by Jen Kosakowski
Daily Targum (Rutgers U.)
(U-WIRE) NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. — It has become increasingly obvious to me in recent weeks that there has been a surge in writings that vilify and invalidate the anti-war activist. There has never been much tolerance for dissent in this nation, but the proliferation and escalation of such rhetoric and its attempts to disengage anti-war activists should be questioned.
The most prevalent, and contentious, argument renders the entire anti-war movement a group of willful dissenters who are unpatriotic and anti-American, as if the fundamental right to dissent was not the catalyzing force behind the creation of this country. It derides anti-war activism as conspiratorial and anti-war activists as traitors. It produces a bandwagon effect that causes blind patriotism and an insidious conformism that forces people to abandon their conviction and join the masses for fear of ostracism and persecution. Bush’s claim, “You’re either with us or against us,” incites this conformism. It demarcates all activity and thought as either black or white and creates a rift that sends Americans spiraling into endless cycles of cognitive dissonance.
Another frequent insult levied on the anti-war community involves an accusation of blissful ignorance. An editorial in a recent issue of The Daily News accused anti-war demonstrators of omitting the names of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden from any discussion on the war, “illustrating” a lack of any conceptual framework within which to protest the war and an implicit deference toward these figures. The author was concerned that effigies of Bush and Blair were being destroyed, while images of
Hussein and bin Laden were nowhere to be found, and this demonstrated a complicity in the actions of both men. The alignment of anti-war demonstrators with autocratic tyrants and terrorist organizers strikes a particular chord in pro-war Americans and with the undecided masses. Tactics like these are ingenious and effective because they, again, reproduce the “with us or against us” ideology. Bush has used this deft maneuver to win support from anti-choice activists by interchanging images of terrorists with images of pro-choice advocates. It is a pernicious association to make and it continues to alienate those demonstrators bold enough to question the authority of the government.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
While marching in the New York City demonstration Feb. 15, common epithets I heard hurled at protesters were “hippies” and “damn leftist college kids,” as though the demonstrators themselves were outlandish caricatures of exaggerated stereotypes, and therein lay the proof of their invalidation. It is a move in vogue at the current time to discredit dissension by harming the reputation of the dissenters. We can refer to France and Germany as “Old Europe” and thereby call into question every act, every belief of the French and the Germans simply by proving that the source of these inclinations is in itself obsolete or invalid. There is also the belief that anti-war activists have profound irreverence for the lives lost on Sept. 11, as though the events that transpired on that day provide immediate incontestable justification for all future incursions against anyone who “threatens” Americans. Using a highly politicized and emotionally turbulent event such as Sept. 11 — the aftereffects of which still resonate highly with the American people — serves an even more expeditious route of discrediting the anti-war stance. Anti-war demonstrators are charged with indifference toward the sanctity of human life [oh, sweet irony] through their unwillingness to acquiesce to Bush’s demands for war. Sept. 11 has become the unnecessary smokescreen through which we filter every single political act.
In the most recent issue of Time Magazine, there was a particular headline that stood out: “Bush would love as much support as possible against Iraq, but in the end he requires only his own resolve.” It was simultaneously disheartening and stunningly clarifying. For the survival of Bush’s ego, I am sure that steadfast conviction and earnest self-determination are viable elements, but “his own resolve” should not be the predetermining factor in waging war. I believe that the resolve of the American public should be the resolve upon which we focus if we are to hold true to the principles of democracy, and a strong majority opposes military action. If Bush’s resolve is the impetus governing the potential of war, I would beware the Ides of March.
