Building A New "Movement": The Downing Street
Memos
By Bernard Weiner
www.OpEdNews.com
Not just because many of my relatives got wiped out in the
Holocaust, or because my wife is Bavarian, but, like so many others
around the world, I am ineluctably drawn to the Hitler period in
Germany. How could this have happened -- 6 million Jews, Gypsies,
homosexuals and others herded into camps and slaughtered? More than
50 million killed on all sides in World War II? It's too much for
the mind to comprehend.
And yet, I know that given the right set of circumstances, shameful
atrocities could, and in many instances did, happen in our own
country (to African slaves, to Native Americans, to
Japanese-Americans, et al). Fold in the current rise of
anti-rational thought and militarist leadership in Bush America,
symbolized best perhaps by the fact that torture is now officially
sanctioned U.S. policy, and America would seem ripe for even worse
excursions into the shadow world. (For one such descent down that
dark rabbit hole, see the quick chronology below of how the Bush
Administration deceived and lied its way into the Iraq War, as
verified by the DSM, the Downing Streets Memos.)
Probably the most instructive book I've read in recent years along
these lines, about how easy it is for a nation to slide into
totalitarianism, is "Defying Hitler" ( www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/germany-1933.htm
) by the Christian German writer Sebastian Haffner; as a young man
in the 1930s, Haffner watched the Nazis slowly, steadily slice away
at long-held freedoms until one day, all Germans awoke to find
themselves living in a brutal police-state.
Being someone deeply moved and influenced by the successful
non-violent activism of Jesus, Gandhi, King, Chavez, Day and others,
I always wondered what might have happened in Germany, and thus in
modern global history, if a strong and widely based non-violent
movement had existed there in the early-'30s.
Non-violent civil disobedience worked for the American suffragettes
in the early decades of the 20th Century, it worked for Mahatma
Gandhi in the anti-colonial campaign in India in the '30s and '40s,
it worked for Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement in
America in the '50s and '60s, it worked for Cesar Chavez organizing
a grape strike and boycott in California in the '60s and '70s, it
worked for so many recent non-violent "peoples' revolutions" that
forced corrupt or illegitimately-elected rulers around the world to
resign -- could it have worked in '30s Germany in turning that
nation away from its imperialist, self-destructive future?
And could it work today in our own country, given the regime and
problems we face as we slide more and more into a unique kind of
American fascism under Bush&Co., where government works in concert
with corporations (Mussolini's definition of the F-word) and a
non-rational, mostly religious, fundamentalism?
COULD HITLER HAVE BEEN STOPPED EARLY?
We will never know how successful a massive non-violent civil
disobedience movement might have been in stopping Hitler in his
tracks if it had confronted him early and often in the early '30s,
led by prestigious church and civil leaders. But, as we know now, if
political demagogues are not confronted wisely and in time to slow
down or block their violent plans, social and military and ethical
disaster is often the result.
Within a few years in Germany, for example, the Nazis were rounding
up the few outspoken religious and political figures and throwing
them into concentration camps. By the time the White Rose Society,
led by those saintly young students Sophie and Hans Scholl, began
circulating their anti-Nazi leaflets and posters, it was much too
late. It took a World War that led to those 50 million+ deaths, to
settle the matter.
That's why German Pastor Martin Niemoller's famous quote is so
poignant and instructive:
>>"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist --
so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I
was not a Social Democrat -- so I didn't speak up. Then they came
for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist -- so I
didn't speak up. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew --
so I didn't speak up. Then when they came for me, there was no one
left to speak up for me."
After 9/11, and the beginnings of police-state law-enforcement in
America (including the secret arrests and hidden incarcerations of
U.S. citizens), it was time to update the Niemoller quote to our own
reality; here was my humble attempt.
>>"First, they came for the terrorist suspects, and I didn't speak
up because I wasn't a terrorist suspect. Then they came for the
foreigners, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a foreigner. Then
they came for the Arab-Americans, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't Arab-American. Then they came for the radical dissenters, and
I didn't speak up because I was just an ordinary troubled citizen.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to
speak up for me."
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM HISTORY
Please don't misunderstand. I am not saying that America in 2005 is
Germany in 1933, or that Bush is Hitler. But unless one chooses to
learn from history, one risks repeating or imitating it, or at least
aspects of it, and that's the instructive lesson we have to take
from the comparisons to European fascism.
Clearly, the situation in America is different. There is a
functioning Opposition Party, for one thing, which picked up 50% of
the votes (or probably more than 50%; we just can't be sure, given
our easy-to-manipulate voting system) in the two most recent
presidential elections. And, although the Bush forces control two
branches of government, the Executive and Legislative, their hold on
the Judiciary is not complete -- which is why the fighting gets so
tenacious about their nominees for the Appellate and Supreme Courts.
What Bush&Co. have going for them, under the twisted strategies of
Karl Rove, is a masterful use of the Big Lie Technique, and their
firm hold on huge swatches of the American mass-media, especially
talk-radio, cable commentary, small-city/rural newspapers, and the
fundamentalist TV and word-of-mouth networks. In short, Bushevik
spin and propaganda is effectively presented.
And they face a fairly disorganized and/or silenced opposition -- in
Congress, in mainline churches, in academia, mainstream pundits,
etc. -- which permits them constantly to set the agenda and batter
their way through to victory on issue after issue, especially as
their more civil opponents have still not figured out how to play
defense against the Bush brand of smash-mouth politics. (The
Democrats now are better in fighting back than they were during
Bush's first term, but seem these days to engage fully only on
highly specific issues.)
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF DRY ROT
Consider: President Richard Nixon looked impregnable after his
landslide re-election victory in 1972. But years of non-violent
anti-war resistance, often in the streets, may have weakened the
middle-class electoral foundations upon which his administration
rested. Certainly, the strength of that resistance led to
over-reaching on the part of a Nixon Administration infected by
paranoia so strong that it helped engender the Democratic Party
headquarters break-in at the Watergate. The fallout from that
"third-rate burglary" led to the discovery of the crimes known as
the "White House Horrors" -- the unconstitutional police-state
felonies and the attempts to cover them up -- and eventually to
Nixon's resignation in the face of an imminent impeachment trial.
As in Nixon's case, the foundations upon which the Bush
Administration rests are dry-rotted. All seems secure on the surface
-- after all, as has been noted, the Busheviks control both houses
of Congress, much of the Judiciary, most of the mass-media -- but,
in truth, they are extremely insecure and vulnerable. A healthy
majority of the citizenry believes the Bush apparatus lied the
country into a war that has led, and continues to lead, to tens of
thousands of deaths and maimings. Many in the world fear America's
power but few respect their leaders. Their actions have brought
America into disrepute, into a target for more terrorism, into
turning environmental law-writing over to the polluting industries,
into humongous debt, into cutting and weakening popular social
programs and required infrastructure maintenance, etc.
So one is led to wonder: Is it too late for a mass-based non-violent
opposition, one composed of individuals willing to put themselves in
legal jeopardy with civil disobedience, that could help bring down
the morally-illegitimate Bush Administration? I think the objective
conditions right now indicate a window of opportunity to do so. But
several things would have to happen.
BUILDING A "MOVEMENT" COALITION
1. A united Democratic Party would have to stand tall and take the
consequences for their courage in openly and forthrightly opposing
each and every one of the Bush Administration's dangerous, reckless
policies and behaviors. An active alternative party, perhaps the
Greens in alliance with a new entity, would have to present itself
as a possible and electable option for voters if the Democrats wimp
out again. (As always, the key here is an honest election, with
hand-counted paper ballots, not trusting our current corruptible
voting and vote-counting systems.)
2. The leading anti-war organizations -- now segmented into
separate, sectarian groups such as ANSWER, Not in My Name, United
for Peace, et al. -- would have to unite in building a massive
umbrella coalition with but one goal in mind: regime-change at the
top. The recently-born After Downing Street umbrella organization (
www.afterdowningstreet.org ) demonstrates how quickly an effective
coalition can be built from the ground up; it now has 125 groups
participating, with the aim being to generate impeachment hearings
on the Iraq War scandals.
In the '60s and early-'70s, we had built ourselves a "Movement" --
the term derived from the Civil Rights Movement of the previous
decade -- which could mobilize millions of supporters into the
streets. The so-called Moratorium alliances of groups fighting for
justice and peace, especially to end the Vietnam War, frightened the
Nixon and LBJ administrations into over-reacting.
Not all of the new "Movement" protests will have to be in the
streets -- the internet has opened up so many other avenues for
protest these days -- but imagine, for example, the impact a
"Million Americans for Impeachment" march would have in the nation's
capital, with respected religious and political and academic leaders
involved, with thousands of them willing to be arrested in
non-violent, massive sit-ins -- based in love and hope -- in order
to end this immoral war and change the way America is being
misruled.
3. As this new "Movement" is built, it would need, and want, to
reach out to the millions of disaffected independents and moderate
Republicans who are appalled at the hijacking of the GOP by
extremist elements. These independents and moderate Republicans are
reachable, but sincere attempts have to be made to bring them into
the fold. The bigger the tent, the bigger the influence. For
example, they (and anti-war military officers) should be included,
along with progressive leaders, at the head of any Million-Person
March or other major initiatives.
PROOFS OF SCANDAL IN THE DSM
It's not clear what all the unifying principles and themes could be
that would energize this new Movement. Big issues might include the
draft and Social Security. But one would think that maybe the Iraq
War would serve as the centerpoint, especially given the revelations
of the Downing Street Memos, which verify what many of us have been
asserting for years about how Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/et al. lied and
rushed the country into an unnecessary war for their own twisted,
power-hungry ends.
Here's a Quick Chronology of Deception Highlights:
*In January 1998, leaders of the neo-con Project for the New
American Century -- a HardRight think-tank that included such key
figures as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John
Bolton, Jeb Bush, Jim Woolsey, et al. -- wrote a letter to President
Clinton ( www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm ) urging
that he invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. (Clinton declined;
he was going after bin Laden.) Later that year, when musing about a
run for President in 2000 and how he would approach Iraq, Bush told
an aide: ( www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761 ) "If I have a
chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste
it."
*The first Bush Administration cabinet meetings in January 2001,
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reported, focused on finding ways to
attack Iraq. Later that year, Bush directed Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld to begin considering military options ( www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11837950.htm
) for Saddam's removal. Even after being told by his intelligence
agencies that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaida and not Iraq, Rumsfeld
began badgering his analysts to try to include Saddam Hussein in
retaliation plans. Bush himself cornered anti-terrorism chief
Richard Clarke and strongly suggested that he find a way to include
Saddam in the mix.
*In March of 2002, Time Magazine reported, Bush told several
senators visiting the White House: "f*ck Saddam,we're taking him
out." (
www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,110103... ) ##[[ insert
new CNN link ]]
*In July of 2002, without going to Congress for permission, Bush
took $700 million from funds Congress authorized for the Afghanistan
war against Al Qaida/Taliban forces and ##diverted them to the
coming Iraq War. ( www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/8458386.htm
) . Meanwhile, of course, Bush during all this time was telling the
American people that he hadn't made up his mind about attacking
Iraq.
*The recently-revealed, top-secret Downing Street Memo, (
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700474_2.html
) dated July 23, 2002, which talks about a just-concluded meeting
between U.K. and Administration leaders at the Bush ranch in Texas,
said that the "intelligence and facts" to justify the coming Iraq
invasion were to be "fixed around the policy." In other words, the
decision had been made to go to war by the Summer of 2002, and now
they would work on finding reasons to justify that decision..
*In the second top-secret Downing Street Memo, released by the Times
of London just a few days ago, the briefing paper for that
Blair-Bush meeting of July 23, 2002, reveals that the Brits were
deeply worried about the illegality of the war action and that both
the U.S. and Britain were anxious to find some legal excuse for
their pending attack. They conceived of ways to lure Saddam Hussein
into doing something belligerent ( www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html
) that would make an attack more acceptable in the U.S. and U.N.;
bombing runs by U.S. jets went on for months before the official
invasion, ( www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=scahill ) to
try to provoke just such a response. But Saddam, aware of what game
was being played, didn't react to the bait. Blair&Bush tried another
ruse, this one at the United Nations: They believed Saddam would
object to allowing U.N. weapons inspectors back in, and thus create
a <i>casus belli,<-i> but, surprise, the Iraqi leader said the
inspectors could return.
Still, seeking those morally and legally acceptable justifications,
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted that the
Administration finally settled on WMD ( www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm
) -- which they were sure would work with the American public and
the U.N. And it did, despite the fact that both the Brits and the
Americans were well aware that Saddam had not been active in any WMD
programs in recent years, indeed that his armaments programs were
weaker than those of Iran and North Korea. The preliminary work of
the U.N. inspectors seemed to verify that there were no stockpiles
of WMD.
*The U.N. inspections were cut off abruptly. The "shock and awe"
bombing and land invasion began in March of 2003, nearly one year to
the date from when Bush told the senators that Saddam was a goner,
"we're taking him out."
* Late Flash: As we were preparing this upload, still more leaked
memos surfaced on the Times of London from inside the Blair
Administration, reproduced at ##Raw Story ( www.rawstory.com ),
which document in even more detail how nervous the Blair government
felt in many ways by the U.S. tunnel-vision rush to war, and the
reasons given for that war. It makes for stunning reading.
BUILDING OUR POLITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
So the Iraq War scandals and coverups might well provide the
organizing principles for the new "Movement." But whatever the
central issues turn out to be, the point is that nothing will happen
unless we radically alter the way we confront the Bush
Administration. They have sown fear into the body politic, including
the Left and moderate middle; they have encouraged division and
factional in-fighting among progressives; they have marginalized and
smeared mass-media organs and spokesmen in opposition. Something has
to change.
We can't count on the elections of 2006 and 2008 to bring the major
changes that are required -- not just because of the time-gap
between now and then, but mainly because the same three
GOP-supporting corporations continue to own the proprietary software
that counts the votes. (Which is why a key part of our struggle must
be to return to paper ballots, hand-counted.)
After the 1964 defeat of the GOP's rightwing presidential candidate,
Sen. Barry Goldwater, the HardRight began its long campaign to
assume power, knowing that it would take them decades to build the
required political/media/think-tank infrastructure that would lead
to victory, as it did in 1980 with Reagan's election and later with
Newt Gingrich's mid-'90s reign in Congress and then Bush#2 in the
White House in 2000.
We don't have the luxury of decades. We who want to return our
country to its moral, Constitutional foundations must jump-start the
process of building and enlarging our political infrastructure right
now. If we don't, the forces of repression, militarism and incipient
fascism will suck us all further into their shadow vortex.
The time to move, to "Movement," is now. #
-------------------------
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., was a journalist/activist in the civil rights
and anti-war movements of the '50s and '60s. He has taught at
various universities, worked as a writer/editor with the San
Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits the progressive website
The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
First published at The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground
6/14/05.
Copyright 2005 by Bernard Weiner
A
