The Democracy Journal
Search Site
Get Involved
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Support the PJRC

    Support the PJRC for continued original analysis on ending the wars, funding domestic priorities and preserving civil liberties.

    Make a contribution to benefit the PJRC now! 

    Conferences & Events

    Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, MI, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement.

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town! 



    Follow Tom


    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.

      Winning the Peace Vote in November

      This op-ed appeared at The Huffington Post on August 3, 2012.

      President Obama and the Democrats need a new peace initiative to increase turnout and voting by pro-peace voters who will make a critical difference in this November's election.

      The president has already recognized the importance of this constituency. In every speech he points to winding down the Iraq War and the Afghanistan quagmire as among his achievements. The savings, he also notes, are billions of tax dollars that should be invested in his mission of rebuilding America.

      Why is a further initiative needed, when everyone agrees that the economy and character issues are the most important in voters' minds?

      Because many pro-peace voters have been disillusioned by the president's unilateral escalation of drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere; the lack of transparency around those drone attacks; secret military interventions in many countries under the banner of counterterrorism; the assertion of executive control over interventions like Libya; the approval of assassinations and cyber-war measures under the sole approval of the president; and the shrinking of civil liberties and Congressional checks and balances in this new era of warfare. A decision on the US and/or Israel attacking Iran may be imminent but who would know? The War Powers Act does not apply unless there is "sustained fighting" by American "ground troops."

      In doing what they believe is necessary to protect US interests, the president and many Democrats have deflated their base among pro-peace and progressive voters. To expect that those voters will return to 2008-levels of enthusiasm, or turn out at 2008 levels of participation, is mistaken.

      These voters are not undecided between Obama and Romney. They are undecided about whether to vote at all, or to cast a protest vote for the Greens.

      We have been here before. We know how this could end.

      Surely, if the Obama campaign is spending tens of millions in pursuit of a handful of "undecided" voters in swing states—their numbers are only 4 percent in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania—the campaign also can invest in trying to increase turnout on its pro-peace flank this November.

      The president's historic initiatives on behalf of the Dream Act students and the LGBT community are current examples of how to bring back key constituencies from their disillusionment with earlier policies.

      If it is not enough to campaign on claims of winding down two wars, what more is needed?

      One possibility is for the president to recognize, without having to backtrack, that his policies have opened a new era of warfare that renders the 1973 War Powers Act all but obsolete. He can be an effective Commander-In-Chief while disavowing a return to an Imperial Presidency.

      The proposal need not be a detailed blueprint, partly because the subject is complex. But the president can pledge to start a conversation about how to enhance the democratic rule of law, the constitutional role of Congressional oversight and consent, and a broader, re-invigorated place for the media and civil society in the process of deciding whether, when, and for how long America goes to war.

      However much Obama extols his Libyan policy, he should remember how close he came to rejection by a bipartisan coalition in the House, and how he was forced to conceal internal administration memos questioning the legality of that policy. He and his team should remember how difficult it was to maintain that the War Powers Act did not apply to Libya, because, they claimed, there were no American ground troops, no "sustained fighting,” no "active" exchange of fire, and so on. More Libyas are on the horizon, or perhaps already in the works.

      A future-oriented promise of reconsidering and updating the War Powers Act would make pro-peace voters see a new hope and new agenda for an Obama second term, thus spurring their turnout. There is no downside to such a pledge. If he needs a rationale, Obama can simply say that his policies have opened a new chapter of warfare that requires an expansion of the law. Romney, the media, and the Pentagon are not likely to advocate for the expansion of executive power, a new McCarthyism or a return to the Nixon era.

      Some next steps might include:

      • A plank in the Democratic platform, although time is short to include one;
      • Consensus support from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who would hold forums to develop the proposal, and emphasize it in their fall campaigns;
      • Convening of a task force of civil libertarians and lawyers working on detention and torture issues, to solicit their recommendations;
      • Convening a conversation with mainstream media advocates concerned with the erosion of First Amendment protections;
      • Convening clergy to increase input on the moral dimensions of the new warfare.

      If enough voices declare that a stronger vision of peace is needed, anything can happen in the course of this election. John F. Kennedy's advisers did not want him to announce the Peace Corp in October 1960, but he did so in response to a student movement. JFK also called Coretta Scott King when her husband Martin was in jail. Looking back, those gestures were history-turning events.

      A call by this president to expand the War Powers Act and avert any return to the Imperial Presidency might have the same ripple effect this fall.

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (4)

      "President Obama and the Democrats need a new peace initiative" Right. Dead right! Our soldiers will continue dying in Wars with no mission because Obama will not stand up to the wealthy overlords who decide these things.

      August 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJack Smith

      Even better, the President could come out for sustained cuts in military spending, a position the Progressive Caucus already adopted. This would reinforce planks that are already in his platform:
      -reducing the deficit
      -going after corporate waste, fraud, and abuse
      -creating jobs (money redirected from the Pentagon to cities, states, education, healthcare, green investments... would create more jobs than military cuts would cost)
      The GOP is already falsely accusing Obama of cutting military spending, so he's already taking a hit -- why not actually do it?

      August 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterMike Prokosch

      People for peace, accountability, and loved ones and war dollars home are indeed dissatisfied in the many ways Bush policies and administrators were retained. There is no sense by this activists and so many more that 'progress' has been made after 11 years of the longest wars. It is necessary to not just object to the continuning the wars overlords but also to supporting the corrupt drug lords of Afghanistan that are protected while even they do not work with us as allies, but as Pakistan as al-LIARS. The continuing, escalating killing and maiming of our troops and destructions of their families by Afghan officials and police or mililtary who kill our own, this week 8 in separate attacks, cannot be justified. The 'agreement' of continuing support through at least 2024 will not be supported by end the wars and attrocities activists of Our nation. It is time to recognize that our poli-corporate war mongers and the status quo escalation of militatism is not acceptable. It is past time that this administration act tp take peace and bringing our troops and dollars home Now. The rhetoric and extensions of wars destructing our military, loved ones, economy, must be replaced by acknowledgment that Russia showed us the futililty of trying to be a police state for all nations. We the People shall have peace. The administration must immediately prove its actions to do so now and not to delay in policy or action any longer. Not to do so will show neither Democrat nor Republican is truthful or effecting credible peace and foreign policy.

      August 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterWade Fulmer

      All good points, but both Obama and Romney are spending so much time and money in the so-called swing states because the rules of the game, the electoral college, dictates that the undecideds there matter, and the peace voters in other places don't matter so much. If and when enough states, with a majority of the votes in the electoral college, adopt legislation to throw all their votes to the winner of the national popular vote, then the peace voters will suddenly be as important a constituency as the undecideds in swing states. That political reality does not imply, of course, that we should not bother organizing for peace; rather it indicates the limits that such organizing can have in the short term presidential electoral context. Perhaps organizing for peace can have more effect in Congressional elections, by getting more voices for peace into Congress, but again, it is kind of late for new initiatives there. Organizing for peace seems to be a lifetime program, and if the long war ends up spanning generations, our program too must be passed onto each new generation in turn....

      August 12, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterMorris Older

      PostPost a New Comment

      Enter your information below to add a new comment.
      Author Email (optional):
      Author URL (optional):
      All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.