- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
EDITORIAL: The peacenik hypocrites
Antiwar Democrats give a pass to Obama violence
Question of the Day
American troops are dying in Afghanistan in record numbers, drone-launched mis-siles are killing more people in Pakistan, American aircraft are carrying out missions over Libya, terrorist detainees are facing military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, and WikiLeaker Pfc. Bradley Manning is allegedly being tortured. Despite all this grist, the antiwar movement in 2011 is a shadow of its Bush-era self. The obvious explanation for this is that there is a Democrat in the White House, and according to a new study, this simple answer is largely correct.
“The Partisan Dynamics of Contention: Demobilization of the Antiwar Movement in the United States, 2007-2009,” by Michael T. Heaney of the University of Michigan and Fabio Rojas of Indiana University, appeared in the March 2011 edition of the journal Mobilization. The study was based on 5,398 surveys of demonstrators at antiwar protests over three years and numerous interviews with movement leaders. It’s one of the most comprehensive studies undertaken of the contemporary antiwar rabble.
The authors chronicle the collapse of the most visible and romanticized manifestation of antiwar sentiment: the public demonstration. Rallies of hundreds of thousands in 2007 dwindled to the hundreds by the end of 2009. The authors assert it is reasonable to conclude, “the threat to peace from the Obama administration, as perceived by the grassroots constituency of the antiwar movement, must have been very small.” Yet President Obama has a very different approach to war than Sen. Obama did. He effectively broke most of his pledges for peace. The dove turned hawk in mid-flight. “The antiwar movement should have been furious at Obama’s ‘betrayal’ and reinvigorated its protest activity,” the authors write. “Instead, attendance at antiwar rallies declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement dissipated.”
The difference is that Democrats abandoned the pacifist cause when one of their own decided to use force. Though such social movements routinely claim to be issue-based and nonpartisan, Democrats constituted 54 percent of the hundreds of thousands of antiwar demonstrators in January 2007 and contributed the bulk of the financial support to the umbrella antiwar group United for Peace and Justice. By November 2009, however, with Barack Obama in the White House and (seemingly) firm Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the principled antiwar stance collided with political reality, and Democrats dwindled to 19 percent of mere hundreds of activists. The rump movement that remained was financially strapped, fragmented and radicalized.
“While Obama’s election was heralded as a victory for the antiwar movement,” the authors conclude, “Obama’s election, in fact, thwarted the ability of the movement to achieve critical mass.” Those who were the quickest to moralize when George W. Bush was president became masters of compromise under Mr. Obama. At best, they are opportunists, at worst outright hypocrites.
Dedicated peace activists are still out there. Witness the 35 people, including famed Vietnam War-era leaker Daniel Ellsberg, arrested in March outside Marine Corps Base Quantico demonstrating in support of Pfc. Manning. (Their commitment to the cause will be tested with the WikiLeaker taking up residence in the much less accessible Fort Leavenworth, Kan.) Or the Democratic donors who interrupted the president’s Thursday fundraiser with a protest song. Overall, though, those masses who abandoned the barricades after Mr. Obama’s election have demonstrated that they were merely squatters on the moral high ground, exploiting it for partisan gain. The next time these liberals spin a self-righteous narrative of principled opposition to a Republican president, it can be taken with a grain of salt.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- EDITORIAL: Stopping police asset-forfeiture predators
- EDITORIAL: Obama's 'economic patriotism' means higher taxes
- EDITORIAL: Cellphones, steering wheels and safety
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Ship tours can foster dialogue
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Latin leaders profit from illegals
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Mark Davis
The nation founders, the Lone Star State thrives
Get Breaking Alerts
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- Rahm Emanuel: Send illegal immigrant shelter kids to Chicago
- Washington Times strikes content and marketing partnership with Redskins
- CURL: Obama, staffers not even pretending any more
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- DCCC raising money on suggestion Obama impeachment is imminent
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- Pentagon running out of time to find mass of missing weapons in Afghanistan
- DeSean Jackson working on offensive cohesiveness with Redskins teammates