A New Vision for a New Generation
By Anders Fremstad
A New Vision for a New Generation
Supporters of the anti-Iraq-war movement continue, even now, to pat themselves on the back for its former strength. While it obviously did not stop the war, it is argued -- and somewhat legitimately -- that it did help keep the governments of the "coalition of the willing" in check. Although those governments were not brought to explore truly peaceful alternatives to war, they were, most likely, forced by the movement to pay heed to civilian casualties and work at least somewhat at limiting them. Still, these are modest victories at best for a movement of such supposed strength. It was, after all, truly a movement of great magnitude. Around the world, it brought hundreds of thousands if not millions of people out into the streets -- many for the first time. And, unlike many other causes, the people it rallied together covered a wide range of personalities: wage workers and professionals, soccer moms and feminists, old hippies and present-day students. But today its magnitude has greatly diminished. A handful of the hardcore continue to cry out about how they were right, despite the coalition's popular quick-and-"clean" victory. Others now plead the United States' government to deal justly with the Iraqi people. But, frankly, these voices are few, making their messages weak. To a great extent the movement is dead.
The death of this movement is not, however, due primarily to a change in the opinions of the people – Bush has not suddenly convinced the world (or even “his” own people) that the Iraq war was justified or that the current style of occupation is appropriate. The death of the movement is due, instead, to an uncertainty as to what the deeper beliefs and hopes of the movement ever were and now are. This has sent organizers scrambling for new popular messages to illustrate the vision of the movement. But attempting to illustrate that vision with quick blurbs (as the success of the much loved "no blood for oil" cry might encourage) will end in failure. The movement today can no longer so conveniently stand in simple and total rejection of the government's war plans. By many accounts the war is over. And those who believe the war continues along with the occupation must admit that that war is more complex than the bomb-dropping, tank-advancing war the anti-Iraq-war movement originally sought to prevent. Two months ago, it may have been possible to protest the administration’s absurd plans with four-word chants. Today is different. And these more complex circumstances demand a more comprehensive critique.
Developing a full vision for the future is not an easy task, but we are not left without historical precedents. Throughout history, such visions have shaped the world we live in today; for better and for worse, it is grand visions, which affect deep change in society. Perhaps the most relevant of these visions was developed forty years ago when Students for a Democratic Society offered their views in the now infamous "Port Huron Statement." In it they described, as they saw it, the world they were to inherit. They illustrated their own vision of that world could and should be. And, finally, they presented a strategy on how they might build that world
The early 1960s, like today, were turbulent times. The government was run less and less of, by, and for the people, and more and more of, by, and for the wealthy and the powerful. Despite growing dissent, it tolerated the continued wrongs of racism in the South and North alike. Peacetime militarism not only diverted huge amounts of resources from domestic and international troubles, but also drove the people of the world dangerously close to the possibility of nuclear apocalypse. And, perhaps most problematically, political and social apathy seemed to be the strongest common sentiment within American society.
The sixty odd students who met in Port Huron for four days and nights early in the summer of 1962 realized the connectedness between these problems and addressed them with that understanding in mind. They saw a government truthful to the claimed American ideals of liberty, equality, and dignity of the individual (then and now referred to as “participatory democracy”) as vital, not only to bringing the American public back into American politics but also to making better policy. An end to the ignorance and dishonesty in which the government dealt with its sworn enemy, “the communists”, was necessary, for it would help curb the massive investments the government made in expectations of violence, while at the same time providing for needed investments in futures of well-being and understanding. Similar shifts in values would needed in bringing the government as well as the American people to see the moral and social myopia of discriminating based on the color of one’s skin. The SDS deserve much credit for realizing the connectedness of the nation's problems, but doing so is a common theme among the real leaders of social change. As Dr. King would later write Cesar Chavez, "Our separate struggles are really one".
A second aspect of "The Port Huron Statement" adds significantly to its social and political impact. Besides containing a wish list for some dream society, it also presents strategies on how that society could be built. In its section "Towards American Democracy", the SDS outline their course of action from excluding the Southern conservatives from the Democratic Party to setting up voluntary institutions of political change to supporting a more just allocation of they nation’s resources, including the demilitarization of the economy. The feasibility of such proposed changes, gives the visions of the movement much more weight, by making them seem less impossible. Furthermore, they present a comprehensive strategy capable of actualizing their broad vision to its full extent. It is through addressing such tough realities that dreams are given wings.
The visions of the SDS have not, of course, all come to be. Indeed a striking number of them seem further off than they were forty years ago. This fact should not bring into question the significance of the "Port Huron Statement", though. Its visions and its strategies were, for some time, the manifesto of the new left. But as times and visions change, so too must strategies. And while the statement can no longer serve as a plan of action for today's “movement”, it can most certainly serve as a model for a plan of action needed by today's movement.
Much like forty years ago, we are now in dire need of social change. Even as it is claimed that institutions of racial discrimination are a thing of the past, new forms of this old evil are taking shape, ironically in the name of freedom and equality. At the same time, discrimination based on economic factors is on the rise along with the growing gaps between the rich and the poor, on both domestic and international levels. The Cold War is over, but its terror remains as the U.S. government continues not only to rely upon thousands of nuclear weapons, but also to maintain its so-called right to further test and develop them. And if the dreaded communist enemy were not unclear enough, this generation finds itself pitted against "terrorists" at home as well as abroad.
The anti-Iraq-war movement never did successfully make the connections between the great worries of our time. Nor did it present an alternative vision for the world or a feasible plan to make that vision reality. But that should not bring one to assume that the supporters of the movement were totally unaware of the complex and highly problematic state of the world today. The sheer numbers of people who mobilized against the war suggests that there is a strain of deep discontentment, anger and frustration, among the peoples of the world.
These emotions must now be focused towards visions and strategies for the future. As a Georgetown activist and friend put it, “You can insist, 'a better world is possible,' all you want, but it won’t get you anywhere." The movement needs clear critiques of the present and clear alternatives for the future. This will not be an easy task. Within today’s movement, there are a wide variety of world views, including many that conflict so strongly with the political and economic systems of today, that they often totally resist working “within the system”. This does not mean, however, that no common ground can be found between such factions. On the contrary, those critical of the current state of affairs and dreaming of what the world could be, agree on much. A common general vision would not alienate, but unify supporters of the movement.
The people of “the movement” need a comprehensive approach to tackle the problems of today – a “Port Huron Statement” for this generation, if you will. This will not guarantee us a solution to world’s problems. It can, however, play a vital role in unifying the movement’s supporters, countering the movement’s critics, and combating the political and social apathy still present among much of the population. The anti-Iraq-war movement gave the world’s wealthy and powerful a glimpse of the power of the people. And while the people ultimately failed in preventing war on Iraq, their struggle for a better world continues. This is not the time for the movement to weaken. And, indeed, if the movement can successfully create an alternative vision for the future, it will not weaken, but return stronger than ever.