Why anti-war protests are so wimpy: there is no draft

I was discussing the sorry state of affairs in America with some elderly voters while canvassing for a Democratic candidate a few weeks ago. There are two things about the elders in our society: they love to talk, and they remember how things "used to be". One woman who was obviously a "liberal" bemoaned the fact that there are no anti-war protests now, like there were in the 1960s. There are also no anti-war songs, no anti-war buttons, no anti-establishment fashion statements, etc. I thought for a moment, and dredged up the obvious reason from my war chest of talking points: there is no military draft.

A draft would get the potential draftees - and their parents - involved in protesting the Iraq war. They would protest not just the fact that the conflict has gone on longer than World War II (and has no end in sight), but they also would protest against the Bush/Rove/Cheney regime which presented "cooked" information to convince us to go to war ... and which promised us that it would not turn into a quagmire. This is, in fact, where we find ourselves: in a quagmire. If the young (and now - with the raising of the age limit to enlist - not-so-young) men and women returning from Iraq in coffins were going there against their will, there would be a huge call for the Bush/Rove/Cheney regime to re-justify the whole Iraq fiasco.

There is now talk of military action against Iran, if they do not place their nuclear power projects under United Nations control. If Bush/Rove/Cheney decide to attack Iran, where will the American military get their soldiers? They could raise the maximum enlistment age again for volunteers, which currently stands at 42 for the Army. (It was raised from 34 to 40 in January this year, and then from 40 to 42 in June.) The Congress could alternatively raise recruitment levels by offering incentives such as higher pay, higher death benefits for relatives, and a higher "GI Bill".

The thing about a volunteer militia versus a drafted militia is that volunteers go into the militia because of patriotism, pay, experience, or family tradition. (One could also argue that someone with political aspirations could be more successful with military service on their resume.) Those who enter the military because of a draft do so because they didn't volunteer first: in the time of a draft, it is a good idea to volunteer first, if you are likely to not protest going, to save face in front of friends, family, and colleagues. I would guess that the bulk of those who currently volunteer do so to make money to support their families, to make money for an otherwise-unaffordable education, or to learn a skill for future employability. All of these three reasons are economic. A person with a rich family would not need to go into military service to get the money to pay the bills or to pay for education.

Thus, the current volunteer military is designed to entice poor people into dying for their country. On the other hand, some not-so-poor people I know joined the Reserves during the Clinton Presidency, seeing it as a social club which met one weekend a month, where they could "play war", and have a party at the end. Additionally, others joined the military right after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Shoot, I was ready to join myself. Most likely those weekend warriors and patriots are fighting in Iraq right now, alongside those who joined to make money.

One can now understand why Congress has resisted raising the Minimum Wage. If people earned more money while staying out of the military, either the military wage would have to be increased, or a draft would have to be enacted. If a draft were enacted then Jenna and Barbara Bush would be eligible to go to war - and I believe people would suggest that these two volunteer first, before anyone is drafted. If President Bush balked at sending his daughters to war, that would raise questions from all quarters about the legitimacy of the war. I think the Bush/Rove/Cheney regime would have great difficulty answering these questions, especially questions posed by those who cannot be labeled as "liberals". I also think that the massive protests against a draft would make these three feel very insecure in any sort of public setting, making Bush resort to fake, scripted appearances (more than usual, anyway).

"No draft" means that poor people will die, Barbara and Jenna are safe, and Bush does not have to answer hard questions: all good things, as far as the current Republican Administration is concerned.

Democrats need to fight fire with fire

Suppose you're a kid on the playground and a bully pushes you down. What do you do? Some kids will just stay down, knowing that if they get up and push the bully back, the bully may start punching. Other kids may jump back up and punch the bully right away, taking the exchange to the next level themselves. The kid who stayed down fears the bully will escalate the violence if the victim fights back. This kid would rather placate - and thereby empower - the bully by letting the bully "get away with it". The second kid may likely realize that he does no good for his cause if he just "takes it". He knows that the bully will feel free to push him over again any time he likes, and will not have to fear any retaliation. He also senses that the bully may become emboldened and may punch him next time. This kid shows the bully that, even though he is not a bully, he can adopt the bully's tactics to fight fire with fire.

The Republicans have become the bullies, and the Democrats - during the 2000 and 2004 elections - were like the first kid. The Dems thought if they said something negative or got riled up, then the Republicans would use it against them in an attack ad. The Dems did nothing to aggravate the situation, remained quiet, and lost elections. During this 2006 election cycle, Democrats are starting to fight back. But it is quite an uphill battle, what with the Republican smear machine painting all Democrats as wimps, weak on national defense and on terrorism. Democrats also do not have a real voice, because they do not control Congress, the White House, the courts, or the Main Stream Media.

The Democratic leadership is also in disarray. The Republicans have Karl Rove as their Architect. Whom do the Democrats have? Howard Dean? Jack Murtha? Chuck Schumer? Hillary Clinton? They do not speak with one voice, as the Architect commands the Republicans to, with talking points transmitted by fax machine and phone calls. Indeed, recently the Democratic party was its own worst enemy when, after asking Paul Hackett to run in Ohio for the Senate, the DNC flip-flopped and told him to step aside and let Congressman Sherrod Brown run for the seat. Hackett was quite popular with grass roots supporters in Ohio, and Brown had not decided to run, which made the DNC pick Hackett, an Iraqi war veteran. But when Brown flipped, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid - the DNC leaders - flopped. They asked Hackett to drop out of the Senate race and instead to run for the Ohio District 2 Representative seat. Hackett, who promised other Democrats in District 2 that he would not run in that District, refused to follow suit and flip-flop himself. Hackett dropped out entirely, with a barely-concealed bitterness for the Democratic "leadership".

The Democratic Party now needs to stand up and punch the bully. A few in the crowd gathered around may have sympathy for a wimpy kid afraid to fight back, but the crowd will have a lot more respect for the kid if he jumps up and punches the bully in the nose. Democrats may have a dislike for Republican bully-and-smear tactics, but that assertiveness seems to get the respect of the people. Now is not the time for Dems to wimp out or argue amongst themselves. The Republicans, being in charge, have set the ground rules: Democrats need to fight on the battlefield set up for them, using the tactics and weapons their opponents have used against them. The Dems can't walk away, or take the high road, hoping the crowd will follow them. They won't. But they WILL stand behind the kid who stands up for himself.

Republicans don't deny dirty tricks Ohio's elections

I often hear Democrats complain about Republicans messing with the vote in Ohio's 2004 election. They either say that votes for Democrats were "flipped" to votes for Republicans, Republican votes were added, or Democratic votes were discarded. While I don't doubt that there were some voting machine glitches, which may have favored Republicans over Democrats, I seriously doubt that votes were "flipped". There were definately some areas where not enough voting machines were provided, thus producing long lines, discouraging voters from an hours-long wait. Whether this was intentional, or the result of a larger-than-expected turnout, remains debatable. The most agregious biasing of the 2004 vote, I feel, was well-documented voter intimidation in neighborhoods which are predominantly African-American.

In spite of all these questions, when a Republican relative of mine heard the above Democratic complaints, he said, "Do you really believe that the Republicans stole the election?" Note that he did not say, "Republicans did not steal the election," or "Yes, there were some questionable practices, but I feel overall the election was fair." He did not deny that Republicans biased the outcome, and that has lead me to this conclusion:

Republicans don't deny biasing the 2004 election, because they want Democratic voters to think their votes will not count. When Republicans don't deny that they tampered with the outcome when Democrats raise complaints, they are saying, "Go ahead, Democrats, go ahead and think that your vote won't count. Stay at home on Election Day. No skin off MY back." The Republicans just don't have it in them to assure the Democrats that the elections are being conducted fairly, because that would be giving aid and comfort to the Democratic Enemy. Most Republicans probably think that the 2004 vote was NOT tampered with, but still cannot admit it, seeing their chance to dishearten the Dems.

I think Democrats CAN win elections if they turn out in large enough numbers. The tampering in 2004 was only significant because the election was so close. If Kerry had won by a large margin, Democrats would be laughing, "Those Republicans tried some dirty tricks, but we showed them!" Instead, because of anti-Bush voters, and a polarizing issue (gay marriage), the voter turnout was high for both parties. Ohio is traditionally a swing state, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. The side which is more highly-motivated to go to the polls will win.

Fellow Democrats, I urge you to put 2004 behind you and to concentrate on getting yourself and your Democratic cohorts to the polls this year, and in all elections in years to come.

Tax cuts for the rich are actually "bribes for the rich"

Don't be fooled by the Republican tactic of "tax cuts [to] stimulate the economy." On its face, this is the failed "trickle-down economics" tactic tried by Ronald Reagan. Its proponents still espouse the "trickle-down" benefits, but without using the now-infamous nickname.

Right-wing pundits claim that "the tax cuts are working" in reviving the economy. This cause-and-effect link is weak at best, and can be argued against quite easily. First off, an economy so in the dumps as the U.S.'s has been through the first half of the '00s has nowhere to go but up. Any minor bump in the economy has the right-wing pundits saying, "See? See? It's working! Ha!" Secondly, these tax-cut-pushers claim that "you have more money in your pocket." This correct only if "you" make over $100,000 per year. The truth is, the rich get the money and redistribute it to very few middle-class and poor people. It does not "trickle down" to the less-advantaged.

No, the tax cuts are not stimulating the economy, and are not "putting more money into people's pockets." These tax cuts are actually bribes from the Republicans to the U.S.'s rich upper-class. "Here's some money ... now vote for us," is what the Republicans are actually saying. Simultaneously, they are generating kickbacks for the GOP. "Here is some extra money you weren't expecting," the Republicans are tacitly saying, with a wink. "And now that you have this extra cash, you could make a donation to those who gave it to you." The rich Republicans happily go along with this game: "As long as you promise to provide these tax cuts, we'll promise to support you with votes and with kickbacks. Here's my donation."

My advice: rich Democrats should donate their tax cut to the Democratic Party or to Democratic candidates/PACs. Say to the Republican machine, "Your tax cuts have come back to haunt you."