I think David's post is pretty revealing about the point of view of those who claim to oppose war, while also opposing a local anti-war resolution. This view expresses opposition to war, but ultimately says that the war is not an important issue. Not important enough to risk arguments with neighbors. Not important enough to risk divisions with other community members that might spill over into more "important" issues that affect us more directly (never mind all the billions of dollars that could be addressing the so-called immediate local problems). Not important enough for political officials to risk alienating constituents. This view says, "War is wrong, don't let the issue cause us any inconvenience." The argument that anti-war resolution is ineffective carries weight only if one believes that the issue is not of significant importance. If is really commited to opposing war, what is there to lose by passing a resolution if the worst result is that it is not effective? It would make more sense to pass the resoultion in the hope that it might have some effect, especially a cumulative effect with the 50 + other cities that thought it was important enough to pass a resolution. This "ineffective" argument especially rings hollow from someone like RT who finds it effective enough to add his body to one of thousands of demonstrators, perhaps for a photo opporunity without much likelihood of criticism, but official action is ineffective where it will displease all the Republicans and only-worry-about-my-backyard folks.
The analysis is obviously fundamentally different for those who believe that the war poses a critical ethical issue, that comples us to use any channel possible to oppose atrocities from being committed in our name. It is unavoidable for us to take offense at those who want to cut off some channels of opposition based on political balancing or expediency. Perhaps the derogatory labels used in frustration might offend Minnesota Nice sensibilities - the same sensibilities that oppose taking stands against moral atrocities that are not happening right in our backyard and might offend our neighbors. My only response is "if the shoe fits, wear it [if it does not fit, don't]." Jordan Kushner Golden Valley work downtown ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Brauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:04 PM Subject: RE: [Mpls] Antiwar resolutions Linda writes: > I just read the following > raucous caucus page that echoes what I said about the resolution phobia being > part of typical Democrat cravenousness toward the right (or rather I echoed > it, I guess). > http://www.raucouscaucus.com/PISS-OFF.html I just want to echo (and perhaps extend) what Paul Lohman said earlier today: one of the more reprehensible things that's happened on the list, and perhaps in town, is that if someone disagrees with you they must be morally bankrupt or "craven." Like Paul, I oppose the war and oppose a local anti-war resolution. I have many GREAT friends who disagree with me on the latter, but are DECENT enough to respect who I am and that moral people can come to different conclusions. I have TREMENDOUS respect for the proponents of the resolution - the truly humane ones, anyway. I don't give a fig about pleasing Republicans - more than a few I know oppose a war - although I must recount an example from Gov. Pawlenty's radio show today. As reported by the Strib's Conrad de Fiebre: "Even when DFL St. Paul City Council Member Jay Benanav phoned in to criticize Pawlenty's proposed cuts in Local Government Aid, the governor maintained a friendly, even tone while still delivering a few quiet zingers. "'Maybe you haven't read it yet,' Pawlenty needled Benanav when they differed over implications of the budget plan. 'If you can't manage your budget without laying off firefighters and cops, then we need to get a new City Council in St. Paul.' "And without betraying a drop of sarcasm, Pawlenty took a shot at the antiwar resolution Benanav introduced this week. 'We're glad that the St. Paul City Council is keeping your focus right on those bread-and-butter city issues,' the governor said." ...Again, I don't care a fig what Tim Pawlenty thinks. But I DO care about getting a message out to the public at large that we have BIG problems in this state that require COMMUNITY solutions that require COMING TOGETHER and seeing each other's humanity. (And I don't mean this in the phony Bush marketing sense - I mean for real.) Frankly, I think the almost gleefully self-righteous tone of SOME (definitely not all) anti-war-resolution folks - the ones who feel compelled to de-legitimize we who disagree - plays right into the hands of those who would like to see us divided. One of the biggest reasons I oppose the resolution is that it has so easily become divisive. I also believe it is practically ineffective and the sort of "heat-not-light" symbol that distracts us from the hard, complex decisions we need to make at the local level, where we have more control. (In this sense, I admire R.T. His Achilles heel, critics say, is cheap symbolism - but here he is doing the HARD thing, at least in a p.r. sense. If he was really as craven as critics intimate, he'd take the easy way out and lead the resolution parade. If you don't believe me, think about it: has R.T. lost more votes in Minneapolis by opposing the resolution than he's gained?) One of the most complex things we need to do is get our heads out of our collective rears and try to figure out how we can CONNECT with the people of this state on RESPECTFUL terms while getting what we believe to be good for our city and our state. I admit I struggle with my own prejudices in this regard. But I guess on some level, we city folk have long tried to bludgeon others with our self-righteousness, and I don't see it working. Maybe we're doing something wrong. That is not "craven," in my personal opinion. That is looking in the mirror and thinking through our own actions while we condemn others. I know the war is a powerful issue, which demands powerful thought and action. But on a local level, I know my Minneapolis neighbors. There are few I disrespect. They split on the resolution, but I cannot find it in my heart to condemn either side. I know their reasons are more complex than some allow. I DO find it hypocritical - or at least incredibly depressing - that those who profess peace the most stridently wage such hard-edged rhetorical war against neighbors who probably share most of their fundamental values in meaningful, everyday ways. I don't want phony agreement, but right now I fear reflexive divisiveness more. Please, for the sake of our community, can't we give peace a chance on more than just the war issue? David Brauer King Field TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
