Where's The Outrage?

[Jcrowley]

Where's the outrage?

A real antiwar movement would end our Iraq disaster. But the middle class doesn't care enough to protest, so the kids who go to community college will keep dying.

By Gary Kamiya

<snip>

We find ourselves, almost four years into the Iraq war, in a very strange situation. What do you do when it has become obvious that the leader of your country is -- there is no kinder way to put this -- a delusional fool? And that his weird fantasy war is hopelessly and irretrievably lost? Apparently, you just wait. The Democrats are raging and ranting, but they will not cut off funds. Still crippled by their fear of being labeled "soft on national security," the majority party will watch the end from a safe distance, like survivors who quickly paddle away from a doomed ship to avoid being pulled down in the suction when it goes down.

It's no mystery why the Democrats will not pull the plug. Cutting off funding for an ongoing war is a radical move, one that would expose the Democrats to familiar stab-in-the-back charges that they don't "support the troops." Now that the ugly end of Bush's war is in sight, why on earth would the Democrats want to risk being blamed for losing it? This makes a certain political sense, but it is deeply cynical. It implicitly accepts that more young Americans must die for a policy that has no chance of working. They must die so that a cowardly president can delay his day of reckoning a few more months. They must die so that Democrats can wash their hands of the whole mess.

The only thing that could move the Democrats to abandon this cold-blooded calculation and challenge Bush's war directly is a clear message from the American people. Not just their disapproval of Bush and his handling of the war -- that message was sent in the last elections, and in the recent CBS poll showing that only 23 percent of Americans support Bush's war leadership. That disapproval has emboldened the Democrats -- and some Republicans -- enough that they have dared to criticize Bush, something they didn't have the guts to do until now. But it isn't enough to make them try to end the war. For that to happen, large numbers of Americans would have to actually protest the war. A real, broad-based antiwar movement would immediately put an end to the war -- and put the Bush presidency out of its misery.

But there is no significant antiwar movement. And there isn't going to be one unless Bush completely loses it and decides to attack Iran. (Insane as this idea is, Bush might see it as the only way to simultaneously destroy what he regards as a Nazi-like threat and save his shattered presidency.) This isn't Vietnam, where hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to protest. This is the new, post-draft America, where a subclass of poorly paid professional warriors does the bidding of a power elite. With some notable exceptions, Cindy Sheehan being the most famous, the warriors and their families, those who pay the price, do not protest. And the rest of the country, not facing death or the death of immediate family members, doesn't care enough to.

On edit:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16195.htm

[Kelly Rupert]

1. This war has seen

the largest mass protests in history. The public is overwhelmingly against this war. And I hate to break it to you, but nowadays protest is about as effective as closing your eyes and wishing.

[liberalhistorian]

6. Not in this country, it hasn't.

All the protests from the past three years combined, would not equal what was seen in Vietnam and the huge numbers constantly protesting that senseless, ill-begotten war. People from all walks of life and all socioeconomic status were involved, and at all times. They never let up on the government, they didn't just have a protest somewhere and then go quiet for several months until the next one. THAT is what needs to be done now and I just don't see it.

And that's largely because there is no draft and therefore the war isn't really "real" to most people because they don't have to face the very real possibilty of themselves or a family member or close friend being sent off to die. I'm certainly not advocating a draft, I'm just saying that one of the major reasons things are so different now as opposed to during Vietnam is precisely due to the lack of a draft.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. OTOH, at this point in the VN war we'd suffered 25,000 combat

deaths, not 3,000. We'd had 175,000 wounded, not 28,000.

The scale of the thing is entirely different.

It wasn't just the draft. It wasn't just the casualties. It wasn't just the difference in press coverage. It was all that, and more. The government is doing everything in its power to separate the general American public from any personal experience of the war. If not for the internet, they'd be pretty damn successful, too.

And I still, in my liberal naitivity, believe that what turned the tide then, and will now, is the understanding that the war is not just costly, expensive in lives and material, but that it is fundamentally wrong. People still don't know WHY we are at war, so they can't define why it is wrong - they still put their ideals on the facade that the administration puts before them, with terms of self-defense, spreading democracy, or whatever excuse resonates with them. But eventually they will see through it and object for the one, real reason. It's wrong.

[rosesaylavee]

16. I wonder if we truly know the

numbers of people who protested before the war and have since? I say that as almost every one of the protests held in my county never made the paper. The one time it did (or I saw it) - the numbers were grossly underreported.

[Jcrowley]

18. But are the numbers

indicative of the intent and efficacy?

I've been to all but one of the mega marches, and all of the local ones, and by and large the "protests" were very mild and almost parade-like in atmosphere.

Sometimes I wonder if we know what is at stake and what is being asked of us.

It's a difficult situation.

[rosesaylavee]

20. Good question.

I have only been to the smaller local ones - between 100 - 2000. Maybe the protests were too polite? The times are different than the 60s. There was a counterculture then. The participants in these anti-Iraq War protests were all ages - all walks of life but mostly middle class.

Maybe the hope is that by showing up, making your presence known, change will happen. And its not working out that way. Is it the method of protesting or the people's action (or lack thereof) as they protest that is failing? Interesting to note that when Cindy Sheehan does more than carry a sign and provokes response from the police, the jeers in the media and from some here on DU are quite nasty.

I don't think we are going to change the hearts and minds of those we need to reach by being polite or doing what's been done before. I am not sure of the answer but I think I know what you are saying. It's not working and its not engaging people as protestors or people as observers. What will?

[Tom Joad]

22. Its more effective than working for a political candidate

Governments have been overthrown by people on the streets.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

2. Did you intend to provide a link to the article?

[Jcrowley]

5. Yes

Damn computer froze.

I'll try again. If I disappear into the ether go to infoclearinghouse and put it up for me eh?

[bobbolink]

3. That's been my question for lo, these many years.

Indeed, where the hell *IS* the outrage?

Where is the outrage about so many thousands and thousands of people on the streets without a home in a country this rich?

Where *WAS* the outrage, even here at DU, when Katrina survivors started killing themselves because they had no place to live, and no way to survive?

:wtf:

[Kelly Rupert]

4. Yeah, nobody was upset about Katrina.

I remember how the news didn't even cover it. :eyes:

[bobbolink]

7. .

:wtf:

[liberalhistorian]

8. I think he forgot

to include the "sarcasm" icon.

[Jcrowley]

10. I was pretty much alive at the time

and paying very close attention. All in all except for the usual suspects there certainly was no outrage and there was very little in-depth coverage in the media and nothing that register more than a mild tremor if that in PropagandaLand.

I'd say all in all cush-cush Americanski's haven't enoough fire in the soul to get outraged at much. Excluding a bad call by the ref in the last minutes of the game in the Thunderdome of course.

[bobbolink]

11. Thanks, Jcrowley. The reason for the snark escaped me.

I'm so anti-sports that I keep forgetting that's where all the energy and emotion goes.

After getting all worked up over some game, I guess there's not much left over to expend on people suiciding because their government turned it's collective back on 'em.

"mild tremor"

Yup, that was it. Didn't register much at all.

I'm to sad about it to even feel much anger anymore.

THanks. :hi:

[liberalhistorian]

14. Or a perceived rigging of the vote

in that stupid, shallow, "opiate of the masses", American Idol. Or TomKat's current baby Brangelina's next baby, and Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston's not having a baby. And on and on and on..................

[liberalhistorian]

9. People don't give a shit about Iraq for the

same reason they didn't give a shit about Katrina or anything else like that, because it didn't directly affect THEM. If it doesn't affect THEM, they either don't care or it doesn't register. I can't count the number of times I've heard dismissive or even contemptible attitudes toward Katrina victims, and those politicians and ministers mean-spirited and un-Christlike enough to rail against the victims were not condemned nearly as loudly as they should have been.

Again, I think a lot of the dismissiveness and just plain apathy about Iraq is due to the fact that, unlike in Vietnam, there is no draft. I certainly do NOT want a draft, of course, but that was the major reason why the Vietnam anti-war movement was so strong.

[bobbolink]

12. If it's only about them, then they have no soul.

Yes, I agree about the draft.

Yes, and Big Ed was among those criticizing the Katrina survivors!!!! (Yes, that was the last I listened to him!)

HOWEVER, I still say that if "people" (and I use the term loosely) can't empathize with anyone outside themselves, then they have no soul.

[Virginia Dare]

25. It's the whole instant gratification psyche that has...

gripped our society. As a whole, there is a real disconnect from society at large. Really, very frightening.

[mmonk]

15. If the last election results and the reasons given (corruption and

the Iraq war) then what the hell will it take? 500k protesting early against it here in a major city didn't do anything. I'm close to the give up stage. Should't people just do what is right when they are in office? Whatever happened to having a conscience in this country? Are our elected officials really this depraved?

[Warren Stupidity]

17. So does that mean you will be in DC on 1-27-07?

Or will you be sitting at your computer bemoaning the lack of a significant antiwar movement, wondering why nobody cares?

Just asking.

Peace is here, if you want it.

[Jcrowley]

21. Most definitely

And while some would regard your words as a challenge of sorts I regard them in the highest manner.

Being a keyboard activist is really no more than a form of complicity. Awareness without action....

All of our petitioning and e-mailing with all of the wonderful intentions involved have resulted in nothing of consequence. Knowing this we should ask ourselves what is required of us?

[Sapphire Blue]

19. Where is the outrage? I'll tell you where it is. It is flowing through my veins like molten lava.

[OneBlueSky]

23. two big differences (from Vietnam) may account for the lack of serious outrage . . .

the first is the media, and their inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading reporting of, well, everything . . . regarding the war, of particular importance is their general lack of coverage of the carnage in Iraq, especially in photos . . . during the Vietnam war, the evening news carried videos of pitched battles nearly every night, and photos and videos of American casualties were common -- and very disturbing . . .

the second is the draft . . . back in the 60s and 70s, every draft age male was at risk (unless you had connections or enough money to be a permanent student), and thus every American family had a very personal interest in what was happening in Vietnam . . . and as the casualties increased -- 20 thousand, 30 thousand, 40 thousand, 50 thousand -- the vast majority of those killed were draftees who didn't want to be there, but felt they were serving their country -- just as their fathers and grandfathers had done . . .

were either of these factors to change, I believe the outrage would multiply -- quickly and geometrically . . .

[TahitiNut]

36. One correction ...

You say "back in the 60s and 70s, every draft age male was at risk." That's not true. No person born after mid-1955 was ever drafted. The last draftee inducted entered the Army on June 30, 1973.

162,746 men were drafted in 1970
94,092 men were drafted in 1971
49,514 men were drafted in 1972
646 men were drafted in 1973

That's all folks.

The idea that all boomer males had the draft hovering over their head is just plain false.

The year I was born, 3,323,970 men were drafted for service in WW2, including my father.
The year I graduated high school, 118,586 men were drafted for service in Viet Nam.
The year I was drafted, 296,405 other men were drafted for service in Viet Nam.

My half-sister was born in 1956. My cousin (like a sister to me) was born in 1955. When they were in high school, it was a fad - form without much substance. It was about as "meaningful" as the Beatles.

[Thothmes]

44. One Correction

I believe that you should also include the number of men drafted into the army from say 1963 through 1969. Prior to the 1970 draft, the lottery system was not in place. I graduated from high school in 1965. Of the roughly one hundred males that graduated with me, 41 would eventually receive their induction notices. Of those 41, only 22 were actually drafted. The remainder enlisted in one of the services or were found not physically qualified. Any High School graduate that was not college bound definitely had to consider the draft in planning his future.

[Jcrowley]

24. Kick

[The2ndWheel]

26. We're too specialized to care

We can have no draft, and war will still happen, and we'll all go to work and pay taxes since that's our job. The people we elect(elections being another specialized system) have a job to do. The experts(specialized education) tell us what we need to know.

We can go back to a draft, yet war will still happen. Only this time the state has all the say.

[shance]

27. You know JC, I think most people would care if they had time to care, if that makes sense.

Our middle class is being worked to death. When they are off work, they are either focused on their kids and/or just trying to keep everything in order.

I don't want to make an excuse, however, if I were in their position I would probably be doing much the same thing.

I don't think it is necessarily by accident either that the middle class is working such long hours and that there is so much distraction in our culture. It keeps us away from the issues we need to be looking at.

In addition for those of us who have time to learn more on the internet, I wish more people had such a 'luxury'. Most working people dont.

I would say its up to us to figure out ways in which we can reach these overworked individuals. The good ole boy media is doing everything it can to keep Americans in the dark.

[Jcrowley]

28. I'd say

that's one very important aspect of this. People are very fatigued just from the daily struggle to keep a roof over head and food in the belly.

We are all so atomized that we have very few opportunities or spaces to really commune to get a shared perspective and sense of "What WE can do" rather than "What I can do" and this makes the possibility of putting together large-scale sustained movements even more difficult. It also makes the daily struggle more difficult and isolating.

A friend says the other day, "I want to meet the genius who thought up the idea of seperating us all", and she meant in the sense of diabolical genius.

[shance]

42. Tell your friend I want to be with her when she meets this person!

Here's to building those fields to gather so that we will come!!

That's what we need now more than ever.

[itsmesgd]

29. Outrage here, just waiting for a triggering event..

til then I will do my part to protest and attempt to inform and rally the vote, but when push comes to shove I will give in to my rage. I've been trained to feed off of the rage and use it for a means to an end. The funny thing about the government is that they train you to do things, but they never "untrain" you to do the same.

Would that make me a sleeper patriot?

(btw, hello Agent Mike, just exercising a little free speech here on a cloudy afternoon)

[Strawman]

30. She has a point, but

I'd be suspicious of anyone at a protest trying to instigate violence. Alot of times they're the ones from the FBI.

[librechik]

31. why go to the streets when the internets are so much more effective?

and safer.

You need to expand your perspective. The movement is there, it's just not what we did so many years ago.
It's a new revolution, baby, and it's going to kick Bush's ass.

[itsmesgd]

32. I agree, but there's no doubt that numbers in the street send a loud message.

[librechik]

38. you'd think 30 million in the streets would have made them perk up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15%2C_2003_anti-war_protest

they don't effin give a shit how many pedestrians get in their way--they have tanks.

[TahitiNut]

33. It seems that the courage of our troops is matched by the moral cowardice of ...

... both the politicians and the public. What else is new? :grr:

[Ron Green]

34. Outrage Suppression:

1. Comfortable middle class, lots of shopping opportunities.
2. Media controlled and carefully designed to entertain, mislead and frighten.
3. All-volunteer mercenary military, fed by poorer enlistees with few economic choices.
4. Vague fear of swarthy "others," fueled by media (see #2.)

[blues90]

35. I often wonder how many really know enough to be outraged

Sure many don't have time working many hours or two jobs trying to keep afloat . I worked 12 hours a day found time but not alot .

Another aspect is many people during the day don't have access to the internet or a radio signal to listen to some of the liberal shows who offer the truth . However one can tune into the rightwing propaganda almost anywhere and be swilled with lies . And they watch the tv which we all know is biased .

Beside all of this one almost has to understand the ME to see the vast influence .

This attack on Iraq should have been enough but at the time many were feeling the 9/11 fear and many still fear terror attacks . Many have become victims of society and many hard times so they are consumed with their survival and this is certainly normal .

I don't know what it would take other than enough deadly events to happen here in the US where most people were directly affected and forced to react out of shear survival . Perhaps then when building fall all over the country people will give up whatever comfort they have to fight back . It may come to this soneday .

How many even if it were their desire can go to DC to join into the protest , I would like to but I don't have a job and cannot afford to make the trip unless I was willing to live on the streets after this .

It takes the willingness to sacrifice all to pull this off . This can mean many different things to many different people .

Yes I feel if people felt there were millions willing to make this sacrifice many others would follow .

[Az]

37. Where's the outrage? There it is in the lower right corner

[G_j]

43. ouch!

point made

and I'm not sure even attacking Iran would wake the sleeping monolith.

[MadHound]

39. There are differing circumstance between then and now

The first is, of course, the media. Back in the day massive protests were a novel thing, and the media jumped all over it. In the time since, we've seen many, many massive protests and the novelty has worn off. What was once a front page lead item story has now become back page fodder, an afterthought if mentioned at all. Also, the media itself has changed significanly. Where once there was a plethora of media ownership, all competing for the revenue, now the MSM is made up of literally a handful of corporations who are all controlled by those who have a vested interest in keeping the war going. Thus we now see massive protests going under-reported, undercounted, or just simply unreported at all.

The second factor is that life has changed drastically. Where once you had a one earner, one job family, you now have one-two earners in a family, many of whom are single parents, many of whom work multiple jobs. Throw in after school activities, various local or civic activities, the normal chores, most people, especially those with children, simply don't have the time. This holds true for college students also. Most college students didn't work back in the day, and if they did it was very few hours. Now you've got college students holding down half and even full time jobs, and most work to some extent or another. Again, time is a huge factor, and the lack thereof.

And frankly, let's compare the timelines. The U.S. got into Vietnam officially in 1955. First major escalation was during the Kennedy era. But the first massive nationwide protests, involving hundreds of thousands of people, weren't until 1965, ten years after our initial involvement. And frankly the middle class in this country didn't turn out in large numbers until 1970, fifteen years later. Compare this with the fact that we had hundreds of thousands out in the streets, of all backgrounds, before the war even started, and things look pretty decent:shrug:

However I think that you will be seeing more and more people on the street. The Democrats were sent to Washington with a clear mandate, end the war NOW. If they fail to do so, as I suspect that they will, for the reasons you list and others, then you will see more and more people out in the street. It probably won't be well reported, but we'll be out there. And if the Dems fail to follow through, and fail to stop Bushco's war for empire, then we will probably see both parties go down in flames.

[The2ndWheel]

40. Isn't that something though?

All our time saving advances have left us with no time to do anything. The more time we have, the more we have to do something productive with it. You can't just be for a second or two during the day. If you are lucky enough to do it though, you're lost, and have to find something to do.

Plus we have data mining corporations making sure they know what we do with the time we're saving by being busy.

Crazy world.

[Az]

41. The point of a protest is to gather the media's attention

A protest in and of itself does little. But once the media gets ahold of it the message is conveyed to the rest of the people. Without the media giving attention to the protests they have no effect.