by Jennifer Fenton
– USA –
Imagine what would happen if the nations of the world spent as much on development as on building machines of war. Imagine a world where every human being would live in freedom and dignity. Imagine a world in which we would shed the same tears when a child dies in Darfur or Vancouver. Imagine a world where we would settle our differences through diplomacy and dialogue and not through bombs or bullets. Imagine if the only nuclear weapons remaining were the relics in our museums. Imagine the legacy we could leave to our children. Imagine that such a world is within our grasp. – Mohamed ElBaradei (2005), Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
Garnering national attention, peace activist Cindy Sheehan is now running for office against incumbent Democrat Nancy Pelosi in California’s 8th Congressional district. Cindy promised the House Speaker that if impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush did not start when Pelosi took control of the House last year, she would run against her in the next election.
I spent some time with Cindy earlier this month. As I waited for her arrival, a trickle of volunteers soon became a flood as everyone crowded into Cindy’s election headquarters. The election office, a large room with vaulted ceilings and unmatched furniture is splattered with homemade banners, assorted publications, and a map large enough to almost cover one entire wall showing every address in the district. Most definitely a grassroots campaign, Cindy’s volunteers have all the makings of a well-oiled election machine. It was the organized work of her passionate supporters that helped Cindy earn a place on the District ballot, a place she needed over 10,000 signatures to secure. She is the first independent candidate to qualify for the California ballot since 1996.
I could not help but wonder how Cindy finds the strength and courage to continue her fight for peace and justice after the death of her son Casey in Iraq. When I asked her, she said without hesitation, “I can not bear the thought of innocent people being killed, occupied, or oppressed because of the actions of my government.” As for her strength, she says “The worst possible thing that could happen to me as a human being has already happened – Casey’s death, nothing even touches that part of my life.” Cindy went on, “I have to make up for…years of apathy. [I wanted to call] the title of my book From Apathy to Activism, but my publisher would not let me.”
Her comment left me pondering the events of 9/11 and how people around the world view Americans. “I travel all over the world and everywhere I go the people I talk to are profoundly upset with the American people,” she says. “They don’t understand why we are not acting.” I have often wondered the same thing myself and I, too, fear the future repercussions of inaction.
“She betrayed her Democratic base”
Cindy says she made the decision to run for office because “Not only has [Nancy Pelosi] betrayed her Democratic base, but she has betrayed the Constitution and she has betrayed the country.” Many critics of House Speaker Pelosi have said that when she took impeachment off the table, she took democracy off the table. “She has taken away our right to privacy, she has betrayed the Fourth Amendment by giving George Bush and the telecom company’s immunity, she continues to fund both wars…she went in saying ‘no blank checks’ and every single time she has given [Bush] a blank check. Instead of taking her power as Speaker and her power in the House of Representatives and cutting off funding, she has continued to fund the war. She has violated her constitutional oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.”
But some Democrats fear the loss of Pelosi as House Leader, not matter how much they may appreciate Cindy’s staunch anti-war stance. Cindy defends her decision to run because she believes that in a healthy democracy, “we need more voices, not less… we don’t really even have two parties. I have seen how vibrant multi-party democracies are around the globe. Some countries have anywhere from 12-20 parties. These systems really allow individuals to obtain representation that truly supports their views.”
Cindy’s anti-war stance is consistent, and she is quick to apply this standard to all candidates, regardless of party affiliation. John McCain has made his intention clear to keep troops in Iraq for “one hundred years” if he deems it necessary, while Barack Obama has sworn to “wage the war that has to be won.” Both candidates have stated they would continue the use of military force in Afghanistan and would consider taking military action against Iran.
“Any candidate I support will have to be against war and using war as an instrument for foreign policy.” But recognizing the need to differentiate individual members of the two-party system from party leadership, Cindy says that many on both sides of the aisle have remained steadfast in their anti-war positions. “I see a real disconnect between grass-root Democrats and Republicans from their leadership.” Citing the example of Nancy Pelosi Cindy says, “this district voted almost two-thirds to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney in 2006, and our representative (Nancy Pelosi) did nothing about it.”
For many Americans like Cindy, third-party candidates have come to represent a viable alternative to the current system, yet they face numerous challenges to secure the ballot access needed to compete for electoral votes. Ballot access laws vary from state to state and there are no federal laws to oversee all states, creating a difficult system where the only two parties represented for the 2008 election in all 50 states are the Democratic and Republican parties. Some consider third-party candidates “spoilers” to the election process. Ralph Nader’s role in the 2000 presidential election has been a source of controversy and many in the Democratic Party blame him for splitting the Democratic vote.
As both viable candidates have moved to the right on many issues, Americans are registering as Independents in record numbers. “I know that Ralph Nader is running a very aggressive campaign to pull Obama to the Left; I don’t see that happening. I think the role of third parties is to give people a choice in the elective process. I would like to pull supporters of Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Ron Paul in order to create energy around a third party that is really viable and credible. One that would have a chance against the two monopoly parties we have now.” Cindy says she’ll vote for Cynthia McKinney on November 4th.
Corporate Influence & Media Complicity
Like many Americans, Cindy sees corporate influence as a destructive force and one that is actively changing the political landscape. According to OpenSecrets.org, campaign spending and fundraising have skyrocketed in the past thirty years, especially when the presidency is at stake. During the 1976 presidential election between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, contributions totaled a mere $171 million. Today, the amount of money raised and spent is a staggering $961 million. Donations from special interest groups make their way to politicians through PAC’s (Political Action Committees), allowing lawmakers to hide their affiliation with leadership PACs. The result is an environment where politicians no longer support their constituents and act instead in the interest of corporate wealth. ”These committees have been able to slip under the radar for years,” she says.
According to Cindy, this influence has far-reaching implications for the American voter, including the information voters hear from mainstream media sources. “Most mainstream media outlets are just mouthpieces for the status quo and so entrenched in that paradigm that new ideas or exchanges of ideas are lost in sound bites and talking points…The media in this country is complicit in the war effort and have become the propaganda arm of the United States Government.”
Earlier this month, the Washington Post reported that the FCC is currently investigating allegations that the “Pentagon recruited and, in effect, trained nearly two dozen retired military officers to promote the Bush administration’s war policies in the news media.” The New York Times recently showed the link between media commentators and powerful military contractors, “Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.” As Cindy notes, it’s not only the American people that the Bush Administration attempts to propagandize. Senator Jim Webb called for a halt to a $300 million dollar program to produce pro-American news in Iraq. Cindy says this shows how “war profiteers own the media so they are not going to give us the truth about what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Regardless of efforts made by the Bush Administration and the Pentagon to create positive messages about their military strategy, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate concludes al Qaeda has reached “pre-9/11 strength,” and cites, “the rejuvenating effect the Iraq War has had on al Qaeda” for its ability to carry out terrorist attacks. When I asked Cindy to comment on the use of violence as a means to solve problems, she paused for a brief moment before noting, “I am not naïve enough to believe that there may not ever be a situation where we won’t have to defend ourselves, that we don’t need a military at all, but I think out military should only be used to defend our safety and in case of natural disasters.”
“It seems to me to be common sense that the killing of innocent people is going to upset their families, their neighbors, and their communities. So, if you go to Iraq and kill over a million people, you are not only inflaming that country, you’re inflaming the entire Arab world…People who would never dream of resorting to violence in that part of the world feel compelled to – first of all to defend themselves and secondly to reap some kind of vengeance. I am not saying that it is right; I think that solving problems with violence is wrong…but my son was killed, not by a terrorist, [but] by a resident of Sadr City that saw Casey as an occupier. Occupied people have reasons to resist occupation and I believe they have a fundamental and moral right to do so.”
Cindy sighs before completing her thought. “If our children and weaponry were not so readily available it would force our government to look to solve problems in a way that does not kill innocent people.”
Photo by flickr user dbking used under Creative Commons licenses. – Ed.
About the Author
Jennifer Fenton lives with her family in Pacific Grove, California. She has a Master’s Degree in Counseling Psychology and works with gang entrenched youth, addressing social and individual issues that lead to gang violence. Jennifer writes about politics with an emphasis on how national and international political decisions influence people’s daily lives. She has reported from the Middle East and will return next spring to focus her attention on the Iraqi refugee crisis. Jennifer’s writing will soon be released as part of an anthology Life’s Inspirations – the first in a series published by Canonbridge Press.
While I agree with the third parties on many issues to some degree, I have one beef with them all and it concerns strategy.
Politics is a by-product of the American public. The GOP exploits the fact that many Americans are low-information voters. This allows republicans to cause problems for a very political democratic party. Even a hint of liberalism is converted into hyperbolic ranting and raving from the right which leads to lost votes and support in some regions for the left. Look how much flack is thrown Obama’s way.
The third parties seem to ignore this state of affairs and believe they can simply bypass the politics of America. The base for the third parties can’t put these groups into power. The excuse makers on the left often don’t vote, which leaves the democratic party to seek out swing voters, which means being centrist. It’s a catch 22 situation.
It’s also an exhausting balancing act. Initially I chided the democrats for not ending the war after 2006. Then I saw the political theater from the right and realized why the war had not ended. Maybe I’m all wrong about this, and it would have been better for the democrats to fall on their swords and for the republicans to hold onto power and complete the destruction of this country and their party to move the public to change their ways.
Who would pull that trigger though? Would the public forgive whoever did it?
“If our children and weaponry were not so readily available it would force our government to look to solve problems in a way that does not kill innocent people.”
Sistha Jenn it really is that simple, I wish I could vote for her. Lets start with keeping our children out of this mess.
Thank you, Gel, for stating what must be understood. Idealism is wonderful (I am an idealist!) but it must be tempered with pragmatism and reality.
There is a system. I would argue that it is a faulty, maybe even broken, system – and certainly corrupt. But the axiom remains: one must work through the system to change the system. It is really appallingly naive to believe anything else, given the incredible, crushing power of the scene behind “the system,” where the real power brokers live and pull the strings.
Nothing short of the drama you suggest – or something like it – is going to bring about real change. But we may be getting close. It won’t be fun nor will it be business as usual.
The problem I have with third parties are similar to Gel’s, you have to have a majority to have control, and unless both parties are taken apart there is no way to stop the other party.
Although the Dems got control of the congress, without 60 votes in the senate nothing gets done, nothing!
Should Pelosi have started, or allowed impeachment proceedings? Well, if the Dems win a super majority, and the presidency, then I would say that Pelosi did the right thing, in this instance, the end justifies the means. Imagine if they had impeached Bush, and McCain wins the election. What would the impeachment have done? Right, nothing!
Great article though!!!
Thank you to Jennifer and the editors of the WIP for this thoughtful article about Cindy Sheehan and her candidacy. The corporate media lock down in this country means that many people are unaware of candidates not esteemed worthy of coverage by the MSM. Cindy is s strong voice for peace and justice. I hope to see her defeat Pelosi who has, indeed, failed her constituents and betrayed democracy. If she had led the House in its role of checking the power of the executive, the Bush regime’s agenda of torture, war, spying, lying, and havoc at home and abroad would have been curtailed. Even when the Republicans were in the majority in the House, a strong voice against the disastrous and illegal actions of the regime would have met resistance instead of being passed with ease.
The USA Patriot Act was passed within 45 days of the events of September 11, 2001, without discussion and review in committee in the House. A document of over 400 pages, it must have been written before September 11. It was bad enough that a shocked and stunned Congress should pass that bill that is at the root of so much evil. It is unforgivable that it was renewed.
The recent Wall Street bailout was similarly passed in a hurry without study of the provisions and without debate. The American people are now paying Wall Street’s bonuses and furthering a corporate agenda that is not in our interests. We let not only Pelosi but most members of the Congress know that we did not want this and they voted for it anyway, surely because they are owned by the corporations and do not feel obligated to their constituents.
Pelosi could have made a difference in this last instance, but, as usual, supported the regime’s agenda.
I am very glad to see Cindy run against her. It is good to see this article about her just before the election.
To all who read the article, and read this — it should be known that Katha Pollitt, a Nation columnist and ‘doughty’ feminist, came out a while ago against Sheehan’s opposing Pelosi for the Democratic nomination. She sloughed off critiques on this question, and seems now to have closed down incoming comments about her articles.
She seems to be too clever by half, in this regard.
I posted this at Common Dreams earlier (URL: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/29-9#comment-1068796):
First, let me mention that I received a personally singed campaign letter from Ms. Sheehan yesterday, and feel very thankful that she exhibits such grassroots decency and courtesy. Thanks- Ms. Sheehan, for your letter, and my best wishes for your efforts. I cannot sufficiently emphasize the importance of getting her, and many more like her, into the United States Congress and Senate.
Literally, the survival of human civilization depends on this nation’s ability to break out of the tiresome, deadly and destructive Duopoly that is corrupt to the core, and in which the D and R labels are simply that- utterly false and disingenuous labels.
For the longest time- breaking the Duopoly (or Oiligarchy, or Plutocracy- pick your favorite poison) has been impossible. The neo-Fascist machinery is firmly in place to inhibit the growth of any genuine democratic dissent, let alone representation, in this false excuse for a “democratic” nation. The political clowns and rogues that run the show are deeply marinated in corporate funds, answer to the likes of GE, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, ExxonMobil, and of course, the most deviant and loathsome of them all- Rupert Murdoch. And this list does not even include the various special-interest lobbies- foremost, of course, being AIPAC and its various allies. So vile and corrupt is this setup that even otherwise decent and honorable individuals (such as a Dennis Kucinich, a Russ Feingold, or a Paul Wellstone) are either rendered impotent, or in some cases, drawn into the whirlpool of corruption by the radioactive contagion of the system.
Despite the resilient efforts of a social activist such as Ralph Nader (one needs also mention here how such leading intellectuals as Noam Chomsky are systematically marginalized or ignored in the Fascist Duopoly; for slightly lesser campaigners, such as Norman Finkelstein, or a Ward Churchill, the price of intelligence and clarity is even much stiffer)- the status quo in this dysfunctional system is firmly in place. A major movement, comparable to the Civil Rights campaigns of the ’60s, or the Women’s Suffrage campaigns of the late 1800s- is absolutely essential to move this country towards a fair, race-blind, non-xenophobic, and just plain humane and progressive future.
A friend recently pointed out to me that the continuing emphasis on “voting for the lesser evil” is simply a vote to continue the status quo. I do agree, though, that the criminal Bushco regime’s manipulated ascent to power in 2000 has led to irreparable damage to the world- including, foremost, the genocide of at least one million human beings at the hands of remorseless, accountability-free war criminals.
Yet, in retrospect, if there is a vital lesson to be learned from Nader’s campaigns- it is the relative indistinguishability of the Ds and the Rs, and that both are vicious war-mongers, where so-called “hawks” (actual cowards and ignorant opportunists to the last one) simply browbeat and shout out the few “doves” (wise and actually Jesus-like human beings).
As my friend correctly points out- one mechanism by which this hopeless and destructive stalemate can be changed, albeit slowly- is to provide great public support and funds to non-Duopoly candidates for the U.S. Congress, such as Ms. Sheehan. In my past 28 years in the U.S.- I have seen no more than perhaps half-a-dozen “Independents” in the U.S. Legislature. This is beyond pathetic. One Bernie Sanders cannot be expected to do much at all (it is to his credit that regardless of this fact, he often does get noticed and is heard giving voice to the people and their concerns).
Corrupt and beholden politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein must be removed and replaced by peace-loving, humanitarian and uncorrupted representatives such as Cindy Sheehan, in increasing numbers.
Voters of San Francisco- an exceptional, iconoclastic, and proudly Liberal city within the otherwise narrow and bigoted backwaters that abound in vast pockets in this country- please vote in large numbers to oust the repulsive, traitorous “Impeachment is off the Table” enabler (Pelosi)- who has shamelessly offered support and shelter to a murderous, soulless regime of neocons and mafioso con-men (and women- look at Michele Bachman). PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING AND SEND CINDY SHEEHAN TO THE CONGRESS, and begin the much-needed national atonement for the needless and obscene killing of her son, and hundreds of thousands of others.