[NYTr] Clueless Crusaders: Tom Hayden in The Nation

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Counterpunch - Dec 24, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh12242007.html

[John Walsh takes on those who pitch for the One Party with Two Names.]

Clueless Crusaders

"Join the Race," Cries Tom Hayden. But Where's the Horse?

By JOHN WALSH

Tom Hayden has been given the cover article for The Nation's December
17 issue to instruct the peace movement for 2008. Not since the cover
page endorsement of the prowar John Kerry in 2004 has there been such
an embarrassing face to this journal. In essence Hayden's call is to
vote Democraticocrat in 2008 - and keep your fingers crossed. That is
about it. Confronted with prowar Democraticocrats and prowar
Republicans, Hayden cries, "Stop the war. Vote prowar
Democraticocrats." At the same time his co-counsellor for the official
peace movement, Phyllis Bennis, has been lamenting that antiwar voters,
in the depths of their benightedness, may fail to understand
"intuitively" why they should vote for prowar Democraticocrats in 2008.

Hayden begins with what cannot be denied, conceding that the "leading"
Democraticocrats, HRC, BO and JE do not pledge to end the war, always
hedging their promises to remove troops by limiting the pledge to
"combat troops," a recipe for "Vietnamization" which Hayden should be
able to recognize; by speaking of keeping troops in Iraq at least until
2013; by failing to give dates for Democraticolishing the gargantuan
bases still going up; and of course by labeling hapless Iran as a
"danger." Hayden even quotes one anonymous voice within the Beltway
Democratic establishment: "It's beginning to look a lot like 2004." But
how does Hayden characterize 2004? In that year he says, the
Democraticocrats "muted and muddled their antiwar position." "Mute and
muddled"? "Antiwar position"? Wth a few hiccups, John Kerry ran an
explicitly prowar campaign in 2004. In 2006 the Democrats ran what
looked like an antiwar campaign until you read the fine print. Of
course since they gained control of Congress, they have supported the
war funding at every turn. "Mute and muddled" it's not; full-blown
complicity in the war it is.

Hayden then suggests that independent groups like MoveOn, a brand name
that is no longer trusted, will carry their message to the people. What
will that message be? It will be "consistent with, if not identical to,
the candidates' message." But Hayden has already stated that the
message of the leading candidates is prowar.

Next, Hayden proceeds to the real problem, in his opinion ­- the
voters. Hayden identifies "public opinion" as one of the pillars of the
war ­ on a par with "ample military funding," the latter courtesy of
the Democrats, although he fails to mention that. So what does he
propose? It is simple, "greater efforts at persuading the ambivalent
voters." Now Hayden has been forced into blaming the victim, knowing
full well that upwards of 70 per cent of the voters want out of Iraq
asap. What more does he want? Is he waiting for Dick Cheney to come
around? But Bush's "surge success" propaganda, entirely unopposed by
the Democratic candidates, may erode that precious 70 per cent. Instead
of building on that 70 per cent, HRC, JE and BO are allowing it to be
taken away by Bush. This is yet one more betrayal of the peace movement
by the Democrats.

Turning at last to the primaries and candidates, Hayden cautions:
"Voting for Kucinich, Richardson or Gravel is a legitimate choice to
support an important voice--but not a nominee." Here Hayden shows he
knows, and approves, how the game is played. Kucinich and Richardson
are decorations, providing sops to the peace movement without any
chance of winning in the framework of the Democratic Party ­ and their
antiwar credentials are dubious anyway, Kucinich having endorsed Kerry
in 2004 and Richards having been a major player in the Clinton
administration which killed 500,000 Iraqi children with its sanctions.

Those are a few lowlights of Hayden's meandering and contradictory
guide to action in 2008. Hayden's predicament is that 2008 is a race
with no Democratic peace horse. Nevertheless he gallops obliviously
along on foot, with only an imaginary steed beneath him, looking very
much like Monty Python's undaunted, clueless crusaders.

[John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar at gmail.com ]