Contrary to the tone of David Brauer and Paul Lohman's response, I don' think my previous post made personal judgments about people claiming to oppose war but opposing a city council anti-war resolution, but actually tried to steer away from name-calling. My point is that if one's opposition to war is of utmost importance, there should not be any problem with any organized or official effort to express opposition. I think that David Brauer's response confirms this point. David at least implicitly agrees that we cannot definitely predict the impact of a local anti-war resolution, or dozens of such resolutions, but states that effect of such a resolution is outweighed by the divisions that could cause harm on local issues. If opposing the war was of upmost importance to Dave, than there would not be justification to avoid taking a stand against it in the City Council, regardless of the risks of causing division.
Paul Lohman's response did at first give me pause about my position, because he did demonstrate quite a personal commitment to opposing the war through his actions, at the same time as he argued that it is not the City Council's job to address such issues. While I do not doubt Paul Lohman's personal commitment, his position about the City Council's role, however, does not seem consistent. One of his arguments, that the City Council should not be spending its time debating an issue which is not directly within its jurisdiction. I believe that this argument has been raised and refuted many times. It does not take much time to debate and vote on such a resolution. The City Council has spent more time debating whether to consider the resolution than it would need to simply address the resolution on the merits. The argument that the City Council was not elected to deal with foreign policy is technically true, but the City Council WAS elected to address matters that affect its constituents. While there may be a practical problem if the City Council spend a substantial portion of its time considering resolutions on military and foreign policy matters, there is no indication of that happening. It is only being asked to take a stand on a most visible and significant national issue that will have grave humanitarian effects, as well as concrete economic impacts on residents of the City and concrete physical impact on those residents of the City who are in the military and have to risk their lives to help the U.S. government commit atrocities. The voice of city councils on this issue has further significance because their members actually were legitimately elected through a democratice process, unlike the Bush-Cheney regime. If the war is such an important matter, what is the harm in having a local democratically elected body take a stand? Some more points on the "effectiveness" issue. Frankly, it is hard to figure out what sort of action is effective. The decision to go to war is being made by a regime that was not democratically elected, and seems determined not to let any public opposition, either domestic or international, get in the way of its imperial designs. The most that can be done is to make all expressions of democratic opposition. The fact that David Brauer and Paul Lohman - any I - prefer demonstrations, does not mean that getting every possible municipal bodies to take a should be opposed. To oppose city council action based on a belief that it is not by itself effective, makes no more sense than to oppose demonstrations because they tend to be symbolic and ineffective. These actions or not at all mutually exclusive, but must all be utilized along with many other actions in order to have any chance of affecting the actions of the empire. (I would like to follow up David Brauer's idea of arranging for 10,000 people to get in Norm Coleman's face; as explained, this does not preclude asking city councils to take a position for whatever it is worth). If someone is firmly opposed to the war, but skeptical about the effectiveness of a city council resolution, the most consistent response would be to support the resolution, hope that they are wrong about its effectiveness, and spend more energy on actions that the persons believes will be effective. Finally, as to the Mayor. His positions are inconsistent for the reasons explained above. While the motives of some who agree with RT's position might be well-intended, I doubt this is the case with RT. He indicated as much in a previous Doug Grow article that he relied on Republicans and conservatives to get elected and does not want to alienate them. This is consistent with his approach to other issues where he consistently plays both sides. If he is getting heat over his opposition to an anti-war resolution - which I hope is the case, it is because people are figuring out his game. Jordan Kushner Golden Valley, recent and future Minneapolis resident ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Brauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 6:56 AM Subject: RE: [Mpls] Antiwar resolutions Jordan rather effectively illustrates my point. He writes: > 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. Uh no. I'm saying a local resolution isn't an effective tactic. I personally believe the resolution is a cheap symbol, devoid of effectiveness. While the benefits may seem obvious to you - the chance of a groundswell that will change policy - I believe the city has little legitimacy on this matter - it was not what it was elected to do. I believe my fears are more likely...that this symbolic act sparks overwrought divisions that harm other fights that have value. Reasonable people can disagree - but this does not make me craven or a GOP panderer. In this instance, I believe individual actions are far more powerful. If I believe the resolution tactic is ineffective and illegitimate, I can still regard opposing the war as important. I just may believe that individual actions are far more powerful. 10,000 protestors on Hennepin Avenue and 10,000 bags of rice in the White House mail room speak far louder. 10,000 people in Norm Coleman's face - he has a vote on these matters in the halls of power, Dan Niziolek doesn't. > Not important enough to risk arguments with > neighbors. Bunk. I've had plenty of these arguments lately. What I object to is calling those you disagree with you craven Republican-appeasers when they may have far different motives. > 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). Again, you may be right - I'm not sure I am. But I believe our local resolution has little chance of "saving" those billions of dollars - while having the very tangible effect so far of having us squabble and distracting us from saving our schools, our social services and other local priorities. Bush's bombs MAY hurt these things we both love. Pawlenty's cuts certainly will. > Not important enough > for political officials to risk alienating constituents. Why, anti-resolution R.T. has done just that. > This view says, > "War is wrong, don't let the issue cause us any inconvenience." Are you kidding me? Speaking as one resolution opponent, my opinion has caused me incredible inconvenience - on the list, with a few friends. I'm standing up on this issue because of deeply held, moral beliefs. Please don't accuse me of taking the easy way out; standing up against the council resolution - on principle - is FAR HARDER than being for it. > The > argument that anti-war resolution is ineffective carries weight only if one > believes that the issue is not of significant importance. This is absolutely wrong. I believe THE RESOLUTION is ineffective, not the ISSUE. It is entirely possible to believe the war issue is important but the local tactic is an ineffective "feel-good" measure. I am not a hypocrite; I have a different analysis than you. > 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? One of my arguments is that the resolution is ineffective in its main goal - stopping the war - but has been quite effective at getting us to loathe each other, call each other names, distract us and dehumanize us and assume the worst about our neighbors based on a single issue. > 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. Hope is great; I'm not sure it always makes more sense, though. As I said, my personal analysis is that there is little chance a resolution will change things, and a greater chance it will consume valuable energy that can be spent EFFECTIVELY protesting the war and fighting together for the city. I may be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. It's a good thing to discuss. But I'm not immoral, craven or hypocritical in seeing it a different way. > 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. Cripes, Jordan, you can't have it both ways. R.T. can't be a shameless publicity seeker who also QUITE PUBLICLY opposes a resolution (and wields the power to do it!) that has obviously angered some constituents. Again, you deny resolution opponents their own internal morality. I could just as easily say resolution proponents are doing this only because they love the narcotic of cheap symbolism to make their reflexive anger seem momentarily noble. I don't feel that way. Those supporting a local resolution are giving voice to their hopes and acting on noble beliefs. I am acting on my fears and my principles. Both are valid, and far from the motives you and others ascribe. > 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. Absolutely right. This is what keeps me from demonizing those I disagree with. I respectfully believe instead of using ANY channel, anti-war folks should concentrate on EFFECTIVE ones. I don't think a resolution is it. That doesn't mean I find the war issue "unimportant." I means I disagree on tactics. Get it? > 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. But maybe they're not! Consider the possibility! LISTEN to those who are saying "you're ascribing motives than don't exist," and "that's not me!" Hanging in there on this debate is NOT expedient. > 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. Oy. This has nothing to do with Minnesota Nice - the most recent fashionable way to dismiss an opponent's arguments. I am not suggesting stuffing disagreement. I am suggesting stuffing the mind-reading, motive-speculation and unwillingness to really listen to the reasons good people disagree with you. The whole "you're just trying to be Minnesota Nice" dismissal has become a slick way for people to be loud and self-righteous and make anger seem noble. Sort of like how Bill O'Reilly gets to be a loud jerk and say anyone who doesn't fight with soulless ridicule is a craven pansy. I don't like it when he does it, and I don't like it when the left does either, at least in this case. > My only response is "if the shoe fits, wear it [if it > does not fit, don't]." The shoe doesn't fit. Please don't try to shove it on my foot. And you might listen - really consider what I'm saying - when I say "ow!" 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
