FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Peace Movement and Electoral Politics

Although the U.S. peace movement has been on the wane for about a decade, it remains a viable force in American life.  Organizations like Peace Action, the American Friends Service CommitteePhysicians for Social Responsibility, the Fellowship of ReconciliationJewish Voice for Peace, and numerous others have significant memberships, seasoned staff, and enough financial resources to sustain their agitation in communities around the country.  If they currently lack the power to mobilize the mass demonstrations that characterized some of their past struggles, they continue to educate Americans about the dangers of militarism and influence a portion of Congress.

Even as the movement declined during the Obama presidential years, it managed to eke out some occasional victories, most notably a treaty (New START) reducing the number of U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons, modest cutbacks in the U.S. military budget, the Iran nuclear deal, and the normalization of U.S. diplomatic relations with Cuba.

But the total takeover of the U.S. government by the Republican Party, occasioned by the GOP sweep in the 2016 elections, has produced a disaster for the peace movement―and for anyone concerned about building a peaceful world.  In less than a year in office, the Trump administration has escalated U.S. military intervention across the globe, secured a massive increase in U.S. military spending, issued reckless threats of war (including nuclear war) against North Korea, and forged close partnerships with some of the world’s most repressive regimes.  Nor is the peace movement growing significantly in response to this disaster―probably because progressive activists, the peace movement’s major constituency, are so overwhelmed by the government’s sweeping rightwing assault that they are preoccupied with desperately defending social and economic justice, civil liberties, and environmental sustainability.

As long as this situation continues, it seems unlikely that the peace movement is going to win many victories.  With hawkish, rightwing Republicans controlling the federal government, the peace movement’s educational campaigns, small-scale demonstrations, and Congressional lobbying will probably have little effect on U.S. public policy.

But there is a promising way to change the federal government.  A likely outcome of the November 2018 Congressional elections is that the Republicans will retain control of the U.S. Senate, thanks to the large number of Democratic incumbents running for the 33 contested seats.  Even so, the Democrats have a good chance to retake control of the House of Representatives, where every seat is up for grabs.  For more than six months, generic ballot polls about the House elections have shown Democrats with a lead ranging between 8-12 points over their Republican opponents.  Many analysts believe that this significant a lead will produce a “wave election”―one that will sweep the Democrats into power.  And with one branch of Congress in the hands of the Democrats, U.S. foreign and military policy could shift substantially.

Would it, though?  After all, despite significant differences with the GOP on domestic policy, aren’t Congressional Democrats just as hawkish as the Republicans on foreign and military policy?

There are numerous indications that they are not.  Although, in some cases during the Trump era, Congressional Democrats have joined their Republican counterparts in voting for hawkish legislation, representatives from the two parties have diverged dramatically on key foreign and military policy issues.  In July 2017, the House took up a bill reducing U.S. government spending on nuclear nonproliferation programs but increasing spending on nuclear weapons programs by 10.7 percent.  The bill passed by a vote of 235 to 192, with only five Democrats voting for it and only five Republicans voting against it.  Similarly, in October 2017, when the House voted on the People’s Budget―a measure drawn up by the Congressional Progressive Caucus that boosted social spending and cut military spending―Democratic members of the House supported it by a vote of 108 to 79.  By contrast, the Republican vote on it was zero in favor and 235 opposed.

Sharp party divisions on foreign and military policy have also occurred in the U.S. Senate, with the most dramatic of them focused on a proposal to repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force―a loose measure, passed in 2001, that has been used subsequently by U.S. Presidents to justify 37 U.S. military operations in 14 countries.  Coming to a vote in September 2017, the proposal to repeal the Authorization was defeated, 61 to 36.  Only three Republicans (out of 52) voted for repeal.  But repeal was supported by 31 Democrats (out of 46) and two Independents.

With the 2018 Congressional elections occurring in less than a year, the peace movement has the opportunity to enhance its leverage over U.S. public policy by helping to flip the House to Democratic control.  In addition, playing a role in the election campaign would strengthen the movement’s ties with progressive organizations, which, horrified by the rightwing onslaught, will be working zealously toward that same goal.  At the least, peace and progressive activists should be able to unite behind the provisions of the People’s Budget―cutting military programs and increasing spending on public education, health, and welfare.

But how can the peace movement become an effective player in the 2018 Congressional election campaign, supporting peace-oriented Democrats against their hawkish Republican (and sometimes hawkish Democratic) opponents?  Some groups, like the Council for a Livable World, Peace Action, and Progressive Democrats of America, already raise money for peace candidates in Democratic primaries and general elections.  Others could do so as well.  Also, to make their support more visible to politicians, peace groups could play a more prominent role in election campaigns―volunteering to distribute flyers on specific dates, staff phone banks for specific periods, and engage in door-to-door canvassing at specific times.

Of course, the peace movement need not drop all its other activities.  But the 2018 elections do offer it a particularly useful opportunity to help steer the U.S. government away from militarism and war.

More articles by:

Dr. Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press.)

Weekend Edition
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail