Falling on Deaf Ears
February 2, 2007
On Saturday, January 27, tens of thousands of Americans took to the streets of Washington, DC for a protest on the National Mall. Within shouting distance of the nation’s political centers—the Capitol and the White House—anti-war protestors were a loud and visible presence; marching in the streets, making grand statements from podiums, and generally expressing their anti-war sentiment for a public audience.
The protestors were a diverse group united in their drive to send a message to leaders in Washington, particularly the new Democrat-controlled congress, that they did not support sending additional troops to Iraq and that they wanted a speedy end to the conflict in the Middle East with an immediate withdrawal of American military forces. The group included the parents of service members, religious leaders, elementary school students, lawmakers, and celebrities, among other activists from forty states. The protest was one of the largest of the current anti-war movement and took place at a time when public support for the president is at an all-time low and opposition to the war at an all-time high. It was a day of peaceful action where those opposed to administration policy could have their say, a day when Jane Fonda—that icon of protest against the Vietnam War—finally ended her silence and spoke out against the present conflict.
For those involved in the protest, including members of United for Peace and Justice, who organized the event, the day was a success. The group estimated that 100,000 people took part and the AP reported that there were only a few dozen arrests. It was a moment in the sun for everyone involved, the result of months of planning and the pinnacle of recent demonstrations in opposition to the war.
The President, however, spent the morning jogging in Maryland and later called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to reconfirm his pledge to send additional American troops to Iraq. White House Spokesman Tony Snow poked fun at Fonda’s appearance, telling reporters, “You know, I mean, it’s nice to see Jane Fonda in front of a camera again.” In essence, the response from the White House was in defiant opposition and even blatant ignorance of the events occurring in the streets outside. The president made no public appearances and appeared to have little interest in beginning a dialogue with anti-war activists.
With the tide seeming to turn in the U.S. Congress following November midterm elections that favored the Democrats, the protest was meant to coincide with the new burst of progressive thought and anti-war politicians entering the legislature this January. Indeed, many of the new senators and congress people do support ending the war in Iraq and returning troops to American soil. The protest had more of an effect on the congress than the President, evidenced by Republican Senator Richard Lugar’s acknowledgement that the massive protest signaled the public’s concern with the course of the Iraq conflict. Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a perennial critic of the bellicose policy undertaken by the Bush administration, offered his support to the protestors and recently proposed an exit strategy.
Despite these hopeful signs of a minor sea change in political opinion, there is still a great deal of infighting in the legislature over the issue of whether to cut funding for the war, to exercise the “power of the purse,” or to continue fighting for an American victory in Iraq. While support may be few and far between, even among Republicans who initially backed the war, most legislators are uneasy with the prospect of appearing as radical and unsupportive of the troops during a war. In his response to President Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address, Democratic Senator Jim Webb stated that the military should not engage in a “precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.” In his comment, Senator Webb is advocating a moderate position that is far less drastic than that of the majority of protestors holding signs with slogans reading “Troops out of Iraq” and “Bring the Troops Home NOW!”
This is the essential difference between the American political establishment and the more radical politics of the protestors who took to the streets last Saturday. There is a large gap between anti-war protestors and established politicians, and an even larger canyon between the President and those who publicly oppose his policies. A demonstration is one way to make a ruckus about an issue that attracts media attention and unites a group in spirit. But if the past six years of the Bush administration say anything about the President’s character, it is that he is a man of determined focus and a singular vision. It is a vision that has led the nation into war and one that will likely continue for the final years of the administration. No amount of protest, no matter how loud or large, will change the mind of the president or legislators weary of a wavering image on the conflict. Perhaps it is time for the peace movement to find new techniques for a new political reality and new leaders whose rhetoric is not dated by their Vietnam-era roots. And if these words of peace are falling upon deaf ears in the streets, then opponents of the war must take their complaints through the formal channels of government that cannot be readily ignored. Convincing their representatives to vote against additional war funding with reasoned arguments and public pressure on politicians in Washington will echo with a volume far greater than what was heard a week ago.