Truth be told, I have been expecting reports like this one from the Colorado Springs Gazette for some time. Right on schedule, the so-called "Peace Activists" have lived down to my expectations of them. Among other incidents:
bq. "Melody Varner was chatting online with friends and family June 24 to keep her mind off what might be happening to her husband, a Fort Carson soldier, in Iraq. She couldn't believe the words that bounced across her computer screen next. Someone who apparently found Varner through her screen name, "army_wife_1997," fired off an instant message that began: "I hope a pissed off Iraqi caps his ass." A heated electronic exchange followed between Varner and the anonymous writer, who wrote that Varner's husband "deserves to die" and hopes he "comes home in a ------ box."
"I don't know if it's a college kid playing a prank. It's not a prank to me. I have two kids. I want my husband to come home," said Varner, who reported the exchange and another hate message she received to the FBI. "We know the reality. We don't need it rubbed in our face," added Varner's friend, Wendi Bethel. Bethel's husband, Heath, also is deployed. "What they are trying to do is deliberately break our morale." It is one example of harassment Varner said she has experienced since her husband, Staff Sgt. Corey Varner of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, left for the Middle East in April. Her car, adorned with patriotic symbols, was spit on. Yellow ribbons she put out at a rally were torn down. She was called a whore for going to a nightclub with friends. A few friends have been harassed similarly. Some choose not to hang flags or yellow ribbons on their houses so they don't draw attention to their husbands' absence."The article closes out with this:
"Varner suspected she has drawn the ire of some because of her overt patriotism. The garage of the rancher the couple rents near Pikes Peak Avenue and Murray Boulevard is painted with the words, "God bless our troops." The words "Support our Daddy" are on the back window of her car. Yellow ribbons ring the trees in the front yard. A blue star is plastered in the window, and a large American flag flaps outside. Inside, there is a red, white and blue clock, blankets, pictures and knickknacks. She continues to go by the computer name of army_wife_1997. "Some people say, 'You bring it on yourself. Why don't you change your screen name? Why don't you take down your flags?' " she said. "Why should I? That is how I show support for my husband. That is who I am."There will be more such incidents before the 2004 election. If one or more of the candidates in the Democratic Presidential field were smart, they would use such incidences as a Clinton-like "Sister Souljah moment." That is, engineer a politcal event that will drive the leftist nutballs and conspiracy theorists who think Bush engineered 9/11/2001 to "subvert the constitution" out of the Democratic Party. The problem is by the time any of them get around to it, it will be after someone wins the Democratic presidential nomination. Then it will be far too late. That's why I keep saying the Democrats are both dead and damned for 2004. A political party getting badly beaten by its political opponents can get up later and win. A political party that is beaten down by its political opponents, then pulls a pistol and blows its brains out in frustration, is dead.
Don't be asinine. Blaming this on "peace activists" is about as accurate as blaming the racist harrasment of arabic-looking immigrants and citizens on "patriots". The spectrum of poitical inclination has a roughly even distribution of idiots, criminals and murderers.
clue, I think that's why "peace activists" is in quotes. These people obviously oppose the military and the war. But they don't seem very "peaceful". More like gigantic asses who hate the military.
That is so, clue, and Trent's point about this being a "Sister Souljah" moment still stands.
Alas, I do not believe anyone in the Democratic Party will take it. After all, the "we support our troops when they shoot their officers" sign at a major anti-war rally didn't attract any comment, either. Criticism of Bonior and McDermott for kissing Saddam's ass in Baghdad was pretty muted, too.
Missed opportunities... and it's time to acknowledge the existence of a clearly hostile and enabling climate for acts like this among a certain segment of the Left. Especially those who are still mentally trapped in the Legend of Vietnam. Indymedia and "Democratic Underground" didn't evolve ex nihilo.
This isn't the Democratic Party's problem, except (a) to the extent that DU/Indymedia types and their membership overlap; (b) they are seen as overlapping in membership or agenda; and © there's a political opportunity here. I can't comment on (a), but the perception of (b) is growing - hence security-related poll numbers etc - and so © exists.
clue,
"There is no cause so pure and just that it does not attract fugheads."
It is incumbent on real peace activists to visibly "out" such thugs as beyond the pale or be tarred with the same brush, as happened with the Pro-Life Movement when the abortion killing started.
Dean has made peace activism the face of the Democratic party and unless Democratic Presidential candidates -- Dean in particular -- cast out such thugs. They will suffer Operation Rescue and the wider Pro-Life Movement's fate.
Trent,
Nothing in the article mentions "peace activist." Mrs. Varner doesn't identify any of the individuals who have attacked her as a "peace activist", nor does she use the term at all in relating her own stories or the anectdotes of others who've suffered similarly. As far as I can tell, the application of the term "peace activist" in this context was introduced by you. The accurate term for this kind of person is, instead, "idiot".
As for Dean and the Dems missing the opportunity for a "Sister Souljah Moment", you might *recall* that it was the Reverend Jackson's praise of Sister Souljah that enabled Clinton to have the moment. Should Joe Lieberman stand up in a debate and praise rabid anti-war idiots for threating housewives, I presume that Dean or somebody else stands a decent chance of rising to the challenge.
For the Democrats to be able to capitalize on this issue, it has to be an issue first. But how often does this happen? Where's the high-profile coverage? It's not as though (like the worst of the anti-abortion types) those Trent identifies as "peace activists" are off murdering people (thank God, of course). I would imagine instead that if there were any serious (news-friendly) issue here that the Dems would be all over it, because they'd like to do anything to appeal to the majority of the country that favored (and still, marginally, favors) the war.
It's not as though John Kerry can hope to retain the votes of members of International ANSWER by remaining quiet on the subject of online abuse directed at military spouses. The Democratic strategy of recent years has not been to embrace the center at the risk of alienating the left, not the other way around.
The Democratic strategy of recent years has not been to embrace the center at the risk of alienating the left, not the other way around.
I'm confused by this sentence. Are you saying that "The Democratic strategy has been to NOT embrace the Center"? Because I know a mountain of people who think the Democrats have abandoned the Left and there's no difference between Dems and Republicans... blah blah blah the usual Nader bs.
Trent, you're assuming the Democrat Party wants to remove those elements, or sees them as a problem.
Wow, I completely flubbed that one. Sorry. Should have been:
The Democratic strategy of recent years has been to embrace the center at the risk of alienating the left, not the other way around.
I rearranged my clauses but not my modifiers (hate that). Thanks for catching it.
Robert,
Evidence, please, that the people behind this are "elements" of the Democratic party.
Clue,
Ignoring the special burdens of history that Democrats and the so-called "Peace movement" carry over the Vietnam and immediate post-Vietnam treatment of military personnel and their dependents is the same order of mistake that Senator Trent Lott made in waxing nostalgic over Strom Thurmond's failed Presidential bid.
Get over with it or get ignored.
Were there any evidence of widespread mistreatment of military personnel and their dependents I would be in complete agreement with you.
Trent, that doesn't make much sense to me.
The GOP is free to include a number of people who just - to put it charitably - don't like black people. It is a part of their constituency. The Democrats are similarly free to include as a part of their consituency a group of people who just don't like the military.
In both cases, common sense (sadly, not just common decency) puts boundaries around behavior.
But as the GOP is under no obligation to kiss Jesse Jackson's ring because of their use of Willie Horton, Democrats are under no special obligation to 'make up' for past bad behavior.
The limiting factor is the effect that the behavior will have on their success.
As a Democratic hawk, it's frustrating to me that more Democrats don't understand that a) a strong military, morally used, is a Good Thing; and b) winking and nodding while soldiers and their families are abused is a one-way ticket to McGovern-land.
But I'm patient and am willing to wait an election cycle or two while the weak ones are culled from the herd.
And I'm extremely grateful that no one has said or done anything like this in my presence, because while I'm older and more restrained than I was when younger, my restraint is far from infinite.
A.L.
A.L.
The difference is that we are in a war of survival that began as a surprise attack at home on defenseless American civilians. The American Jacksonians in have been awakened and they are watching. They made themselves known in 2002 and they will again in 2004 and beyond.
Democrats and liberals in general carry a giri -- blood debt -- as signficant for military families as Republicans have for blacks.
That is why nine out of ten career military officers are registered Republicans in the same way nine out of ten blacks are registered Democrats.
Unless Democrats and liberals get with the program, the American Jacksonians will write them off for a generation in the same way Republicans were for going after the New Deal.
It isn't fair, but where is it written that life is fair?
"...winking and nodding while soldiers and their families are abused is a one-way ticket to McGovern-land."
Example, please.
(Of the winking and nodding).
But while we're on the subject of abusing military personnel and their families, let's not pretend for a moment that this is a phenomenon limited to Democrats. While Republicans rally 'round the flag, they've been busy ripping them off--the latest tax cut leaves almost 200,000 low-income military personnel unable to receive the child tax credit, the military housing budget was cut by $1.5 billion, and there's a cut of $14.6 billion over ten years of VA benefits.
clue -
Waving the flag as the soldiers march by looks a lot less appealing when you're picking their pockets at the same time.
If you're looking for an argument from me on this, you're not going to get it. By no moral or political calculus can a few crazies IM'ing someone, saying abusive things, or even egging their cars be compared with cutting promised benefits, hiding legally-mandated benefits to try and reduce utilization, etc. etc. etc.
A.L.
<shadetree mechanic voice>Here's your problem right here:</shadetree mechanic voice>
If one or more of the candidates in the Democratic Presidential field were smart
A.L.,
Hell no I'm not looking for an argument with you--I look like an idiot?
Seriously, what probably escapes notice is that I'm not arguing with the values that you or even Trent espouse. Rather, I'm critical of the facts and assumptions to which the values are applied, to reach a concluding judgement (about what "peace activists", unquoted-peace-activists, Democrats, Democratic candidates, etc. either are responsible for or should do). It's because I find fault with the facts, not with the values, that I don't think Trent's judgement of the situation is valid.
As noted, I don't see any evidence of democrats "winking and nodding while soldiers and their families are abused"--if I did, I'd agree that it was indeed justifiably "a one-way ticket to McGovern-land", and that's the least they'd deserve. But I just don't see it.
Blaster,
Compelling argument.
"That is, engineer a politcal event that will drive the leftist nutballs and conspiracy theorists who think Bush engineered 9/11/2001 to "subvert the constitution" out of the Democratic Party."
That is presuming they want to drive them out.
Kal
And they'd want to keep them in because, what, the Democratic party panders to the lunatic left wing?
News flash: Left-wing radicals have given up on the Democratic party precisely because it has pushed itself into the center at their expense over the last 15 years or so. The notion that Democratic candidates can only succeed if they pander to America-hating, troop-spitting-upon smelly hippies is a complete fantasy and is quite obviously incorrect if you stop and consider which national candidates have performed well and garnered nominations since 1990. The myth of a leftist-dominated Democratic party persists, it seems, only in the minds of Republicans.
Trent trenchant as always beat me to it. But I will say it any way. 2004 = 1932 electorilly.
The 2002 elections were indicative but not decisive because the vast majority (in politics) believed Afghanistan was right and Iraq was not an issue.
Bush gave the Ds a year to screw the pooch on Iraq. The Ds obliged. He has given the electorate another year to digest the Ds perfidy. Whether deserved or not the anti-war folks are identified not as Greens/communists but as Democrats.
Bush is a very popular war President.
The Democrats as a group (with the possible exception of Lieberman) are the anti-American anti-security party.
They is fooked.
The Rs will have to screw up very badly to lose 2004. Not even a faltering economy will matter much in the face of War.
The handwriting is on the wall with so many left/liberals supporting Bush because they don't trust the Ds on War. The Ds are whistling past the graveyard. Or as we like to say in this day and age - clueless.
So the worst possible behavior of any ideological group defines that group? Then Republicans are money-grubbing racist warmongerers, Democrats are Communists, and Greens are Republicans.
I don't see how looking to the extreme of any movement and saying, "That's who they really are!" proves or serves anything. Personally, while I object to the war in Iraq, I'd never treat a soldier's wife like that. It's my whole point behind opposing the war: I don't want people to die.
Hey, get a clue.
It was just a funny, not an argument.
I don't think the left will really ever get anywhere with elections, because let's face it, a majority of the Americans are in the center and will likely align themselves with those who are in the middle. I can never see myself voting for a far-out left or right candidate, or someone who has a "pie in the sky" attitude.
Um, how do you know that they're Democrats to begin with, you don't even know who they are: the only criteria you have is that they're fucking idiots, which means they could be just about anything.
Yes they are idiots, but definitely "anti-war" idiots.
And that makes them neither "peace activists" or Democrats. The association of these idiots with "peace activists" (quoted or not) was not made by the idiots themselves, nor the families suffering their abuse, nor the media reporting it, but by Trent. It was also Trent, and none of the people involved, who brought up the association with Democrats.
In fact you don't even know that these are "anti-war" idiots. Maybe they're radical leftist nutballs who think a war against Israel would be great but not one against Iraq--which would make them "anti-Iraq-war" at best. Or maybe they don't give a damn about war, but just hate military people out of some wierd psychopathic grudge.
The point is, there's some line beyond which further generalization about persons and their motives becomes more a reflection of your own beliefs than those of the person you're describing, and Trent went way the hell over that line.
For years, the Left has painted all Republicans with the same "Christian Fundamentalist" brush, not caring about facts. The shoe is now on the other foot. Doesn't feel too comfortable, does it?
Trent may be wrong- but I'll bet he's right.
"The point is, there's some line beyond which further generalization about persons and their motives becomes more a reflection of your own beliefs than those of the person you're describing..."
This is a good thought to keep in mind, clue. Thanks. Did Trent cross it? Opinions seem to differ, and the basis of the difference do indeed seem to be prior perceptions of (a) the Democratic Party's closeness to its Green Party faction these days; and (b) one's assessment of the underlying mindset and motives of said faction.
Which, when you think about it, is still interesting as a sort of data point all its own. What it says is that there's a growing perception on the right that significant sections of the Democratic Party aren't just policy opponents, but people who hate or at least don't like America. A.L. has defined it in better terms as an "abusive parent" relationship, and that really fits for me (he also mentions that "permissive parents" suck too, and we've all met 'em and agree).
A weaker form of that belief is also taking hold in the larger public, based on security-related polls that show unprecedented gaps.
I think A.L. is right on the money with his analogies. I think Trent is generalizing a bit, but these attitudes he reports on come from somewhere. Trent believes they come from a wider set of left-wing (Democratic "activist") beliefs, and so he sees these events as emblematic and typical rather than isolated and fringe. So yes, he's speaking from inside his belief set and generalizing. That often gets him into trouble, but I'll say this...
Try as I might to be fair minded, I lean more toward Trent's view of these acts as extreme manifesttaions of attitudes that live in the Democratic Party in milder form, rather than to a view of these activities as fringe acts that have nothing to do with the Democratic Party. That's MY internal mindset, and if I'm thinking that as an outside observer of America then the Dems have a real problem.
Trent was pretty open about the damage the pro-life movement (of which he was once an aviud supporter) did to its reputation by refusal to rein in or forthrightly condemn its extremists. That filtered back and hurt the Republicans, too, as I recall, playing at least a partial role in the polling "gender gap" despite the fact that many Republicans are not absolutist pro-lifers and the centrist wing has many pro-choice members. It's a useful lesson with great analogies, and the Democrats aren't learning it.
The Democrats are being burned by the same dynamic. And the Republicans, as the belief takes hold that many Democrats really are America-haters, are going to press this point hard. There's no convenient "Communist Party" to act as a visible line, so no McCarthy redux. But sharp criticism and call-outs will be aimed at "emblematic" events and specific actions. That won't stop - vid. Mona Charen's well-researched book and also [bleah] Ann Coulter's recent polemic. The more visible the leftist wing of the Democratic Party are, and the more they froth about George Bush, the harder the counterattacks will be.
Meanwhile, the Democrats will be launching culture war savagery of their own around judicial nominations and associated issues.
Summary: if you think American politics is a bare-knuckle brawl now, it's going to get worse. It will be unpleasant, and it presents real dangers to the Republic. But it may also have a cleansing effect, by raising the costs of radicalism on both sides and providing energy to push some of the tectonic shifts currently underway.
Hang on to your hats - the ride may get a bit bumpy from here.
Joe:
Good comments, I think you're right- the Chinese saying: "May you live in interesting times"- there's no doubt the next 10-20 years will be VERY interesting.
Looks like I'm not just talking out of my hat here:
I am sorry to hear about this horrible thing that happened to you and your car. But using peace activists in quotes is out of hand because this person that did this to you is obvioulsly not a peace activists. A real one respects ones opinion. EVER HEARD OF PRACTICING GOOD KARMA??? Well that is what everyone should do.As a peace activist, i have replaced my car windows.I had peace signs on my car windows and they just decided to mess with me. I have also been acused of a druggie and been yelled at.People scream "bomb those f*ckers" So please change your words and don't back down from what you believe ever because then whoever is doing this will be satisfied because you backed down