Pax Americana

Why We Need A Department Of Peace

The first clue, lesson number one from human history on the subject of nonviolence, is that there is no word for it...while every major language has a word for violence, there is no word to express the idea of nonviolence except that it is not the other idea, it is not violence.

 - Mark Kurlansky, Nonviolence - The History of a Dangerous Idea

I went just a teesy weensy bit overboard the other day and jumped down my friend odum's throat for his intro to a post on "just war."  But I apologized for my original harangue, and the discussion was extensive and in the end I think fruitful.

What set me off was an implication of passivity in those of us who work for and through nonviolence.  That we reject military action in a mechanical, knee jerk fashion, then move on while exploring no alternative solutions to crisis.  Mostly I got pissed by his use of the word 'pacifist', which I hate with the heat of ten gajillion quasars, and it was downhill from there.

Now I'm not picking on odum again here, just providing some backstory to my latest blogifesto on nonviolence.  I think there is truly a misconception about most people whom you'd call "pacifists", in part perhaps because of the label itself (and others like "passive resistance" which Gandhi coined and later rejected), so I'd like to expand on some things I'd brought up in that thread.

Nonviolence is not simply the lack of violence, but really the refusal to use one tool in favor of another as part of conflict resolution.  As Gene Sharp, who catalogued 198 methods of nonviolent action, observes:

Nonviolent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission, and who see struggle as essential, can wage their conflict without violence. Nonviolent action is not an attempt to avoid or ignore conflict. It is one response to the problem of how to act effectively in politics, especially how to wield powers effectively.

The key takeaway is that nonviolence is a weapon used from a position of strength, as opposed to weakness, and requires aggressive action, as opposed to passive inaction.  It has been successfully deployed tactically and strategically myriad times, and with each new victory and defeat we learn how to use it more effectively.

Since this approach is not simply avoiding armed conflict, yet still seeks positive outcomes, it is not a one-size-fits-all philosophy and rather recognizes the complexity and uniqueness of each situation.  No tool necessarily works in all environments.  For example, economic sanctions have forced the issue in South Africa and even Libya, could probably have similar impact in Israel, were disastrous in Iraq and have been largely ineffectual in Burma. So there is no deterministic formula in searching for alternatives to warfare and thus we really need serious R&D in this arena--lots of experimentation has already been done over the last century for us to build upon.

It's a field ripe for study.  How can nations defend themselves from invasion nonviolently?  How can nonviolence be brought to bear against terrorism?  Etc.

This is part of the great value I see in Dennis Kucinich's proposal to establish a Cabinet-levelDepartment of Peace.  To some folks--including a friend of mine who ran for US Senate--that might seem redundant.  Afterall, don't we already have a State Department that's supposed to do that?

Not really.  Diplomacy isn't the be all of nonviolence.  In fact, we often use it in the lead up to war not as a way to avoid violent conflict, but as we saw in building a coalition to bomb Libya, as a way to foster it.  Even when not getting allies in line for war, State is sorta the good cop to Defense' bad cop--hey, negotiate with me because otherwise that crazy General Mayhem is gonna fuck your shit UP!

The problem is we don't do peace very well.  We do absence of war.  A Peace Department would at least work to alter our default posture and:

• Proactively develop policies, strategies and recommendations for expanding our capacity for nonviolent conflict resolution and for addressing the root causes to violence, both internationally and domestically

• Promote, fund and expand programs proven effective at reducing and preventing violence

• Strategically coordinate existing efforts within the federal government relating to conflict resolution

• Through the Secretary of Peace, provide a voice at the cabinet-level for nonviolent approaches to both domestic and international crises and conflicts

• Support our military with new peacebuilding capabilities desperately needed in the war on terror
  
  
• Establish a U.S. Peace Academy, on par with the U.S. military service academies, to train military and civilian peacekeepers, and ensure the development and application of expert nonviolent resources in conflict resolution

Give the DoP a budget worth, say...112 Tomahawk missiles and I'd say that's a great start.  Or 1 month of the war in Afghanistan.  Or maybe 1/100th of the DoD budget.  Whatever, we can quibble over the exact dollars later.

In any discussion of nonviolence certain questions almost always arise.  There's my old favorite, "would you kill somebody if they invaded your home and skullfucked your family?"  And then, "how could nonviolence work against Hitler?"

I generally observe there were many, many examples of heroic, tactical examples of nonviolent resistance against the Nazi regime.  But since it's all speculative history as a thought experiment, I note that while people did nonviolently fight back in 1943, it's more instructive to consider how people could have done so in 1933 or even 1923.

While nonviolent movements have earned success in a matter of days or weeks, as we saw in the Philippines 25 years ago, as well as in Tunisia and Egypt this year, to be most effective we have to take the long view, both as people-powered movements and state actors.  So in the case of Germany, if we better understand the dynamics of crisis and violence, perhaps the victorious Allies would not have imposed such a punitive "peace" on Germany--maybe even anticipate the Marshall Plan a few decades earlier.  Or in response to the Ruhrkampf, France could have accepted a more progressive version of the Dawes Plan.  Then we don't have things spiral out of control to the point that appeasement substitutes for genuine peace in 1938, paving the path for all out war.

Apply the long view to the Middle East and we can see similar historical inflection points.  Don't have the CIA sponsor a coup in 1953 Iran.  Don't support the Shah.  Don't get blowback in the form of Islamic revolution (which, BTW, was an example of civil resistance).  Don't arm Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War.  Don't launch a 20 year war against Iraq.

We can also flip this around from a series of Don'ts to more positive Dos.  Take Kosovo and Serbia.

Madeleine Albright famously called us "the indisipensable nation."  Not in the context of peace, but of diplomacy backed by immense military power that we must be willing to use.  She also complained to Colin Powell, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

So her hammer found a nail in the Kosovo War in 1998-99.  Would that the United States had proven itself indispensible years earlier when the Kosovo Albanians were using nonviolent methods to secure their autonomy.  Would that we had a SecState who complained to SecPeace Kucinich, "What's the point of having these superb Soldiers of Peace you're always talking about if we can't use them?"

Instead we only view ourselves indispensable putting out horrific fires instead of working to prevent them in the first place.  Fire departments remind people to change batteries in smoke detectors, teach children how to behave in a house fire and other things to mitigate the need for fire trucks to roll.  We need to take a similar approach to the world's conflagrations.

Again, as history is the what it is, I don't know exactly how we might have helped Kosovo without letting the situation devolve into Serbian aggression and NATO military action.  I will also note history shows us that in the end NATO's bombs didn't get rid of Milosevic, who instigated things, but the Serbian people's nonviolence did, which this year inspired Tunisian and Egyptian revolutionaries.

Perhaps we can also learn from Otpor and the many other people who have fought for peace, freedom and justice with a powerful weapon.  Reorganizing our society around nonviolent principles can start simply by shifting personal attitudes from "that shit'll never work" to "let's think about how it can."  Then maybe we'll invent a word that uniquely means nonviolence, and the opposite of that concept will struggle to find definition in our language...

ntodd

PS--A corollary from Yemen:

Across town, an even larger number converged on a square chanting slogans calling for his ouster and waving red cards emblazoned with the word "leave" despite fears of more violence a week after government security forces shot dead more than 40 demonstrators in Sanaa.

The bloodshed last Friday prompted a wave of defections by military commanders, ruling party members and others, swelling the ranks of the opposition and leaving the president isolated.

When NV is met with violence, it increases the chances that the people being asked to carry out repression will defect to the opposition.  If the resisters turn to violence in response--which is part of the goal of the attacks in the first place--then the regime's actions are more easily justified and the apparatus loses fewer components.

Cairo, Wisconsin

First-Draft is doing yeoman's work on resistance in WI.  Go there.

I'll just add we're seeing a variety of the 198 Methods at work, including:

• 37. Singing
• 47. Assemblies of protest or support
• 51. Walk-outs
• 123. Boycott of legislative bodies
• 173. Nonviolent occupation  

Interestingly, there's been a traffic spike in the last day at the normally rather quiet Pax Americana.  Guess I'd better fix that formatting problem...

ntodd

Tanks

1989:

Failing to appreciate or plan for the possibility of repression was an error in itself, but it also freed the students to indulge in whatever provocative action seemed enticing. Inflammatory gestures such as erecting, opposite Mao's Mausoleum, a "Goddess of Democracy," a replica of America's Statue of Liberty, doubtless antagonized the regime while not changing any facts on the ground. In short, while the students were familiar with the most obvious forms of nonviolent action - occupying public spaces, hunger strikes and playing to the international media - their decisions in using these sanctions did not reflect "any significant degree of strategic thinking..."

The failure of strategy at the moment of crisis kept echoing throughout its aftermath. The government's use of repression taught the wrong lesson to many about how rights and democracy should be pursued. In 1999 one former protestor called himself "a victim of June 4," since he was fired and prevented from getting another job; he had decided that "the only path for China was. . .cautious, progressive liberalization." Even the flammable Wu'er Kaixi, who fled China and later had to pump gas and wait on tables in California, succumbed to lower expectations. Explaining why he hoped that Beijing would not be forced to acknowledge its Tiananmen savagery, he said that doing so might only set back gradual reforms. And he wanted to return home. "I think if everything goes okay, I'll be able to go home in five years. If something happens, if there are demonstrations and another crackdown, it will take longer."

1991:

Journalists...played their part in the resistance on the first day of the coup.  One of the first acts of the putschists had been to suspend freedom of the press.  Only one television station in Moscow was allowed to operate, and the printed press was told to print exclusively declarations of the State Committee for the State Emergency.  Nevertheless, Yeltsin's "Appeal to the Citizens of Russia" was printed on page two of a late edition of Izvestia, one of the Soviet Union's largest-circulation newspapers.  The appeal had been printed against the direct order of the editor, but the paper's staff insisted they would burn the presses if it were not included.

Other Russian citizens were informed of Yeltsin's defiance by watching the evening news on the "official" television station.  One segment, titled "Moscow Today," was designed to demonstrate how calm the capital city was after the regime change.  The program showed that, indeed, most of Moscow was calm and operating normally.  But the segment also included footage from the White House and excerpts from Yeltsin's speech on the tank.  The response from the coup leaders in the Interior Ministry was immediate.  "The story on Moscow was treacherous!" the editors of the program were told.  "You have given instructions to the people on where to go and what to do!"

2011:

Tanks and armored personnel carriers fanned out across the city of 18 million, guarding key government buildings, and major tourist and archaeological sites. Among those singled out for special protection was the Egyptian Museum, home to some of the country's most treasured antiquities, and the Cabinet building. The military closed the pyramids on the outskirts of Cairo – Egypt's premier tourist site.

But soldiers made no moves against protesters, even after a curfew came and went and the crowds swelled in the streets, demanding an end to Mubarak's rule and no handoff to the son he had been grooming to succeed him.

"This is the revolution of people of all walks of life," read black graffiti scrolled on one army tank in Tahrir Square. "Mubarak, take your son and leave," it said.
Thousands of protesters defied the curfew for the second night, standing their ground in the main Tahrir Square in a resounding rejection of Mubarak's attempt to hang onto power with promises of reform and a new government.

...

There were no clashes reported between protesters and the military at all, and many in the crowds showered soldiers with affection.

One army captain joined the demonstrators in Tahrir Square, who hoisted him on their shoulders while chanting slogans against Mubarak. The officer ripped apart a picture of the president.

Popular revolts, both violent and non-violent, can of course fail.  It's as yet unclear whether events in Egypt will be more like Russia in 1991 (ElBaradei as Yeltsin, the military standing aside?) or China in 1989 (using tweets instead of faxes, lacking strategic cohesion?).  I'm heartened that the resisters have distributed a good plan via offline channels, so hopefully the former precedent will hold sway despite the clear US government interest in the survival of a strategically important allied regime in the region.

I might as well note that this month marks the 25th anniversary of the People Powered Revolution in the Phillipines:

The spark that set it all off was a corrupt snap election called to prop up Marcos' hold on power.  All regimes require the consent of the people and crave the veneer of popular legitimacy.  The tyrant fraudulently declared victory over his opponent, Corazon Aquino (who died last August), and that was his undoing:

After the election Cory Aquino spoke to a crowd of one million people at a rally in Manila. She proposed a seven-part program of nonviolent resistance, including a one-day work stoppage and a boycott of Marcos-controlled banks, stores and newspapers. She urged people to "experiment with nonviolent forms of protest" and declared: "...if Goliath refuses to yield, we shall keep dipping into our arsenal of nonviolence and escalate our nonviolent struggle." The revolution had begun.

On February 22, 1986, Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Deputy Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos defect from the Marcos government. Enrile and Ramos barricade themselves in the Defense Ministry headquarters in Manila, along with a small group of sympathetic troops. They say they are prepared to die rather than continue supporting the corrupt Marcos regime.

...

Of course it started with 47. Assemblies of protest of support:

Opposition to the policies or acts of an opponent, or support for certain policies, may be expressed by public assembly of a group of people at appropriate points, which are usually in some way related to the issue.  These may be, for example, government offices, courts, or prisons.  Or people may gather at some other place, such as around the statue of a hero or villain.  Depending on the particular laws and regulations and on the general degree of political conformity, such an assemblage may be either legal or illegal (if the latter, this method becomes combined with civil disobedience).

...

Aquino educated her audience, provided them with a strategic framework and specific tactics.  Her appeal was to the people, not her opponent.  Even had there been no media coverage of that event, she reached a million citizens directly and launched a successful revolution.

The Filipinos could have reacted completely passively, just accepting the old dictatorship and the games Marcos played in stealing the election.  Or they could have opted for violence.  Instead, they doubled their chance of victory by resisting nonviolently:

Our findings [using data on major resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006] show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns.

There are two reasons for this success. First, a campaign’s commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target. Recognition of the challenge group’s grievances can translate into greater internal and external support for that group and alienation of the target regime, undermining the regime’s main sources of political, economic, and even military power.

Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime. Potentially sympathetic publics perceive violent militants as having maximalist or extremist goals beyond accommodation, but they perceive nonviolent resistance groups as less extreme, thereby enhancing their appeal and facilitating the extraction of concessions through bargaining...We assert that nonviolent resistance is a forceful alternative to political violence that can pose effective challenges to democratic and nondemocratic opponents...

Mubarak is an autocrat and a US ally, just as Marcos was.  While it's not my place, let alone Washington's, to really weigh in on the actions of sovereign people, on balance I hope we see peaceful regime change.  There's no guarantee a better one will be put in place should the uprising prove to be successful, but that's always a risk.

And in light of Egypt, and Tunisia, and the countless other examples of successful popular movements throughout the world, I join Chris Hedges in wondering what, exactly, will motivate us to rebel against corporate power here at home...

ntodd

PS--I'm not sure what's happened with the Pax Americana template, so some of the links will appear blank, but content is actually at the bottom of the pages.

 

We All Are Responsible For The Republic

Yes, this is true:

The massacre in Tucson is, in a sense, irrelevant to the important point. Whatever drove Jared Lee Loughner, America's political frequencies are full of violent static.

But the point is larger than that:

[Y]ou may find yourself as the vast majority of Americans do, as a passive observer with little sense beyond your ability to vote -- without having an avenue to express your beliefs and ideas when it comes to the national conversation.

Both the power class and the passive class are experiencing this sense of frustration and unfairness to one degree or another...For the passive class, have you chosen to deal with your knowledge of this unfairness either through denial of its existence, or through a logical apathy founded upon the belief that nothing you do will matter?
...
[S]etting a path to resolve the unfairness that plagues this country will originate not by looking outward at those whom we believe are perpetrating a given unfairness, but through a period of brutally honest inward reflection into the values that each of us apply to the ways we make the decisions in our days, from one minute to the next.

It is through investment in internal reflection that we can open the door to the knowledge that only our own happiness and fulfillment can manifest a peaceful path to resolving the problems that we face as a nation.
...

Through that reflection, the passive class can muster the strength to shed the protections of denial and apathy.

While your voice may feel hollow by itself, the possibility of becoming part of a national chorus of awakened can serve as a deeper foundation for the compassion and wisdom to accept our own shortfalls and those of our leadership as we continue the national trip toward a more fair and free America.

I have to believe that we can still effect change despite the current political climate and all obstacles in our way.  No era has been charmed, no electoral system has been perfect, no movement has been instantly victorious, but the arc of history does indeed bend toward justice.

The key is for the People to rediscover their individual and collective power, and to exercise it instead of giving in to disenfranchisement, cynicism and hopelessness.  There will be no one thing or person that will save us, so I encourage everybody to try something new, something outside your comfort zone just a little bit, something that used to be unimaginable to you.

It's not practical for most human beings to drop everything they're doing and fight totally for a cause, no matter how noble.  Even the most dedicated activists cannot be all places at once, nor can they be expected to maintain constant vigilance 24x7x365.  Maybe some can pull that off, but movements are made of Ordinary People, not superheroes.

And again practically, we none of us can be expected to defeat evil, either singly or collectively, or even have the will to do so.  It's not even really necessary to try, when you get down to it: survival is really our prime directive as animals, and when you're trying to feed and shelter your family and whatnot, how can you really find the energy to fight for some larger moral issue?

There are a lot of folks online who stay informed, donate to candidates like Representative Giffords, and vote. That's all great, especially going to the polls when so many people think it won't change anything, but voting "correctly" isn't enough.  As Thoreau said:

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance...

There are many ways to effect political and social change.  Being informed can be a part of it.  Casting a ballot can be a part of it.  Working for a good candidate so elections aren't left to the mercy of chance and well-funded hatemongers can be a part of it. 

What isn't a part of it: passivity, impotent outrage, throwing up your hands and blaming politicians or other voters.  Do something, then do it again, then do something else.  Rinse.  Repeat.

We all are busy.  We all have lives.  And all our busy lives are directly impacted by the system, including campaign rhetoric and political violence.  TThus it's in our best interest to try mitigating their dangers.

Perhaps boycott the media who not only refuse to denounce the vitriol Sheriff Dupnik identified, but actively market it.  Perhaps go a little further and destroy support for hate as my friend and hero, Spocko, does.  Whatever, we all could afford to spend a little time in the wake of yesterday's violence focusing less on how other people have failed and more on how we can be a part of the solution.

Benjamin Franklin replied when asked what the Framers had created for themselves and their posterity, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”  That means we all must be actively involved in the process, rather than passively allowing our elected proxies to do all the heavy lifting, and blaming them when things go wrong.  We cannot guarantee we'll keep the Republic through engagement, but with passivity we're guaranteed to lose it.

ntodd

Provocation

The function of a civil resistance is to provoke response and we will continue to provoke until they respond or change the law. They are not in control; we are.

 - Gandhi (1982)

As with much of the dialog in Attenborough's film, I haven't seen such a direct quote from the Mahatma's mouth or pen in his Collected Works, but the line certainly reflects the spirit and intent of the raid on Dharasana and his methods of nonviolence.  In fact, Indian economist J. C. Kumarappa wrote in Young India:

Dharasana raid was decided upon not to get salt, which was only the means. Our expectation was that the Government would open fire on unarmed crowds .... Our primary object was to show to the world at large the fangs and claws of the Government in all its ugliness and ferocity. In this we have succeeded beyond measure.

That was the quintessential example of a non-violent raid.  The Freedom Flotilla represents a related tactic, the non-violent invasion:

In nonviolent invasion a group of nonviolent volunteers deliberately and openly enter a forbidden area in order to demonstrate their refusal to recognize the right of the controlling regime or agency to exercise sovereignty or control over that area or to use it for a particular purpose.  This method entails civil disobedience and the risk of severe repression.

It's probably hard for people to understand this method, as with most, thanks to our lack of education about nonviolence (a Department of Peace sure would be handy).  So in the aftermath of the IDF's murdering the activists, I see people calling the flotilla a provocation, a setup, a stunt.

Um...yes.  And?

Seriously, those words are used to diminish and denigrate the action, but the whole point of such an invasion is to set up a stunt that provokes the opponent.  This serves to highlight the injustice of the policies being protested, demonstrate the brutality used to defend the indefensible, and to get the world to notice and apply pressure to resolve the issue.

One of the reasons the IDF reaction is being deemed such a blunder is because of something Gush Shalom warned about a week before the massacre:

The whole world is looking. The State of Israel has no interest in flooding the international television screens with images of Israeli sailors and naval commandos violently assaulting hundreds of peace activists and humanitarian aid workers, many of them well-known in their countries. Whose interest will it serve when hours long dramatic live reports arrive from the Mediteranean, with the world's sympathy given to hundreds of non-violent activists, on board eight boats, assaulted by the strongest military power in the Middle East?

While nobody on the flotilla, I'm sure, deliberately courted their own murders, part of the exercise was in fact to "show to the world at large the fangs and claws of the [Israeli] Government in all its ugliness and ferocity."  It put the IDF in a terrific bind because it has no idea of how to deal with nonviolence.

Really, it's a lose-lose-lose for Israel.  They could have allowed the flotilla through, as on previous occasions, in which case they show just how much of a charade the blockade is and give the activists and Gazans a major win by getting aid where it needs to go.  Or they can block it in a non-murderous fashion, in which case they mitigate any real deterrent.  Or they can end up tactically botching a violent raid and creating a tipping point.

Predictably, Israel is following the repressive playbook page by page.  Brian Martin:

[It] is useful to look at methods used by attackers that inhibit outrage. Examination of a wide range of cases reveals a diversity of methods, which for convenience can be grouped into five categories.

    * Cover up the attack, hiding it from observers.
    * Devalue the target.
    * Reinterpret the attack, describing it as something else or as someone else's responsibility.
    * Use official channels, such as authoritative pronouncements or official inquiries, that give the appearance of justice.
    * Intimidate or bribe participants, thereby discouraging action against those responsible for the attack.

Israel did a fairly decent job of this regarding Gaza and Operation Cast Lead, I think.  They take advantage of a lot of ambiguity and have been aided by Hamas' steadfast commitment to violence and stupidity.  In this case, however, they are rudderless because the people they attacked were from the international community, in international waters, and clearly on a humanitarian mission. 

They certainly have tried hiding the attack as much as possible, but their attempts have been short circuited by ubiquitous cameras and social networking applications.  Live tweets and Youtube videos also make it hard for the IDF to devalue the target (they're terrorists), reinterpret the attack (poor defenseless commandos), use official channels (IDF Spokesperson vs Twitter legion), and intimidate participants (they've given in on show trials for the activists).

Further complicating things for Israel is the fact that violent repression rarely has the intended effect.  Generally there is a backlash, and this situation is no exception.  Beyond activists continuing the waves of aid missions, the worst case has come true geopolitically because they have not been able to spin their way out of the massacre:

    * Under severe pressure, Egypt, which has blockaded Gaza by land for its own political reasons, has opened its borders (at least for now), a move that is likely to facilitate more weapons shipments than the most extreme estimates of potential smuggling from the Mavi Marmara would have supplied.

    * Turkey, the only predominantly Muslim country that regards Israel as an ally, has recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv amid massive anti-Israeli protests in the streets of Istanbul.

    * Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was on his way to Washington to discuss the resumption of Palestinian peace talks with President Barack Obama, had to go home (for obvious reasons), and the prospect for renewed diplomacy—which had gained much support in the region—has, to say the least, diminished.

    * The case for tighter sanctions against Iran, to the extent that they involve sympathy with Israel's security concerns, has been dealt a setback, just as the U.N. nuclear agency has announced that Iran has enough fuel to build two A-bombs (though the fuel still needs to be enriched).

    * The U.N. Security Council has condemned Israel's actions, and countless aid groups, including no doubt several that are hostile to Israel, are sailing toward Gaza, as if to dare the Israelis to fire on them too and, in any case, to deal another blow against the legitimacy of the blockade.

In sum, in order to keep one ship from delivering aid directly to Hamas—and, as Ha'aretz put it, choosing "the worst of all possible options" to do so—Israel has plunged itself into the deepest state of isolation that it's experienced in years.

This goes to show just what happens to a regime when it refuses to study anything except violence.  People talk a lot about "existential enemies," but while they keep harping on provocative activists delivering water purifiers and wheelchairs and Israel's need to defend itself from such dangers, they miss the only real existential enemy Israel has: itself.

ntodd

198 More Sundays: What If They Had An Election And Nobody Came?

Just over two years ago I wrote a rather controversial 198 Sundays post about Method 124. Boycott of elections:

Where there is reason to believe that an election will not be conducted fairly or where there is refusal to recognize the authority of the regime conducting the election, an opposition movement may refuse to put up candidates and may urge people to refuse to vote.  The aim of such a boycott is usually to protest the use of the election to deceive people as to the degree of democracy present; or it may be an attempt to prevent the "real" issue or issues, as seen by the resistance group, from being overshadowed by "lesser" issues.

Long and short of my point was if we had a plan of strategic escalation and the presumed Democratic President and Congress didn't respond to our demands (specifically I focused on getting out of Iraq, but HCR, bailout and other issues could be included), that a boycott of the 2010 elections would be warranted.   I stand by that assessment even today--the Majority's ineffectiveness shows that our democratic mechanism is losing legitimacy in my mind--but the reality is that we didn't collectively lay the groundwork for such a tactic so I wouldn't advocate it.

However, I do advocate people abandon the partisan duopoly and try using the electoral system in addition to direct action to effect change.  I think local and state campaigns in particular are probably the most realistic place for most regular citizens to make an impact, at least by shifting the window of our political discussions, if not actually winning office.

One broken component of our deteriorating Federal arrangement is that the States have abdicated their responsibility in our system of checks and balances.  If we can help them reassert authority, we can restore our Constitution more from the ground up.

That was part of the impetus for me to run as an independent candidate in our State House election this November.  That's not everybody's cuppa, but I hope this campaign season people consider supporting primary challenges, alternative candidates in the General, and getting more involved in races closer to home.

ntodd

198 More Sundays: Best Care Anywhere

Well, I'm not sure if this is appropriate to employ in the struggle for healthcare reform, but perhaps a kind of social intervention, Method 175. Overloading of facilities, could work:

Overloading facilities involves the deliberate increase of demands fo services far beyond their capacity, so that the operation of the institution (government department, business, social service, and so on) is slow down or paralyzed.  Such overloading may be initiated by customers, the public, or employees of the institution.  The objectives may vary and may include improved services, wage increases and political ends.

In 1965 at the Los Angeles County Hospital in California, for example, interns protesting pay policies initiated an overloading of facilities by admitting far more patients to the hospital than existing facilities could accommodate--even persons not needing hospitalization were admitted.  This was called a heal-in.  The interns' aim was to obtain a better bargaining position with the hospital administration.  The hospital was filled with patients within four days, and the action cost the city around $250,000 in increased costs.

[The Miami News reported at the time:

Representatives of resident physicians and interns at Los Angeles County General Hospital, miffed by a pay raise of less than $10 a month, said they would flood the huge facility with patients. They called it a "heal in."

County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn called it "a deliberate plan to disrupt good hospital service." Ho said a delegation of three doctors claiming to represent the 200 interns and 350 resident physicians said their strategy was to admit as many patients as possible and, at the same time, retain present patients longer.

Hospital administrators said there was a 25 per cent increase in admissions yesterday and a 40 per cent drop in discharges. The doctors had asked fot $400 monthly for interns and a sliding scale foi resident physicians from S510 to $713 a month Interns now get $330 to start and $337 after six months — plus room and board. Resident physicians receive from $435 to $645 a month.]

A similar case occurred in Massachusetts at the Boston City Hospital in 1967, where it was called an "around-the-clock heal-in."  This action was begun by 450 residents and interns at Boston City Hospital on Tuesday, May 16, 1967.  The purpose of the heal-in was to dramatize salary demands by doctors at Boston teaching hospitals; at that time the take home salary of an intern was only sixty dollars per week.  The doctors felt that it would be in violation of their oaths to go on strike, so they chose instead to practice "ultra-conservative medicine in order to overcrowd the hospital.  Dr Philip Caper, President of the House Officers' Association, said: "Everyone gets the best of care," which was ensured by having all the interns and residents work twenty-four hours a day.  "Every patient who might benefit from hospitalization will be admitted, and no-one will be discharged until he is completely well."

The heal-in was patterned after the similar action at the Los Angeles County Hospital eighteen months previously.  The Boston City Hospital doctors began their heal-in as an unannounced experiment on Saturday, with 874 patients in the hospital.  On Sunday there were 890, on Monday 924, and on Tuesday at 7am (after the main action was begun) there were 982.  An unidentified doctor stated; "With 1200 or more patients in the hospital the laundry will not be able to keep up, the kitchens will have trouble getting the food out, the X-ray and laboratory departments will be swamped, and people will begin to listen to our demands..."

By Wednesday morning there were over 1000 patients, and 1075 on Thursday.  The heal-in was supported by private doctors and house officiers at the other major Boston hospitals.  Action was taken only at Boston City Hospital because house officers there had full responsibility for medical procedure, unlike the private hospitals.

Countermeasures by the administration began Tuesday afternoon with an announcement that there were no more beds for male patients, which was disproved that evening by the admission of two more patients.  They next tried to influence the chiefs of services to override the admittances, which these doctors refused to do on the grounds that these patients were indeed getting the best of care.  The administration's final effort was to deny their competence to make salary changes.  On the evening of Thursday, May 18, they relented and promised to make salary adjustments.  The doctors ended the heal-in voluntarily that night.  Observers felt that it was a "safe, effective way of backing up demands for higher wages."

[An LTE in Psychiatric News, 2001:

I was at the time a chief resident in psychiatry on what was then a Harvard service. I recall no mention of proposed union affiliation or concern about compensation, since the vast majority of residents felt privileged to be training under such notable clinicians as Dr. Derek Denny-Brown.

At issue were deplorable conditions for patient care such as grimy, open-bay wards with water-filled grapefruit juice cans filled with cigarette butts, an absence of bed linen, and no assistants to transport patients for X-ray studies or other procedures, such that interns had to push the gurney stretchers themselves.

The city administration had turned a deaf ear to the repeated pleas of the interns and residents. The “heal-in” was a last-ditch effort to draw public attention to the plight of the patients, who were, many of whom were poor and African Americans. We were determined during the heal-in to provide superior round-the-clock care. I recall being on duty for 36 hours straight. There were no “nonpatients” admitted, as described in Dr. Avram’s article. Rather, the decision was made not to discharge patients until every outstanding laboratory or X-ray study result was on the chart—this was had also been a significant problem in the precomputer era because of an absence of lab result dispatchers.

The Boston Globe was contacted in advance, emphasizing that superior care would be provided to patients during the heal-in. Thus, there was widespread public sympathy and support for this effort.

As I recall, the patient census soared from 800 to the full 1,200-bed capacity in two days. This required that some patients seeking admission were temporarily deferred to Massachusetts Memorial and Massachusetts General, New England Medical Center, and other area hospitals.

The city of Boston finally got the message, and the necessary patient care improvements were initiated.

This was not an action taken lightly and indeed only as a last resort. The interns and residents at Boston City Hospital felt totally vindicated by these positive results.]

I wonder if, with a majority of healthcare practitioners supporting single-payer, this would be an action they could take to make a point?  Order enough expensive tests that insurance companies would have to pay out or deny, create administrative bottlenecks, etc.  Even insurance employees of conscience could assist.  Dunno.

Anyway, I've just been trying to think of other ways people involved in delivering care can get involved somewhere between sidewalk summits and civil disobedience.

ntodd

198 More Sundays: A Healthcare Revolution Without Torches And Pitchforks

Twenty-four years ago tomorrow the four-day nonviolent People Power Revolution began in the Philippines.  I find it a curious historical coincidence that Thursday--the day Obama is holding his "bipartisan" HCR summit--marks the anniversary of the people's victory over the dictator Marcos.

The spark that set it all off was a corrupt snap election called to prop up Marcos' hold on power.  All regimes require the consent of the people and crave the veneer of popular legitimacy.  The tyrant fraudulently declared victory over his opponent, Corazon Aquino (who died last August), and that was his undoing:

After the election Cory Aquino spoke to a crowd of one million people at a rally in Manila. She proposed a seven-part program of nonviolent resistance, including a one-day work stoppage and a boycott of Marcos-controlled banks, stores and newspapers. She urged people to "experiment with nonviolent forms of protest" and declared: "...if Goliath refuses to yield, we shall keep dipping into our arsenal of nonviolence and escalate our nonviolent struggle." The revolution had begun.

On February 22, 1986, Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Deputy Chief of Staff Fidel Ramos defect from the Marcos government. Enrile and Ramos barricade themselves in the Defense Ministry headquarters in Manila, along with a small group of sympathetic troops. They say they are prepared to die rather than continue supporting the corrupt Marcos regime.

The revolution employed a variety of Methods, including some I've been discussing in the context of healthcare reform: withdrawal of bank deposits, boycotts and strikes.  Success was also made possible by the mutiny of regime officials.

Of course it started with 47. Assemblies of protest or support:

Opposition to the policies or acts of an opponent, or support for certain policies, may be expressed by public assembly of a group of people at appropriate points, which are usually in some way related to the issue.  These may be, for example, government offices, courts, or prisons.  Or people may gather at some other place, such as around the statue of a hero or villain.  Depending on the particular laws and regulations and on the general degree of political conformity, such an assemblage may be either legal or illegal (if the latter, this method becomes combined with civil disobedience).

...

In Berlin in 1943...about six thousand non-Jewish wives of arrested Jews assembled outside the gate of the improvised detention center near the Gestapo headquarters demanding release of their husbands.  And in the entry for March 6, 1943, Goebbels wrote in his diary: "Unfortunately there have been a number of regrettable scenes at a Jewish home for the aged, where a large number of people gathered and in part even took sides with the Jews."

One of the most common objections when I bring up nonviolent action is that the apathetic/corrupt/rightwing media won't give us coverage, so there's no point to the exercise.  Global protests of the Iraq War are often used as proof of the folly. 

That, however, is based upon a few faulty assumptions: media doesn't cover such assemblies (yes, they do), coverage is supposed to generate sympathy/shame within the regime (it isn't necessarily), without coverage it's a tree falling in the woods (depends on the type and goal of the action).  If you consider the Filipino example, nobody was trying to somehow get Marcos to give up power simply by getting a million people to show up on TV.

The point was to rally the troops, as it were--to inspire, to encourage them to not only resist but do so nonviolently, and to demonstrate that it was a collective effort so no individual should be afraid of going alone.  It would be great if we could effect social or political change just by holding up a bunch of signs, but entrenched interests are not going to be swayed by news reports of even the largest "focus groups" without follow-up and real consequences.

That's not to say having coverage, especially positive coverage, isn't welcome.  Any channels of communication to a larger audience is helpful to the cause, of course.  But folks do tend to notice the impact of action if it's massive enough (e.g., snarled traffic, lost revenue) all by themselves, so let's not grant the media some magical powers without which we would never experience reality.

Aquino educated her audience, provided them with a strategic framework and specific tactics.  Her appeal was to the people, not her opponent.  Even had there been no media coverage of that event, she reached a million citizens directly and launched a successful revolution.

The Filipinos could have reacted completely passively, just accepting the old dictatorship and the games Marcos played in stealing the election.  Or they could have opted for violence.  Instead, they doubled their chance of victory by resisting nonviolently:

Our findings [using data on major resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006] show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns.

There are two reasons for this success. First, a campaign’s commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target. Recognition of the challenge group’s grievances can translate into greater internal and external support for that group and alienation of the target regime, undermining the regime’s main sources of political, economic, and even military power.

Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime. Potentially sympathetic publics perceive violent militants as having maximalist or extremist goals beyond accommodation, but they perceive nonviolent resistance groups as less extreme, thereby enhancing their appeal and facilitating the extraction of concessions through bargaining...We assert that nonviolent resistance is a forceful alternative to political violence that can pose effective challenges to democratic and nondemocratic opponents...

There is never a guarantee of success in any endeavor, nor is there such a thing as a risk-free revolution.  Yet I'd rather use a combination of the 198 different tactics we cover here as part of a strategic nonviolence campaign than picking up the proverbial pitchforks and torches.

Just look at the odds.  Violence dramatically favors the house.  If you go with nonviolence most of the time you beat the house and walk away from the table much, much richer.

Now we're not trying to overthrow a government when it comes to healthcare, but we are rebelling against a ruthless corporatist regime that keeps us down whilst increasing its own wealth.  We can beat the insurance companies and their thralls in DC if we extrapolate from the victorious movements that rid themselves of the worst tyrants.  No need for bulldozers or airplanes, just people.

We can begin with some assemblies on the 25th to reach out, to educate our fellow citizens and elected employees in person.  We probably can't achieve reform as quickly as the Filipinos got rid of a dictator, and a few "street summits" probably won't create enough space for Congress and the President to give us the single-payer system we need, but that's okay.  You have to start somewhere.

So no more trying to come up with reasons why nothing will work, reasons why we shouldn't try.  Instead, imagine how we can make People Powered Reform happen, andlet's get to it.

ntodd

(Post at Pax Americana, Dohiyi Mir, Green Mountain Code Pink, and Daily Kos.)

This Protest Will Self-destruct In 10 Seconds

That's one option:

Like many people, Terry Hoskins has had troubles with his bank. But his solution to foreclosure might be unique.

Hoskins said he's been in a struggle with RiverHills Bank over his Clermont County home for nearly a decade, a struggle that was coming to an end as the bank began foreclosure proceedings on his $350,000 home."When I see I owe $160,000 on a home valued at $350,000, and someone decides they want to take it – no, I wasn't going to stand for that, so I took it down," Hoskins said.

...

The Moscow man used a bulldozer two weeks ago to level the home he'd built, and the sprawling country home is now rubble, buried under a coating of snow.

Method: 23. Destruction of own property.

I suppose one could argue this wasn't Hoskins' property since the bank technically owns it, but whatever.  Whether you're burning British cloth,draft cards or your home (okay, this guy bulldozed his and to his credit didn't then crash a plane into the bank), it's still a pretty powerful statement.

ntodd

198 More Sundays: If We Take To The Streets We Can Beat K-Street

Jeannette Rankin is a hero of Ericka's and mine, and a major inspiration ("mascot" seems wrong) for Green Mountain Code Pink.  The first female Member of Congress, a leader in the suffrage movement, she became a devotee of MLK in the Civil Rights/Vietname War era.  In January of 1968 she led 5000 women in the Rankin Brigade to confront Congress and famously said, "If we had 10,000 mothers willing to go to prison, we could end this war."

I wonder what it would be like if we formed a new Health Brigade to fight for single-payer.  Perhaps the Brigade could kick things off with a day of action after some low-level electronic lobbying leading up to Obama's HCR summit. 

I was thinking March 15--the anniversary of LBJ's "we shall overcome" speech to Congress--which is a Monday, so Congressional offices in DC and every district will be open for business (in my experience the Members aren't usually around on Mondays, but staff are).  Maybe call it Operation Dignity, or Operation Hope, or Operation Health, or Operation Single-Payer, or Operation Something Else People More Clever Than NTodd Can Come Up With.

Whatever the name, I have in mind three Methods the Health Brigade could employ.  First, 15. Group lobbying:

Lobbying in the sense of personal visits to a parliamentary representative by his constituent in an effort to influence his voting in the parliament or assembly is normally simply a verbal expression of opinion.  When does as a group action, however, lobbying becomes a form of corporate nonviolent action, because in addition to persuasion of the legislator, the gathering of a fairly large group of people in order to lobby itself becomes a demonstration.  This may take the form of small group lobbying when a series of individuals or groups in moderate numbers on one occasion, or over a period of time, or on several occassions visit their representatives in an effort to influence them...Or lobbying may be organized to focus on getting very large numbers on a particular day.  This is mass lobbying.

Let's say there were roughly 5000 people nationwide who went to their Reps' and Senators' offices in-district.  Maybe 10 people dedicated to single-payer--we had 16 people in teeny Vermont show up at Peter Welch's office in August--at each office to request a meeting with staff to discuss HCR.  That would be at least 5350 citizens (I know some Senators, like our dear friend Max Baucus, have more than one in the larger states) showing their commitment to real reform.

At those meetings, people could share their personal stories, indicate why they think single-payer is the only right path, and explain how they will fight in the primaries and this November only for candidates who support HR676.  Regardless whether the Member is a Democrat or Republican, we issue our demands and promises for future action.

We could double the impact if we also had 10 people visit each Congressional office on the Hill.  Same template, different location.  Now we've 10,000 citizens making their physical presence felt, lobbying their elected employees, nationwide, all at the same time.  Of course it would be great if we could get 20 people to join in at each location, but 10 as a minimum seems reasonable and does get us symbolic, yet significant, numbers in aggregate.

After a nice chat, what if we upped the ante right then and there?  Say we demand to speak to the Reps and Senators themselves?  Force the gatekeepers off balance a little bit.  No, no, we don't want to check out the website or set up a meeting later with some other staffer, thanks, please either bring them here now or get them on the phone.  Modern technology is so wonderful that Congress surely has the capacity to connect with constituents even if Members are on a roadside in East Nowhere, VT.

If we don't get a chance to talk with our targets, a subset of the citizens lobby can engage in the next level of the action.  162. Sit-in, a form of nonviolent physical intervention:

In a sit-in the interventionists occupy certain facilities by sitting on available chairs, stools and occasionally on the floor for a limited or unlimited period, either in a single act of in a series of acts, with the objective of disrupting the normal pattern of activities.

One major problem with Congress is the fact that lobbyists are constantly making their presence felt.  As I've noted before, when Ericka were in Welch's DC office, there was a Lockheed business card in the guest log just before we signed in.

It's not just money that moves politicians--though that is most important at campaign time--but contact with people and ideas.  If the only folks in their faces are lobbyists and not their constituents, then the former wins.

The default pattern needs to be interrupted, and gumming up the normal daily function of a Congressional office can be a part of that.  What's more, it can provide some good visuals and narratives if 5000 people all across America risked arrest to highlight their dedication to an important cause. 

Even if no media are there, and I'd submit we should invite some to the events, with cellphones and blogs the other delegates not volunteering to be arrested can provide coverage that could further interrupt the default thought patterns of our fellow citizens.  Hey, these people aren't just a few fringers--more doctors like Flowers and Paris would help--but folks just like me and they want single-payer.

Having documented the sit-in and arrest, the rest of the delegations can engage in some other Nonviolent Protest and Persuasion:

Several methods may be used in attempts to put pressures on individual members of the opponent group, whether officials or ordinary soldiers, for example.  These acts may be directed against specific persons or groups of persons, or may be intended to apply pressure on individuals who are part of a large body, such as an occupation army.

Delegates--and people uncomfortable with the lobbying component--would relocate outside the offices to show solidarity and create other opportunities for visuals and interactions with 34. Vigils:

A vigil is an appeal normally addressed not to one or a few person, but to many people.  Like picketing, a vigil consists of people remaining at a particular place as a means of expressing a point of view.  It differs from picketing, however, in that it is frequently maintained over a longer period of time, sometimes around the clock, and is associated with a more solemn attitude, often of a pleading or religious character.  It often involves late hours and loss of sleep.

Part of our protest and persuasion should focus not on our opponents in government, but potential allies in the population at large.  As I said the other day, we need to get our fellow citizens to understand how important this civil rights issue is, how it impacts them, and how they might get involved.  The more people you convince to join the movement through vigils, phonebanking and canvassing, the more pressure that can be brought to bear on the President, Congress and corporations through phonecalls, letters, lobbying, boycotts and strikes.

Now the big question: how do we get this Brigade marching?

ntodd

(Post at Pax Americana, Dohiyi Mir, Green Mountain Code Pink, and Daily Kos.)