WHAT'S
IT ALL ABOUT, JUST-TIN?
Originally,
for me at any rate, Antiwar.com was an emotional catharsis,
a means to vent my anger and contempt for an administration
that would unleash the mightiest military machine on a brave
people whose only "crime" was to dare to assert their sovereignty
and dignity in the face of threats and provocations. What
was one supposed to do, as cowardly American bombers dropped
ordnance from 50,000 ft. and Congress abdicated its responsibility,
distancing itself from this outrage but refusing to stop the
funding? (Indeed, those dolts actually increased funding
for the Kosovo operation, over and above Clinton's request!)
After awhile, shouting at the TV screen and throwing balled-up
wads of newspaper at the evil Christiane Amanpour began to
get a little old, as you can well imagine. What to do?
THE
UTTER USELESSNESS OF THE LITERARY PROFESSION
Writers
are not much good for anything other than writing, except
on some very rare occasions or by some strange quirk of fate
– and then only as a by-product of their writing. As
a political organizer and practical man of action, I have
always been something of a wash-out. I spent a decade in the
Libertarian Party, and another five or so engaged in organizing
libertarians in the GOP – and neither project had any
appreciable effect on the national political scene. Aside
from generally causing havoc inside the Libertarian Party
in the late seventies and early eighties, basically reducing
it to a shell of its former self (albeit not single-handedly),
my own incursions into the arena of day-to-day practical politics,
while not altogether disastrous (like my 1996 campaign for
Congress as a Republican in San Francisco – talk about
lost causes!) have not exactly been world-historic. (The one
exception that proves the rule: being the first to promote
the presidential ambitions of Patrick J. Buchanan in public
print, in September of 1990, but then that would have happened
anyway.) In short, my own feeble attempts to organize anything
have all come to naught – perhaps because I am at my
best alone at the keyboard. Yet I cannot resist the temptation
to try my hand, once again, to test the waters, so to speak,
and see if – maybe this time – the political (or,
rather, organizational) success that has so far eluded me
might yet be possible, if only . . .
A
RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENT
Antiwar.com
began its institutional life as an inchoate act of rebellion,
a gesture of defiance – an early headline was "Clinton
Does to Serbia What He Did to Juanita Brodderick!" –
and slowly but surely evolved into something much more. How
much more, however, is the question. Since that time we have
acquired quite an online presence: my columns are read by
thousands, instead of hundreds, and we have added a whole
platoon of regular columnists, all of whom are helping us
to build a truly worldwide audience. We are offering more
original material, every day, than many magazines (both online
and off) with ten times our circulation and ten hundred times
our budget and prestige, and the effect of this relentless
literary assault has been subtle but telling. Our ideas have
received a respectful hearing in the so-called "mainstream"
media, and are not only carried regularly on Yahoo, the world's
most popular website, but also given a much wider circulation
than they would otherwise have via such online publications
as WorldNetDaily
and others. As far as recognition from the journalistic profession
itself, there was the thoughtful profile of Antiwar.com featured
by PBS in the early days of the Kosovo war, and many of my
own columns have found their way into the mainstream media,
including the Times of London. I know that many journalists
use Antiwar.com as a resource when researching their own pieces,
or just for fun. More significantly, I believe that the growth
and success of this site has moved the debate a few inches
in our direction, especially among many conservatives who
are now beginning to question the whole rationale for global
interventionism. In short, just by existing, we have not only
begun the great foreign policy debate of the new millennium,
but we have also set up the debate largely on our own terms:
for in the face of an organized and very vocal group of (primarily)
American noninterventionists, the War Party must now justify
its case much more carefully and convincingly, taking care
not to lie too brazenly. That, in and of itself, is a great
achievement, and we have every right to be proud.
LET'S
NOT REST ON OUR LAURELS
But
let's not get in too much of a self-congratulatory mood –
not as we stand on the edge of a great yawning abyss, not
only in Kosovo but around the world. As the US gets ready
to leap into the bottomless pit of Empire, we should all of
us be feeling just a little bit queasy. When I think of what
we're up against, of all that it took to come to this moment
of modest achievement, I despair. So much more is required,
so much effort: I mean, how many columns and conferences,
colloquiums, speeches, marches, rallies, petitions, and riots
in the streets will it take before our rulers get the
message? Americans don't want an Empire, bring our centurions
home!
JUST
A WEBSITE, AFTER ALL
Being
just a website, strictly limited to the realm of cyberspace,
means that we can never have enough impact: we can
never have a direct effect on the outcome of the events
we report and comment on. At best, we can inspire others to
do the work that needs to be done before we can begin to dream
of a world where the threat of war is diminished enough to
give us even a moment's peace. I, for one, would be satisfied
if we took just a few short steps back from the brink of the
abyss, but nothing I write can bring that about –
and this is, for me, a source of continual frustration. Of
course, some people are perfectly content to comment from
the sidelines. Writing is a pleasant and even somewhat fluffy
occupation: to think up opinions in the morning, break for
lunch, and then spend the rest of the afternoon looking for
the facts to back them up – what a life! If that sounds
like fun, well, then it is – except when one considers
the meaning of it all.
LITERARY
MOTIVATION: A RARE MOMENT OF INTROSPECTION
For
in those (necessarily) rare moments of introspection, when
the writer confronts his mysterious compulsion to set pen
to paper, the ultimate meaning and value of his work can only
come from two possible sources: the effect of his writing
on himself, and on the world. In regard to the former, only
the writer himself, his biographer, and the few members of
his fan club (if any) need be concerned with this point. Writers
of books – or, at least, this writer – like to think
of their tome lying in wait in libraries, waiting for some
browser to pick it up and open it so that the author may come
back to life, if only for a few hours, and in this way achieve
a sporadic (and by no means assured) form of immortality.
But the fate of these columns is, in the long run at least,
more problematic. Churned out three times a week and focused
on events as they are happening, each one is, at best, a snapshot
of what is happening in that moment – with some hint
of what may happen in the next. When strung together, these
snapshots interact like the separate frames of a movie: the
reader can be instructed, and even entertained, but, in the
end, what is he or she to do? Sure, the world is rushing
toward another global conflict, in the Balkans, in the Straits
of Taiwan, on the battlefields of Chechnya and along the Pakistani-Indian
border – yet can we do anything other than shake our
fists and fulminate?
AVOIDING
OBLIVION
I
am convinced that the answer is an emphatic yes, yet
I am not advocating that we form yet another organization.
The world has too many organizations that do little but try
to justify their existence to members and contributors. Instead
of working to achieve the group's ostensible goal – world
peace, liberty, Communism, vegetarianism, Nirvana, or whatever
– the organization soon becomes the source of a paycheck
and/or an arena for the leadership to act out their fantasies
of power and historical significance. The sad result is that
these groups usually fade into complete insignificance, often
with alarming speed, and if anything hurt rather than help
the causes they were founded to advance. (I could name a few,
but being in a rare charitable mood, will rein myself in.)
No, this is the wrong path to take: this way lies oblivion.
A
FEW MODEST PROPOSALS
Yet
there is a way to get around the essential futility of most
organizations, and that is by focusing on single events or
on very specific tasks. This, at least, is the beginning
of a genuine grassroots movement: undertaking concrete
actions directly related to long-term goals. Our long-term
goal is restoring the foreign policy of this country's Founders,
that is, a policy that seeks entangling alliances with none
and peaceful productive relations with all nations. What concrete
actions can we undertake right now, given our present
level of organization and resources, to move a few steps closer
to our ultimate goal? What follows are a few modest proposals:
A
CONGRESSIONAL RATING SYSTEM
Nearly
every major political and ideological pressure group has a
rating system, whereby the nation's legislators are awarded
points and demerits based on their adherence to or deviation
from whatever cause is being advanced: for years, conservatives
had Americans for Constitutional Action (ACA), later replaced
by the American Conservative Union ratings, and the liberals
had Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). Both defenders
and detractors of the Second Amendment have their legislators'
scorecard, which rate members of Congress by their voting
record, and so too do the environmentalists, the anti-tobacco
lobbyists, the tobacco lobbyists, the pro-life and pro-death
lobbies, the ACLU and the League of Armenian-American Voters.
But where oh where are the opponents of interventionism
in this welter of interest groups? Where are the advocates
of peace? How come we don't have a rating system to
measure how our esteemed representatives in Washington are
living up to their constitutional duty to conduct the nation's
foreign policy? Just think of the effect of the news that
a man who wants to be President, or a member of Congress,
has been rated an outright danger to the country and been
awarded the official title of the Biggest Warmonger in Congress?
Conceivably, the news that John McCain, as Senator, suffered
from a kind of perpetual war fever – as measured by Antiwar.com's
"War-o-meter" – would have done something to cool
support for the hotheaded Republican a bit earlier. Of course,
such a rating system would be a complex, difficult, and expensive
undertaking, consuming many hours of research and requiring
the attention of several individuals with background in the
issues and the judgment to construct a workable and meaningful
standard. However, if every election season we could release
the foreign policy record of all the incumbents, as well as
the challengers, and issue a purely informational scorecard,
we could all sleep a little better at night knowing that at
least we are all going to hell as well-informed about who
drove us there as possible.
TOWN
HALL MEETINGS ON FOREIGN POLICY
It
is little short of criminal that the presidential candidates
this year got through an unusually long primary season without
having to once confront the central question facing every
President – how and why does he call out the troops?
Of course, this is not a power given to him by the US Constitution,
but one that Presidents since Truman have arrogated to themselves:
it is, nevertheless, now a prerogative of the office, and
every candidate for the White House is therefore obliged to
make clear exactly under what conditions he would exercise
this option. And more – he or she must lay out, in advance,
just how they intend to conduct US foreign policy: by what
principles and precedents will they be guided? This is a question
American citizens, and indeed people all over the world, have
a right (and a duty) to ask, since, for all too many of them,
it is a matter of life and death. What is needed is a yearly
Presidential Town Hall Forum, in which all the presidential
candidates of any consequence are invited to make speeches
and face a panel of assembled experts, journalists, and plain
old American citizens, as well as other interested parties,
all ready with their questions and concerns. For this is the
one issue on which the President of the United States holds
a veritable Sword of Damocles over all of our heads: he can
call out the troops, the bombers, the guided missiles on a
moment's notice, without the consent of (or even in consultation
with) the US Congress, or anyone else for that matter. The
very least aspirants for the office can do is to give us some
idea, however vague, of what to expect – so that we won't
be completely caught off guard when the sirens marking the
start of World War III begin to wail. According to this scenario,
every presidential campaign season the candidates would be
invited to attend two sessions of the Foreign Policy Town
Hall Meeting: the first during the primary season, and the
second in the period leading up to the November election.
Those who don't show up surely have something to hide –
it's as simple as that.
AN
INSTITUTION WITH A PURPOSE
Now
here is an institution with a purpose: to give evil a chance
to reveal itself, and give the good guys a chance to shine.
Foreign policy was not buried this primary election season
because the people don't care, or because it just isn't important
– what is occurring today in Kosovo is vitally important,
and the American people are more aware of it than the pundits
and politicians are willing to admit. The question is: how
do we bring the issues out in the open? Answer: by providing
a forum for the issues to be addressed. This is what we did
with Antiwar.com – the Foreign Policy Town Hall concept
is just another application of the same principle.
ON
THE LOCAL LEVEL
Candidates
at the local level must also confront foreign policy issues,
and face questions from citizens who care about these issues,
and from this flows the necessity of organizing Foreign Policy
Town Hall meetings on the local level. In a great many congressional
districts throughout the country, a low rating from Antiwar.com
or "Americans for a Peaceful Foreign Policy" is going to mean
a loss of at least a few points in the polls, and perhaps
a great deal more if the war danger looms large. As news events,
these foreign policy debates will be covered by the media,
and will in turn educate many more thousands than will ever
log on to Antiwar.com. Here is an opportunity for supporters
of a noninterventionist policy to become a political factor
without being partisan, and while performing a purely informational
function. And this is by no means a forum only for candidates:
these Foreign Policy Town Hall meetings could become a regular
service, a local forum for debate and discussion on the question
of war and peace – for the first time giving a platform
to the noninterventionist position on an equal footing with
the internationalists, who have so far had the "debate" all
to themselves, arguing over such questions as whether the
US ought to intervene unilaterally or multi-laterally, so
that the option of non-intervention and peace never
even comes up.
WE
HAVE THE ADVANTAGE
The
interventionists are operating, in this arena, from a distinct
disadvantage: they don't want talk about foreign policy issues,
they don't want any real debate, since they know what every
poll tells them and that is that the American people are utterly
opposed to their policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace,
and have always had to be dragged, kicking and screaming,
into every overseas war, from World War I to the present.
They are happy with the present situation, when the issue
is rarely (if ever) brought up, because their views are not
at all popular – and, what's more, they know it. Dubya
doesn't want his Republican voters to know that he endorsed
Bill Clinton's Kosovo policy, and the Bore doesn't want you
to realize that his family's investments in Occidental Petroleum
give him a personal stake in bailing out the regime of Colombia's
President Andres Pastrana. Neither wants you to know that
there isn't a dime's worth of difference between them on the
burning foreign policy issues of the day – just as the
foreign policy establishment that has up until now dominated
the debate doesn't want you to know that there is an alternative
to globalism and interventionism.
THERE'S
ALWAYS HOPE
These
three modest proposals, then, are a start. No, I am not saying
that Antiwar.com, or its parent organization, the Center
for Libertarian Studies, intends to take up any or all
of these projects: I am merely putting them out there for
our readers and supporters to contemplate and discuss. Whatever
action they take is their own responsibility. In the end,
a mere writer can only hope to incite or perhaps even inspire
his readers to act – and hope for the best.
A
NOTE
You
will have noticed the sudden appearance of banner ads at the
top of virtually every page on this site, and being a libertarian,
I naturally won't make any apologies. I think it makes us
look more like what we are: a real online publication, with
a diverse and relatively well-heeled readership, a place,
in short, where any advertiser would love to be visible. Patronizing
our advertisers is one way you can support the cause of peace
and nonintervention: every advertising dollar that we generate
goes to bring you the most incisive and current commentary
on international affairs available on the Internet. As a proud
member of the Flycast Network, we bring you bargains on a
wide array of products and services, and we are glad to do
it. In addition, check out the Antiwar.com
credit card deal on the front page – you can put
your credit rating to work for the cause of peace. I can't
think of a better use for a credit card – can you?
|
