Democrats flee peace protests; it's time for a name change

[Jon8503]

By Joshua Frank - Online Journal Contributing Writer

September 27, 2005—I have been thinking for a while now that the Democrats really should sit down and consider changing their mascot from a donkey to a marmot. A rodent really is more emblematic of their provincial habits than a donkey could ever be. Think about it. Just this past weekend antiwar rallies were held across the country and the Democratic leadership was nowhere in sight. They had high-tailed it out of sight. They hid in their holes and were afraid to be seen.

In all fairness, a few elected Democrats did show face, mainly two: Reps. John Conyers and Cynthia McKinney. But I wouldn't constitute either as party leaders. The better-known Democrats like Senators John Kerry and Hilary Clinton, two likely candidates for president in 2008, were nowhere to be seen. Even more striking were the abstinences of DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Russell Feingold and Ted Kennedy—all outspoken critics of the Iraq war.

Of course the Democrat's collective criticism only goes so far. They certainly don't want to be photographed with any crazy protestors. By God, that would taint their reputations! They've got campaign contributions to worry about here. No, the Democrats aren't about to take to the streets. They'd rather sit back and create the illusion that they care.

On her way out to Washington, the anti-war movements leading lady Cindy Sheehan gave a tepid excuse for Senator Hilary Clinton's refusal to attend the protest, "She knows that the war is a lie, but she is waiting for the right time to say it. You say it or you are losing your job."

Well, sorry, but I think the time to speak out against the war is right now and if it means Clinton could lose her job (even though that's highly unlikely, given that almost half of all Americans, according to a recent Pew research poll, think we should end the occupation and come home), so be it.

This isn't to say that the Democrats' grassroots don't oppose the war. The majority does. So this begs the question; why are anti-war activists so loyal to a Democratic Party that supported Bush's war and still refuses to oppose it?

Much of the Democrats' cognitive dissonance has to do with the success of Howard Dean at the DNC. He's been able to corral antiwar Democrats into the fold, making sure they don't flee en masse over the war issue even though they should. Many still see Dean as a sign of future hope, where party leadership stays in touch with the grassroots. Plus, Dean's early criticisms of the Iraq war earned him significant street-cred with party advocates.

It was undeserved. Dean, like the rest of the Democratic leadership, is pro-war and pro-occupation, and it couldn't be more damaging for the peace movement to continue putting faith into this futile party. If Democratic activists really want to make some change, the best thing they could do would be to get up and leave their party. Only then will Democratic leaders start to think twice about the monstrous policies they endorse.

Joshua Frank is the author of the new book "Left Out!: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush," published by Common Courage Press. Visit www.brickburner.org to learn more.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Yet Joshua Frank hates Democrats and Liberals

And when I say "hate", I mean HATE.

He's written some excellent stuff, but he's part of that radical-chic movement that hates the (un-revolutionary) Left more than it does the Right.

How does he think he'll seize control of the means of production? With a bunch of skate punks, middle-aged Manhattanite contributors to a handful of rad-chic mags like Counterpunch, and Eleanor Fulani?

--p!

[Child_Of_Isis]

2. Whoa! Smackdown!

So this begs the question; why are anti-war activists so loyal to a Democratic Party that supported Bush's war and still refuses to oppose it?

If Democratic activists really want to make some change, the best thing they could do would be to get up and leave their party.

[Dhalgren]

3. There are only two "major" parties in the US and both support the

war against Iraq. The left has no major party; the majority of leftists simply vote Democratic as the lesser of two evils. I think that, at least in a large part, is why we are where we are today. When there is no major party to advocate for the ideology of a progressive left, what you get is what we got...