Democrats, the "Pro-Peace" Party?

[Totally Committed]

These days, insomnia is my muse. For any of you who are afflicted with this particular situation, you know that sometimes things that seem like earth-shaking ideas in the wee hours don't always translate into brilliance in the morning sun. With only that as a caveat, I would like to share what seemed like a stroke of brilliance at 3:14 am this morning. I've sat up, had my coffee, and re-visited it, and it still seems pretty okay, so here goes:

The other day, someone whose intelligence I value greatly said that the Democratic Party needs to "reframe" the phrase "Anti-War". Soon after, during a post on another thread, I inadvertently described myself as not so much "Anti-War", as "Pro-Peace". Since I am not someone who is normally impressed as hell with myself, I was surprised at how much that phrase delighted me. The implications were huge! Being "Anti-War" could be interpreted by those in the military and by values-dependent Red Staters to mean a lot of negative things... things that seperate us Democrats from them.

In those places where Bush's good-ole-boy/tough guy schtick works, the phrase "Anti-War" conjurs up mind-pictures not only of the Vietnam protests, burning flags, riot police, and clouds of tear gas, but also those of police being called "Pigs", "free love", "hippies", and Jane Fonda. I really believe a lot of Bush's supporters voted for him because they still remember those things and it just makes the hair on the back of their necks stand on end. We are seen as a bunch of elitists with chips on our shoulders who hate God and Country. But, Lakoff is right... it's how it is framed that makes all the difference!

The reframe for "Anti-War" could be "Pro-Peace"! The Democrats are the "Pro-Peace" Party! The connotations are not based on a negative! Being "Pro-Peace" could be, if adopted and promoted correctly, to mean many positive things that Democrats definitely already are. Under that umbrella-phrase, the Democratic Party could come to mean, to those in the military and to values-dependent Red Staters: The Party of true compassion, true patriotism, true support for out military, freedom for all beliefs, and a huge tent where all people of "peace" are welcome. How can anyone be against peace?

So, am I being naive? Am I simply a hostage of the state of sleeplessness? You can tell me. I actually invite you to share your ideas for how to proceed with this. (Or, actually if to proceed with this.) What do you think? "Pro-Peace"?

TC

[unhappycamper]

1. I've had the same thoughts for a while.

<snip from a 8.24.2005 thread I started>

anti-war

I'm pro-peace. My opponents are anti-peace or pro-war.

fundamentalist minister

They are radical clerics; the same as those who issue fatwas inciting hatred, evil, and violence.

<end snip>

I also refer to the Iraq 'war' as the "illegal, immoral invasion and occupation."

IMHO, you are right on the money.

[welshTerrier2]

2. you should get less sleep more often - excellent idea

I saw your original post using the "pro peace" term and thought it was a great idea ...

now if we could only get some Democrat to call for a Department of Peace ... hmmmmmm ...

what's great about this idea is that it leaves the republicans with the other half of the landscape by definition ... they are the pro-war party ...

unfortunately, the DLC has declared "war on peace" for more than a decade ... it's a political no-no in their view ... they argue that "peace" connotes "weakness" ... real men don't go along with such naive girly concepts as "peace" ...

so job one is kicking the hawkish DLC out of our Party ... if we want to be pro-peace, and we should, we're going to have to get rid of the macho-ists in the DLC ... it's the only way to make peace part of the Democratic Party's platform ...

[Totally Committed]

6. A "war on peace" for more than a decade ...

Exactly why this Party needs to discuss what they stand for and how stands for them, imo.

Anyone who thinks "Peace" connotes "weakness" should think of Cindy Sheehan, who went to Crawford with nothing more than a beach chair and inspired thousands to think of "Peace" again. They were "thousands strong" against George Bush. We need to, as a Party, decide if that is our "vibe", our "strength", our "meaning".

TC

[Don1]

3. Sorry, but no.

Hillary Clinton wants more troops in Iraq. Kerry went to bat for the Presidency by also stating more troops in Iraq. That's pro-war all the way. The majority of Dems approved an $80 billion package for additional Iraq funds several months ago. That was "for the troops." Really? What was Halliburton's cut?

There are a significant number of Democratic Party members, like you and I, who are pro-peace, but that is different from the establishment politicians themselves.

Furthermore, there are a significant number of Democratic Party members, who are against the handling of the Iraq War and not against the war itself. This is true, probably of the majority of Democratic Congressmen. The majority of Dems asked for a timetable for exit as opposed to an immediate exit and hanging up Bush for war crimes.

Most of the time these people talk about how we should have went in with the UN approval. Why would we go in with the UN troops to bomb the place if there were no WMD's? Makes no sense. These people also focus on US troop deaths as opposed to Iraqi civilian deaths.

Every day BushCo is there more Iraqi civilians die. Upto last November, there were 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead due to the war. That includes 50,000 children. The number grows every day we are there. If we are to be the pro-peace Party, then we need to talk about this.

Finally, if you get little positive feedback in this forum, then what does that mean? People seem much more interested in talking about their favorites, than talking about serious policy. Here is a test for you. Name your thread "Was Kerry Wrong About War?" or "Clark Doesn't Go Far Enough on War" or "Dean Was Right About War" or anything with a big name in it and watch what happens.

[welshTerrier2]

9. "talking about their favorites"

it is DU's greatest weakness ...

even here, we are inundated with "People Magazine" mentality ...

i just posted a link to what may be the best editorial of the year ... i called the thread "finally, some good news on Iraq" ... zero responses ... i just changed the title to "an answer for Sheehan? what did her son die for?"

if it doesn't "advertise" celebrity, it's chances are limited ...

[Totally Committed]

10. I just left a reply on that thread!

You and I are very in-synch these days...

TC

[welshTerrier2]

12. thanks, TC ...

not sure you'll like my response much but i think there's nothing more important than what i wrote ...

[greenman3610]

4. I think it would be better to be

Pro Truth

[Totally Committed]

7. But, isn't being "Pro-Peace" also being "Pro-Truth"?

You know, in a sort of, "Peace, truth, and the American Way" sort of way? (For those NOT as old as dirt, that was the motto of "Superman" back in the 50's...)

TC

[bunkerbuster1]

5. Sorry, "Anti-War" is a lot ballsier-sounding.

I hear "Anti-War" protesters, and I think of people kicking Freeptard ass.

I hear "Pro-Peace" and I think Kucinich-adoring granola eaters singing Kumbaya.

Mind you, I love the latter group, but I don't think most Americans do.

It's a loser baby, so why don't you kill it...

[Totally Committed]

8. Anyone who knows me will tell you, I ALWAYS think...

"ballsier" is better! But, at some point we have to beging to imform the "values dependent Red Staters and the military" voters about who we are and what we stand for, so they can begin to see us as we are, not as Republican spin-masters say we are.

We need to start winning elections again, if we are ever to govern and bring back the true ideals of the Democratic Party.

No?

TC

[bunkerbuster1]

11. Well funny you should ask, because I was kinda thinking strategerally...

this morning I realized the Dems have three groups of people at odds with one another.

1) Those who opposed the Iraq war from the start.

2) Those who supported the Iraq war but decided later that they were mislead and point to the Downing Street minutes, etc., as evidence.

3) Those who supported the Iraq war but disagree strongly with the way it's been administered, who don't make a BFD about the dishonesty of the Bush administration going into the war.

That's about 90% of all Dems. And they are NOT organized, and I don't see them getting their message on Iraq organized by next year's hot-n-heavy campaigning.

So I'd propose something radical, heretical: Forget about Iraq as the killer-app, the issue that will win for us. There's plenty of discord around, and use bits and pieces as you see fit for whichever group you fall into, but don't expect it to be a winner.

Hit the fuckers with economic stuff.

The $4300/person this shit-sucking "War on Terror" is costing us.

The appallingly inept medical delivery system we have (EVERY goddamned Dem should be for universal healthcare delivered via a single payer plan!)

The robbery of the SS trust to fund billionares' tax cuts.

and so forth.

We can have solid counter-proposals for all of these things, and we must.

That's the way to win. Not regurgitating whether War is bad and Peace is good.

JMHO, not valid in all 50 states...

[Totally Committed]

13. This is a very good post.

You may be onto something!

But, being who and what I am, I believe War is bad and Peace is good, so.... why can't both your message and this one be worked into a cogent proposal to put to all Americans? Iti's abotu time the Democratic Party stood for something more than, "Me, too!"

TC

[bunkerbuster1]

14. look, I LIKE "Pro-Peace" as an answer.

I do think you're on to something there, in terms of subtlely reframing an argument. I like it as a fallback; by all means, be fruitful and multiply this message if you can.

I just think an organized ass-kicking will be done primarily on economic issues, not war issues. again JMHO.

[Don1]

15. You're Right.

50,000 Iraqi kids are dead. Who cares about unifying the party to get them some justice when we can talk about more politically smart issues?

Here is the economic issue you should focus on:
http://www.yourtaxdollaratwork.com/index.html

Here are the people you need to say it to:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2047792

[1932]

16. Democrats should be the anti-imperialism/pro-democracy party.

We should take a cue from our best progressives from the Revoutionary War to World War II and question empire and support democracy in the US and abroad.

[WePurrsevere]

17. Democrats have long been called the "Doves"...

and the Republicans, "Hawks". IME it takes a lot more true STRENGTH to avoid a fight then to go into one... any punk bully can get into a fight.

Although I'm very pro-peace I also accept that there is a time for war HOWEVER I feel that those times are very rare and that every avenue must be totally exhausted before the decision is made to go to "war". This was not the case with Afganistan... this was not the case with Iraq... there were so many options available and other countries were willing and urging us to find them... BushCo chose the way of war against many of our allies and all the teachings of the Christian Jesus.

In a way we Dems are at "War" we just use "the pen" instead of "the sword". We fight for truth, we fight for peace, we fight for justice, we fight for civil rights and equality for all, we fight for Freedom, we fight for our country to be a place that is all that our forefather's and mother's, who fought and died for Liberty, who wrote the Constitution and declared our independence from the crown dreamed it could be and beyond.

[Totally Committed]

18. Down South,

they don't call it "Dove-hunting Season" for nothing...

TC