Building A New "Movement": The Downing Street Memos
Not just because many of my relatives got wiped out in the Holocaust, or because my wife is Bavarian, but, like so many
others around the world, I am ineluctably drawn to the Hitler period in Germany. How could this have happened -- 6
million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others herded into camps and slaughtered? More than 50 million killed on all
sides in World War II? It's too much for the mind to comprehend.
And yet, I know that given the right set of circumstances, shameful atrocities could, and in many instances did, happen
in our own country (to African slaves, to Native Americans, to Japanese-Americans, et al). Fold in the current rise of
anti-rational thought and militarist leadership in Bush America, symbolized best perhaps by the fact that torture is now
officially sanctioned U.S. policy, and America would seem ripe for even worse excursions into the shadow world. (For one
such descent down that dark rabbit hole, see the quick chronology below of how the Bush Administration deceived and lied
its way into the Iraq War, as verified by the DSM, the Downing Streets Memos.)
Probably the most instructive book I've read in recent years along these lines, about how easy it is for a nation to
slide into totalitarianism, is "Defying Hitler" (www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/germany-1933.htm ) by the Christian German writer Sebastian Haffner; as a young man in the 1930s, Haffner watched the Nazis slowly,
steadily slice away at long-held freedoms until one day, all Germans awoke to find themselves living in a brutal
police-state.
Being someone deeply moved and influenced by the successful non-violent activism of Jesus, Gandhi, King, Chavez, Day and
others, I always wondered what might have happened in Germany, and thus in modern global history, if a strong and widely
based non-violent movement had existed there in the early-'30s.
Non-violent civil disobedience worked for the American suffragettes in the early decades of the 20th Century, it worked
for Mahatma Gandhi in the anti-colonial campaign in India in the '30s and '40s, it worked for Martin Luther King Jr. in
the civil rights movement in America in the '50s and '60s, it worked for Cesar Chavez organizing a grape strike and
boycott in California in the '60s and '70s, it worked for so many recent non-violent "peoples' revolutions" that forced
corrupt or illegitimately-elected rulers around the world to resign -- could it have worked in '30s Germany in turning
that nation away from its imperialist, self-destructive future?
And could it work today in our own country, given the regime and problems we face as we slide more and more into a
unique kind of American fascism under Bush, where government works in concert with corporations (Mussolini's definition of the F-word) and a non-rational, mostly
religious, fundamentalism?
COULD HITLER HAVE BEEN STOPPED EARLY?
We will never know how successful a massive non-violent civil disobedience movement might have been in stopping Hitler
in his tracks if it had confronted him early and often in the early '30s, led by prestigious church and civil leaders.
But, as we know now, if political demagogues are not confronted wisely and in time to slow down or block their violent
plans, social and military and ethical disaster is often the result.
Within a few years in Germany, for example, the Nazis were rounding up the few outspoken religious and political figures
and throwing them into concentration camps. By the time the White Rose Society, led by those saintly young students
Sophie and Hans Scholl, began circulating their anti-Nazi leaflets and posters, it was much too late. It took a World
War that led to those 50 million+ deaths, to settle the matter.
That's why German Pastor Martin Niemoller's famous quote is so poignant and instructive:
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist -- so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Social
Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat -- so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was
not a trade unionist -- so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew -- so I didn't speak up.
Then when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up for me."
After 9/11, and the beginnings of police-state law-enforcement in America (including the secret arrests and hidden
incarcerations of U.S. citizens), it was time to update the Niemoller quote to our own reality; here was my humble
attempt.
"First, they came for the terrorist suspects, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a terrorist suspect. Then they came
for the foreigners, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a foreigner. Then they came for the Arab-Americans, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't Arab-American. Then they came for the radical dissenters, and I didn't speak up because
I was just an ordinary troubled citizen. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for
me."
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM HISTORY
Please don't misunderstand. I am not saying that America in 2005 is Germany in 1933, or that Bush is Hitler. But unless
one chooses to learn from history, one risks repeating or imitating it, or at least aspects of it, and that's the
instructive lesson we have to take from the comparisons to European fascism.
Clearly, the situation in America is different. There is a functioning Opposition Party, for one thing, which picked up
50% of the votes (or probably more than 50%; we just can't be sure, given our easy-to-manipulate voting system) in the
two most recent presidential elections. And, although the Bush forces control two branches of government, the Executive
and Legislative, their hold on the Judiciary is not complete -- which is why the fighting gets so tenacious about their
nominees for the Appellate and Supreme Courts.
What Bush have going for them, under the twisted strategies of Karl Rove, is a masterful use of the Big Lie Technique, and their
firm hold on huge swatches of the American mass-media, especially talk-radio, cable commentary, small-city/rural
newspapers, and the fundamentalist TV and word-of-mouth networks. In short, Bushevik spin and propaganda is effectively
presented.
And they face a fairly disorganized and/or silenced opposition -- in Congress, in mainline churches, in academia,
mainstream pundits, etc. -- which permits them constantly to set the agenda and batter their way through to victory on
issue after issue, especially as their more civil opponents have still not figured out how to play defense against the
Bush brand of smash-mouth politics. (The Democrats now are better in fighting back than they were during Bush's first
term, but seem these days to engage fully only on highly specific issues.)
THE OPPORTUNITIES OF DRY ROT
Consider: President Richard Nixon looked impregnable after his landslide re-election victory in 1972. But years of
non-violent anti-war resistance, often in the streets, may have weakened the middle-class electoral foundations upon
which his administration rested. Certainly, the strength of that resistance led to over-reaching on the part of a Nixon
Administration infected by paranoia so strong that it helped engender the Democratic Party headquarters break-in at the
Watergate. The fallout from that "third-rate burglary" led to the discovery of the crimes known as the "White House
Horrors" -- the unconstitutional police-state felonies and the attempts to cover them up -- and eventually to Nixon's
resignation in the face of an imminent impeachment trial.
As in Nixon's case, the foundations upon which the Bush Administration rests are dry-rotted. All seems secure on the
surface -- after all, as has been noted, the Busheviks control both houses of Congress, much of the Judiciary, most of
the mass-media -- but, in truth, they are extremely insecure and vulnerable. A healthy majority of the citizenry
believes the Bush apparatus lied the country into a war that has led, and continues to lead, to tens of thousands of
deaths and maimings. Many in the world fear America's power but few respect their leaders. Their actions have brought
America into disrepute, into a target for more terrorism, into turning environmental law-writing over to the polluting
industries, into humongous debt, into cutting and weakening popular social programs and required infrastructure
maintenance, etc.
So one is led to wonder: Is it too late for a mass-based non-violent opposition, one composed of individuals willing to
put themselves in legal jeopardy with civil disobedience, that could help bring down the morally-illegitimate Bush
Administration? I think the objective conditions right now indicate a window of opportunity to do so. But several things
would have to happen.
BUILDING A "MOVEMENT" COALITION
1. A united Democratic Party would have to stand tall and take the consequences for their courage in openly and
forthrightly opposing each and every one of the Bush Administration's dangerous, reckless policies and behaviors. An
active alternative party, perhaps the Greens in alliance with a new entity, would have to present itself as a possible
and electable option for voters if the Democrats wimp out again. (As always, the key here is an honest election, with
hand-counted paper ballots, not trusting our current corruptible voting and vote-counting systems.)
2. The leading anti-war organizations -- now segmented into separate, sectarian groups such as ANSWER, Not in My Name,
United for Peace, et al. -- would have to unite in building a massive umbrella coalition with but one goal in mind:
regime-change at the top. The recently-born After Downing Street umbrella organization ( www.afterdowningstreet.org )
demonstrates how quickly an effective coalition can be built from the ground up; it now has 125 groups participating,
with the aim being to generate impeachment hearings on the Iraq War scandals.
In the '60s and early-'70s, we had built ourselves a "Movement" -- the term derived from the Civil Rights Movement of
the previous decade -- which could mobilize millions of supporters into the streets. The so-called Moratorium alliances
of groups fighting for justice and peace, especially to end the Vietnam War, frightened the Nixon and LBJ
administrations into over-reacting.
Not all of the new "Movement" protests will have to be in the streets -- the internet has opened up so many other
avenues for protest these days -- but imagine, for example, the impact a "Million Americans for Impeachment" march would
have in the nation's capital, with respected religious and political and academic leaders involved, with thousands of
them willing to be arrested in non-violent, massive sit-ins -- based in love and hope -- in order to end this immoral
war and change the way America is being misruled.
3. As this new "Movement" is built, it would need, and want, to reach out to the millions of disaffected independents
and moderate Republicans who are appalled at the hijacking of the GOP by extremist elements. These independents and
moderate Republicans are reachable, but sincere attempts have to be made to bring them into the fold. The bigger the
tent, the bigger the influence. For example, they (and anti-war military officers) should be included, along with
progressive leaders, at the head of any Million-Person March or other major initiatives.
PROOFS OF SCANDAL IN THE DSM
It's not clear what all the unifying principles and themes could be that would energize this new Movement. Big issues
might include the draft and Social Security. But one would think that maybe the Iraq War would serve as the centerpoint,
especially given the revelations of the Downing Street Memos, which verify what many of us have been asserting for years
about how Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/et al. lied and rushed the country into an unnecessary war for their own twisted,
power-hungry ends.
Here's a Quick Chronology of Deception Highlights:
*In January 1998, leaders of the neo-con Project for the New American Century -- a HardRight think-tank that included
such key figures as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Jeb Bush, Jim Woolsey, et al. -- wrote a
letter to President Clinton ( www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm ) urging that he invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. (Clinton declined; he was going after bin Laden.) Later that
year, when musing about a run for President in 2000 and how he would approach Iraq, Bush told an aide: ( www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761 ) "If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it."
*The first Bush Administration cabinet meetings in January 2001, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reported, focused on
finding ways to attack Iraq. Later that year, Bush directed Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to begin considering military
options ( www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11837950.htm ) for Saddam's removal. Even after being told by his intelligence agencies that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaida and not
Iraq, Rumsfeld began badgering his analysts to try to include Saddam Hussein in retaliation plans. Bush himself cornered
anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke and strongly suggested that he find a way to include Saddam in the mix.
*In March of 2002, Time Magazine reported, Bush told several senators visiting the White House: "Fuck Saddam,we're
taking him out." ( www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,110103... )
*In July of 2002, without going to Congress for permission, Bush took $700 million from funds Congress authorized for
the Afghanistan war against Al Qaida/Taliban forces and ##diverted them to the coming Iraq War. ( www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/8458386.htm ) . Meanwhile, of course, Bush during all this time was telling the American people that he hadn't made up his mind
about attacking Iraq.
*The recently-revealed, top-secret Downing Street Memo, ( www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700474_2.html ) dated July 23, 2002, which talks about a just-concluded meeting between U.K. and Administration leaders at the Bush
ranch in Texas, said that the "intelligence and facts" to justify the coming Iraq invasion were to be "fixed around the
policy." In other words, the decision had been made to go to war by the Summer of 2002, and now they would work on
finding reasons to justify that decision.
*In the second top-secret Downing Street Memo, released by the Times of London just a few days ago, the briefing paper
for that Blair-Bush meeting of July 23, 2002, reveals that the Brits were deeply worried about the illegality of the war
action and that both the U.S. and Britain were anxious to find some legal excuse for their pending attack. They
conceived of ways to lure Saddam Hussein into doing something belligerent ( www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html ) that would make an attack more acceptable in the U.S. and U.N.; bombing runs by U.S. jets went on for months before
the official invasion, ( www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613=scahill ) to try to provoke just such a response. But Saddam, aware of what game was being played, didn't react to the bait.
Blair tried another ruse, this one at the United Nations: They believed Saddam would object to allowing U.N. weapons
inspectors back in, and thus create a casus belli, but, surprise, the Iraqi leader said the inspectors could return.
Still, seeking those morally and legally acceptable justifications, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later
admitted that the Administration finally settled on WMD ( www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm ) -- which they were sure would work with the American public and the U.N. And it did, despite the fact that both the
Brits and the Americans were well aware that Saddam had not been active in any WMD programs in recent years, indeed that
his armaments programs were weaker than those of Iran and North Korea. The preliminary work of the U.N. inspectors
seemed to verify that there were no stockpiles of WMD.
*The U.N. inspections were cut off abruptly. The "shock and awe" bombing and land invasion began in March of 2003,
nearly one year to the date from when Bush told the senators that Saddam was a goner, "we're taking him out."
* Late Flash: As we were preparing this upload, still more leaked memos surfaced on the Times of London from inside the
Blair Administration, reproduced at Raw Story ( www.rawstory.com ), which document in even more detail how nervous the Blair government felt in many ways by the U.S. tunnel-vision rush
to war, and the reasons given for that war. It makes for stunning reading.
BUILDING OUR POLITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
So the Iraq War scandals and coverups might well provide the organizing principles for the new "Movement." But whatever
the central issues turn out to be, the point is that nothing will happen unless we radically alter the way we confront
the Bush Administration. They have sown fear into the body politic, including the Left and moderate middle; they have
encouraged division and fac tional in-fighting among progressives; they have marginalized and smeared mass-media organs
and spokesmen in opposition. Something has to change.
We can't count on the elections of 2006 and 2008 to bring the major changes that are required -- not just because of the
time-gap between now and then, but mainly because the same three GOP-supporting corporations continue to own the
proprietary software that counts the votes. (Which is why a key part of our struggle must be to return to paper ballots,
hand-counted.)
After the 1964 defeat of the GOP's rightwing presidential candidate, Sen. Barry Goldwater, the HardRight began its long
campaign to assume power, knowing that it would take them decades to build the required political/media/think-tank
infrastructure that would lead to victory, as it did in 1980 with Reagan's election and later with Newt Gingrich's
mid-'90s reign in Congress and then Bush#2 in the White House in 2000.
We don't have the luxury of decades. We who want to return our country to its moral, Constitutional foundations must
jump-start the process of building and enlarging our political infrastructure right now. If we don't, the forces of
repression, militarism and incipient fascism will suck us all further into their shadow vortex.
The time to move, to "Movement," is now. #
*************
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., was a journalist/activist in the civil rights and anti-war movements of the '50s and '60s. He
has taught at various universities, worked as a writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits
the progressive website The Crisis Papers ( www.crisispapers.org).
First published at The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground 6/14/05.
Copyright 2005 by Bernard Weiner