On the Slippery Slope with Dennis Kucinich/Dem Party's Pro-War Platform

To Mods: Permission was given to repost this article in its entirety http://rwor.org/posting.htm

The Making of the Democratic Party's Pro-War Platform or Life on the Slippery Slope with Dennis Kucinich

Revolutionary Worker #1247, July 25, 2004, posted at http://rwor.org

Fact #1:

The latest New York Times /CBS News poll estimates that 56% of rank-and-file Demo- crats say that U.S. troops should "leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable" and not "stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy." ( New York Times , July 11)

Fact #2:

On July 10, the national platform committee of the Democratic Party met in Fort Lauderdale, and endorsed an outrageously pro-war document--to be presented as the official Democratic Party platform at the coming Boston convention and then in this fall's presidential campaign.

This platform calls for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, until a stable pro-U.S. government is created--meaning until the anti-occupation insurgency is crushed. It says: "We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East."

With Orwellian double-talk, the platform says U.S. troops should ultimately be removed from Iraq "when appropriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence."

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a chairman of the platform committee, summed up that this means that U.S. troops must "stay there until the job is done."

In addition, in an unmistakable departure from the past, fully half of the 35-page platform deals with "national security."

This document bristles with belligerent militarism. It calls for expanding the military by 40,000 troops, and for doubling the size of the Special Forces (the Army commandos who have been operating as U.S. assassination squads all over the world). It criticizes Bush for his "unilateral" approach to war, but does not criticize the notion that the U.S. can launch war on any country "pre-emptively."

"Democrats are stronger than ever on national security issues," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

Fact #3:

This pro-war position on Iraq was adopted by a 186-member platform-writing committee without any public fight.

Several proposed anti-war planks were presented by delegates (who were often pledged to the presidential candidate Congressman Dennis Kucinich).

One proposal said that the Iraq war was a mistake from the beginning. Another called for setting a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. There were proposals opposing pre-emptive war, for reducing the military, calling for basic national rights for Palestinian people. Another plank criticized Bush for ignoring global warming and destroying the Kyoto process.

These planks were dismissed without the platform committee even considering them, in silence, in secret-- no public acknowledgement, no public debate, no public vote!

How is this possible?

U.S. politics has an elaborate apparatus of "candidate debates," and primaries for selecting delegates- -in an official season that lasts for almost a full year. In official mythology this is how the "will of the people" gets expressed.

So, then, let's ask: How can the Democratic Party adopt essentially the same position on the Iraq occupation as President Bush (on this so-important "issue" for the world, for the people of Iraq, for the future) -- without even pretending to consider or address the clear views of its own membership?

On one level, this political shut-out was done procedurally. The rules said you needed 14 votes (out of 186) to get a plank on the floor. And none of the anti-war planks could even get that 14-vote minimum. In other words, the delegate selection process had (pretty successfully) excluded people willing to fight for an anti-war position.

Only one platform amendment got enough votes to be discussed--one calling for specific changes (not even repeal!) of the fascistic Patriot Act. It was then quickly voted down by this larger platform committee.

Sandy Berger (who is former President Clinton's National Security Advisor and who served as the behind-the- scenes ringmaster of the platform process) insisted that the Democratic Party must not be seen as opposing the Patriot Act, and in particular must not list ANY specific passages they would change.

At the end, the new official Party platform calls for expanding the powers of the Patriot Act (by giving the U.S. federal government even more power to investigate financial records and transactions), and meanwhile it very, very vaguely calls for making the Patriot Act "smarter" by altering (unspecified) sections that may affect "the privacy and liberty that law-abiding Americans cherish."

Fact #4:

There were no walkouts by anti-war delegates from this platform outrage. There were no press conferences protesting this crude machine politics. There were no promises to "take it to the floor" of the convention. There were no loud public calls for anti-war democrats to take the streets in Boston and New York for their views.

This complete lack of struggle was particularly startling because one presidential candidate, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, has sworn he would "stay in the race" to oppose the war. And it was particularly startling to Kucinich's own delegates!

Dennis Kucinich had sworn, over and over, through the last months to "take the fight" over the war "all the way to the convention." It was the main reason that a dedicated core of people stuck with him--in hopes of speaking strongly against the war and "pulling Kerry" toward their stand.

New Hampshire activist Caleb Ewing expressed how the anti-war delegates felt (antiwar.org): "This wholesale rejection of our cause and values stung deeply. We were shocked, in fact, and many of us cried when we realized that not only did our amendments lack the support necessary for passage, but we also lacked even the minimum support required to debate the amendments."

Why were there only tears and no protest?! Because Kucinich sent his campaign aide to order his delegates to accept the platform.

Behind the scenes, a deal had been worked out between Kucinich and Sandy Berger. Well actually, it was not much of a deal.

Kucinich agreed to accept a pro-war platform, a pro-war candidate and not launch any challenge at the convention. And, in exchange, they got nothing. Speaking for Kerry and the party establishment, Sandy Berger said, "We didn't give up anything."

All the anti-war forces got was permission to stay inside the process. And Kucinich personally earned the privilege of addressing the Democratic Party Convention in Boston (probably in some obscure non-prime-time moment).

*****

"We are die-hard Democrats and even though some of us felt stretched to the breaking point by the sustained cold shoulder of the Democratic Party power elite, our progressive caucus leadership quickly scrambled to put a positive spin on the process, to wit, `even though we were all but marginalized and ignored in the platform, and even though we got practically nothing in the end, the fact that we took part in the process and formally accepted nothing is evidence of a working relationship with the Kerry camp that will bode well for us once Kerry is elected.'"
-Caleb Ewing

"Who are the people that try to appeal to--not that the Democrats represent their interests, but who are the people that the Democrats try to appeal to.? All the people who stand for progressive kinds of things, all the people who are oppressed in this society. For the Democrats, a big part of their role is to keep all those people confined within the bourgeois, the mainstream, electoral process...and to get them back into it when they have drifted away from--or broken out of--that framework. Because those people at the base are always alienated and angry at what happens with the elections, for the reason I was talking about earlier: they are always betrayed by the Democratic Party, which talks about "the little man" and poor people and the people who are discriminated against, and so on. And at times they'll even use the word oppression. But then they just sell out these people every time--because they don't represent their interests. They represent the interests of the system and of its ruling class. But they have a certain role of always trying to get people who are oppressed, alienated and angry back into the elections. You know: "Come on in, come on in--it's not as bad as you think, you can vote, it's OK." This is one of the main roles they play. But the thing about them is that they are very afraid of calling into the streets this base of people that they appeal to, to vote for them. The last thing in the world they want to do is to call these masses of people into the streets to protest or to battle against this right-wing force that's being built up."
-Bob Avakian, "The Pyramid of Power and
the Struggle to Turn This Whole Thing Upside Down"

"Mr. Kerry is determined to present himself as a leader of strength, one who would more effectively pursue the same goals Mr. Bush has established for progress in Iraq and the broader anti-terror war."
-The Wall Street Journal, summing up its July 15 interview with John Kerry

The Democratic Party establishment has been ruthless in enforcing limits on "acceptable debate"--in particular, to rule out any real opposition to the war in Iraq, the larger "war on terror" and the domestic outrages of the Patriot Act and intensified repression.

When Howard Dean's campaign caught fire by denouncing the decision to invade Iraq--Dean was rudely iced from the process, before his growing support could give him any primary victories.

Then, even as anti-war sentiment has grown steadily and powerfully within both the Democratic base and in the population generally, the Democratic Party leadership (and its imposed candidate) have more and more crudely suppressed any expresssion of anti-war views.

In this Fort Lauderdale platform conference, the anti-war views of literally tens of millions of people (and a solid majority of Democrats) couldn't even get a moment's lip service or respectful debate!

The delegates were told that by capitulating they were preserving a "working relationship" with Kerry--meaning: a chance to "pressure" him once he is in office.

Why would anyone look at this whole rigged process--over the last year--and think that giving up plans to protest will increase the ability to "pressure" a future Kerry government?!

Can anyone think that silencing any challenge in the months ahead, and falling in line with Kerry, will create conditions for more successful struggle later, after November?!

The lesson of Fort Lauderdale is exactly the opposite.

There is no time to lose. Millions of people are looking for a way to express their deep discontent and dismay-- and the Democratic Party has slammed the door in their face. It would be criminal to collaborate with that.

It is crucial to step up powerful, visible, uncompromising resistance that delivers a powerful, unmistakable NO to the war in Iraq and the whole "Bush Agenda" of global domination and fascistic domestic changes.

[mzmolly]

1. What happens when we leave?

I think we ought to turn it over to the UN and I think the Dems will do so, but we can't leave the place in shambles.

[Old and In the Way]

3. Please carry out your empties.....

when the party's over.

:-)

7. What happens when we leave:

The Iraqi people can finally decide their own fate for themselves.

Any other aggressive and illegal attempts to conquer and occupy another weaker nation will be much more difficult for the US to attempt, if Iraq is shown to have been a failure.

More global and local resistance will develope against the oppressive policies of the US ruling class.

There is the possibility that many Iraqi's will die, or that civil war will develop, or that a religiously based government will take over, but if the US stays many Iraqis still die brutally. More Iraqis are tortured brutally (http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5927). And what's more the Iraqis have no voice in what happens. We've actually already seen the US put thugs like Allawi in power and actively bring religious fundamentalists into government (Sistani, et al.). The US is acquiescing to the imposition of sharia law in Iraq. Did the US or the "Iraqi" puppets ask the women of Iraq what they thought about it? No!

Another effect of us leaving will be how the massive blow to US power in the region will affect the brutal theocracies and police states the US supports there. For instance a defeat for the US in Iraq could lead to uprisings in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt. It in fact could lay the groundwork for the middle east to finally break out of hundreds of years of western domination solidified by colonial borders. It would be a first step to REAL liberation in the middle east.

More fundamentally there is no way to "fix" what was "broken". What should the US do? Put more troops in? Carry out more torture and more bombings? It's too late to "fix" the situation.

[Still_Loves_John]

8. That's a nice thought but no

" What happens when we leave:
The Iraqi people can finally decide their own fate for themselves."

Well, no. Probably not. More likely some local despot would seize power and would be worse than Saddam was.

This is why I was against the war in the beginning and this is why I realize we can't just pull out now.

9. You mean somehow Allawi isn't a despot?

Look, The US is the worst thing to ever happen to Iraq. The US's policies are responsible for far more dead than Hussein ever was. Over a million killed by sanctions (including, according to the UN, nearly half a million children). Tens of thousands killed by bombs and bullets. Thousands disappeared and tortured in Abu Ghraib and other places. Total instability, with daily violence. No electricity in a country where temperatures get up to 150 degrees farenheit. They actually have GASOLINE shortages today, in a country with the second largest reserves in the world. Total censorship of the press. Fundamentalist religious nuts running around the country (some with the support of the US) oppressing women who under Hussein's regime were some of the most liberated women in the middle east. Etc. The list goes on and on and this is just the last 12yrs of history. If you want to go further we should look at the fact that when the Iraqis did have a democratic government (Mossadeq) the CIA overthrew it and put in the Baathists. Not to mention the prior years of British colonialism.

The fact of the matter is, it is not our place in the world to tell people how they organize their society. If the Iraqis wanted Hussein out they would have done it themselves, and it is their responsibility. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have helped, but again if you look at the history, the US over and over betrayed uprisings against Hussein. More than that helping is not invading and occupying/colonizing Iraq.

If another despot was to take over at least it would be their despot and not a despot forced upon them by a foreign government, for instance Allawi (who was responsible for car bombings in Iraq during Hussein's reign and who, it was recently reported, personally executed prisoners not but a couple of weeks ago).

After all this if you can show me that somehow the situation can be "fixed" and how maybe i'll think again about my position. Your position sounds like the exact same kind of logic that got us stuck in Vietnam for three decades. More than that it comes from a sort of american exceptionalism that says that it is our role in the world (a white man's burden) to save countries from themselves and impose our much wiser and "freer" social norms upon them. This is missionary stuff and it will only make the situation worse.

[Still_Loves_John]

10. I think Allawi could definatly become a despot

but he's not yet at any rate. I think the real problem with just drawing out is that our military is such a big part of the infrastructure of Iraq that everything would collapse if we pulled out. I understand that things aren't exactly great as they are now, but I do think that they would be worse if we left. I think the best situation would be that, once Iraq holds elections and they people get to choose their leader, the US (and hopefully, by then, international) forces stay for a little while longer and kind of help the government get situated, and then pull out.

It's not even that I think that we should have gone in there in the first place. The way I see it, it's a choice between two very bad situations, and this one is the least bad of the two.

11. What?!

Allawi is a despot. The first thing he did when he came to power was to declare virtual martial law and then to call in airstrikes on his own people in Fallujah. And again the man has personally executed prisoners at close range with a pistol. Remember that picture from Vietnam?

Our military has nothing to do with the infrastructure of Iraq, and everything to do with its destruction. The military doesn't organize reconstruction, it doesn't even do security anymore. They can't go out of their bases without being shot at, so they send the "Iraqi Security Forces" and police and when they get in trouble "our" military sends in bombers and artillery. Name one thing the US military does that supports the infrastructure of Iraq. What guarding the oil fields and pipelines so that the oil can be EXPORTED? They can't even do that right, exports and output in general from Iraq has plummeted. There was an interesting story about a power plant where the workers actually pooled their resources and jerry-rigged the power plant back into service. They had no help from the US. The Iraqis themselves are the only thing holding Iraq together.

Who decides what "choices" are going to be on the ballot? Who has the coercive power to decide what gets in the media? Any election in Iraq with US troops still there will not be a open and free election. The only choices that will be allowed on the ballot will be those that the US wants. If for some reason someone like Sadr gets on (yeah right) the US will use its power to completely isolate him politically (as it has unsuccessfully tried to do already). If that doesn't work they'll stuff the ballot boxes or call off the election. Man, some of that stuff sounds like the kind of things they do HERE.

If you want to know what they have in store for Iraq look at the new unofficial leader of Iraq, John Negroponte and his history in Central America. Why is it that Iraq is going to be the largest embassy in the world and why is it that the ambassador is a man who personally directed a genocide in Central America? They intend to use Iraq as a base to further attack Iran and Syria. If they "fix" Iraq we won't just leave. They'll start something up in Iran or Syria. Moreover if people buy this "fixing" line they'll intentionally leave it broken, because they need a reason to be in the middle east. Even after iraqi "elections" no one from the democrats to the republicans has said that US troops will leave. They are building four massive military bases in Iraq and they aren't temporary.

I understand that you were against the war and I believe you, but in my opinion, for the reasons I've stated in this thread, just because the invasion happened and the US is in there doesn't now all of a sudden make the war right. This whole line about "fixing" Iraq is a lie, a mirage put out to trick good people into going along with the plan. Again Iraq isn't the end of this, it is only the beginning and they've said it themselves over and over again. This is why I think it is funny when people say Iraq is a deviation from the war on terror. The way I see it, Iraq is the war on terror. Only problem is neither Afghanistan or Iraq are actually about "fighting terrorism" they are about a new role that the US ruling class, both Repug and Dem (and all the interests that control them), wants to play in the world. This role is one of total domination. Iraq and Afghanistan are stepping stones in a larger quest for empire, a quest which will take decades (as Cheney and many others have said). And so the war on terror itself isn't about ending terrorism (as if you ever could, especially by bombing people), but about creating empire.

[groovedaddy]

24. mossadeq was in Iran

minor point of fact?

26. my bad

I meant Abdel-Karim Kassem. http://www.rense.com/general37/frmer.htm

[LoZoccolo]

15. The RCP, who published this, has an interest in disorder in Iraq.

Seeing as they're probably hoping the Iraqi communist party - which is pretty big compared to any similiar movement in the US - would stage a take over.

22. Iraqi Communist Party is part of the "coalition government"

They are not real communists. They participate in the occupation. They help the occupation and they have no interest in revolution in Iraq. Most of the real communists in Iraq were killed when Saddam came to power. The CIA supplied the Baathists with lists of tens of thousands of communists and sympathizers in Iraq and most of them were executed. Those that remain were servile to Hussein, just as they are now servile to the US. They essentially follow whoever is in charge.

I don't speak for the RCP, but I know for a fact that they do not support the "communist" party of Iraq.

[tinanator]

27. have a lot of experience/luck keeping despots out of power?

no, I didnt think so. next.

[neoSattva]

2. Compassion requires that we do not just leave

Powell's much quoted, "You break it ~ you own it," is true. Unfortunately, the cost of the breakage is being paid by the Iraqi people. We must work extraordinarily hard to leave as quickly as we can, but we must do it in a way that minimizes the suffering. As screwed up as we've made the place, to just take our toys and go home would be devastating to the most vulnerable. I believe that this is pretty much what Kucinich says as well.

[no name no slogan]

16. Not entirely true

Just because we broke it doesn't mean we're the only ones qualified to fix it. If anything, we should withdraw ourselves from the "fixing" process, and let the Iraqis determine who "fixes" THEIR country.

This is what Kucinich has said all along. Turn over real control to an international third-party. Do NOT allow US corporations to control Iraq's oil industry. Get the Halliburtons out of the rebuilding process, and let the contracts be awarded to whom the IRAQIs want to rebuild their country.

If an arsonist burns down your house, would it be fair to let the arsonist have his friends rebuild it for you, the way they want it rebuilt? Of course not! Just because we wreaked havoc on their country does not mean we "own it" in any capacity. It means we should PAY FOR IT, and let the Iraqis decide what they want.

[DoBotherMe]

4. No matter what we peace

people wish, the reality is that there are state-funded terrorists (in more than 60 countries) who will continue to attack both inside and outside the U.S. Sen. Kerry wants to address that threat with special mobile forces of an internationalized coalition to suppress these insurgencies ... whether the insurgents have legitimate grievances, they are still dangerous. In tandem with a show of force, Kerry will also use diplomacy and monetary assistance along with humanitarian and economic government and NGO activities to begin to change the way America presents itself to the world. The world has put us on notice that they will no longer sacrifice themselves for our comfort and we must respond by changing our expectations of what we are owed. If we allow Iraq to become a failed state we run the risk of nuclear rearmament by our old cold war nemises and a return to MAD and wars of containment. I, for one, do not want to do that again.

[cyclezealot]

12. I agree with Kucinich solution. Internationalize the war.

But a part of the solution is to review national policies and see why our foreign policy is so offensive to so many..
Recall the book 'Blowback.' Published by a former CIA operative.That writer should be given a position in a Department of Peace.

[Classical_Liberal]

18. Shouldn't you be talking to you peace people instead of we

since you are clearly not a we.

[IndianaGreen]

5. A Marxist analysis of this topic

Political freedom has hitherto been far more extensive in Britain than elsewhere in Europe. Here, more than anywhere else, the bourgeoisie are used to governing and know how to govern. The relations between the classes are more developed and in many respects clearer than in other countries. The absence of conscription gives the people more liberty in their attitude towards the war in the sense that anyone may refuse to join the colours, which is why the government (which in Britain is a committee, in its purest form, for managing the affairs of the bourgeoisie) are compelled to bend every effort to rouse “popular”enthusiasm for the war. That aim could never be attained without a radical change in the laws, had the mass of proletarians not been completely disorganised and demoralised by the desertion to a Liberal, i.e., bourgeois, policy, of a minority of the best placed, skilled and unionised workers. The British trade unions comprise about one-fifth of all wage workers. Most trade union leaders are Liberals; Marx long ago called them agents of the bourgeoisie.

V.I. Lenin (1915)
British Pacifism and the British Dislike of Theory

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jun/x02.htm

The struggle against war and the 2004 US elections
By David North
27 April 2004

The war is having a serious impact upon the United States. A profound and unbridgeable chasm is opening up between those who planned, support and benefit from the occupation of Iraq, and those who oppose it. There is already a moral polarization. The bitter and explosive social struggles of the future are anticipated in this essential division that, in the final analysis, is rooted in opposed class interests. No common ground is possible with the organizers of this war and their apologists. They inhabit a different moral universe.

We are here today, however, to discuss not morality, but politics. Of particular interest to us is the response of the Democratic Party to these developments that have unfolded since we met a month ago. As we anticipated, the Democratic Party has completed its repudiation of any association with opposition to the war in Iraq.

When we met last month, we placed emphasis on the necessity of a political break by the working class with the bourgeois two-party system. Our draft election statement, prepared in advance of the conference, and the opening report to the conference stressed that the SEP rejected the argument that the overriding issue in the 2004 election was the defeat of President Bush and that all questions of political principle and program had to be subordinated to the most vulgar and pragmatic electoral calculations.

The bankruptcy of this argument had already been exposed by the manner in which the campaign by Howard Dean had been derailed and the nomination of John Kerry secured. The opening report at last month’s conference explained that the ruling elite was determined, first of all, that the presidential election not be allowed under any circumstances to become a referendum on the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/dn-a27.shtml

[MaggieSwanson]

6. Thank you for posting this.

"Millions of people are looking for a way to express their deep discontent and dismay-- and the Democratic Party has slammed the door in their face."...This expresses what I am feeling tonight.

[Kanary]

13. It has become painfully clear that the Dem Party is not ready

to reclaim it's mighty past, and once again be the party of reason and humanity.

The party machine is so stuck up in it's head, that heart and soul have been lost.

It's going to be really painful to watch people learn this the hard way.

Have mercy on our souls.

Kanary

[LoZoccolo]

14. Since when does the RCP care about the "people"?

Being a communist vanguard party and all, I imagine they think themselves much wiser than the people and not open to debate either.

23. changing the subject

Why don't you deal with the substance of the article? It doesn't seem to me that you know much about the RCP or communism for that matter. And since this article isn't really about either, it seems to me that you're changing the subject. Is the analysis in the article correct or not? What's wrong with it? What's right with it?

Without engaging your points any further, I can say that everyone I've ever met who was a supporter of the RCP has been more open to free political debate than just about anyone else I've come across. They don't approach people in an arrogant way and they don't believe in putting themselves or their party above the people. To explain this point further would totally sidetrack this thread, but if you wish to continue it you can start another thread here at DU, or PM me, or you can start a thread here: http://awip.proboards23.com/

[tinanator]

28. sounds like someone who posts here

"fuck this Im gonna have your post nuked"

[no name no slogan]

17. Yes, many of us are disappointed, but Dennis is pragmatic

...because he knows damn well that if Kerry loses, he'd be the first one the DLC and establishment would scapegoat.

I know some of the people who were in attendence at the platform meetings, and many of them were disappointed with the overall outcome. However, we are also in it for the long haul, and 2004 is just another election cycle.

Dennis knows how to pick his battles, and he and his supporters did what they could this year. We knew it was a longshot going into it, and we got what we could. And now that everything is done (except for the coronation), Dennis endorsed Kerry/Edwards, and is moving on.

For some, the primaries are the end. But, for progressives, it was just the beginning.

[cyclezealot]

21. Dennis will not fail us in the long run

He will fight for the people's business as a member of the House Progressive caucus; whether he is fighting Bush or Kerry...DK is the one to trust...He has his work cut out and will not fail us as an organizer in the house...
DK you can trust...Get Kerry with the lobbyists. I am pretty sure he will fail us...DK will be there to try to keep Kerry true to the promises of the Democratic Party... DK fought the uphill battle and money beat him...
From his Congressional seat, he can do no wrong.

[groovedaddy]

25. I supported Kucinich

but I noticed that in his "democracy now" interview, he said "you know" more times than I'm ever heard him say this...very tentative, to say the least.
Still, during the primary when asked if he would support the eventual nominee of the Democratic party, Dennis said he would. He has remained true to his word. What more can you ask of a politician?

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. The Soviet Union and the United States fought together to stop Hitler

That's what happens sometime when enough is riding on the outcome of a conflict. Hitler had to be stopped, both nations knew it. Bush has to be stopped, and Kucinich knows that. Nader will not stop Bush, and a divided Democratic Party may not either.

The "anti war" candidates during the primaries used that process to make their case as best as possible to the public, in a way and at a time when it would not jeopardize the outcome of the November Elections. The day after Election Day many differences will resurface.

[Zorra]

20. Good point. When there is a tyrannosaurus rex threatening your village

you drop everything else and help kill Godzilla to save the village. Worry about the other stuff later.