
Ruskin's advice about alliances is just the lesson we need to heed as we face off against the republican opposition without the benefit of enough Democratic senators or representatives to overcome a certain filibuster or a presidential veto of any and all important legislation which intends to reverse the Bush regime's destructive course. The more alliances we can make between our legislators and republicans on ending the Iraq occupation, the more we can plant a wedge between Bush's ambitions and the resources he'll need to continue his military meddling.
That doesn't mean rolling over and compromising our principles or our positions. Many protests assume that the legislative process is the dominion of the opposition, and that compromise in the system can only mean a sacrifice of principle or belief. But, our political institutions are designed for both argument and compromise. There is little room in our democracy to dictate one view or the other. While our legislators may come to office with similar goals, like ending the Iraq occupation, they, nonetheless, come to office with a myriad of ideas and approaches to achieve those goals. Those different views and approaches must be reconciled if legislation is to move out of their respective chambers and up the legislative ladder.
If we are to effectively begin any substantial withdrawal of troops from Iraq, it will have to come in the form of some sort of compromise. For our side of that compromise to carry weight, Democrats will need time to pressure republicans on the other things they want legislatively. That won't be as transparent an effort as the resolution approach, but they can pressure the republicans by controlling the access of their initiatives and proposals with the levers of their new majority, in committee and on the floor, to get them to bend their way on Iraq.
Speaking of the struggle for civil rights in his own time, Rustin wrote that, "Confronted with a new agenda, we had to come to terms with developing new tactics. When we had absolute demands for the rights of freedom and dignity, we could insist on absolute solutions. But when you are working within the political system,you can no longer deal in absolute terms. You must be prepared to compromise, you must be prepared to make and accept concessions," he wrote.
Achieving legislative solutions which will adequately confront Bush and cause him to move away from Iraq (or any other of his crimes and abuses) will take time. That effort will also, more than likely, take even more protesting. But as long as we keep our legislative goals at the head of our protests, and form the necessary coalitions of support to advance those legislative efforts within the system, we can assume the necessary responsibility for the consequences of our actions and transform the direction of our movements from agitation to action.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
