The anti-war groups met in D.C. this past Saturday to protest the United States' involvement in Iraq. There were many speakers and it would be fair to say that some of them had their own agenda; some wanted to oust Aquino from the presidency of the Philippines; others sought independence for Palestine; some called for revolution in this country. The prominent theme, though, was to take activism home and work to end the war on the local level by bringing pressure on representatives and senators.
In contrast the much smaller "Support the Troops" rally had relatively few speakers but kept to its message a bit better. There were verbal attacks of Cindy Sheehan and revulsion at the message of the peace protesters as if they were the opposition, but the two most memorable speakers were the Navajo code talker from WWII and the lady from Maine that makes the effort to greet returning troops, many of whom travel through her state.
The organizers of the Support the Troops rally were reactionaries who managed to enlist the support of some pro-active people while the Peace protest organizers were pro-active but managed to enlist a good number of reactionaries. In other words the peace protest suffered by trying to include every member of the coalition, wile the Support the Troops group benefited by using its most esteemed speakers only.
Other than this contrast in size and organization, the events were complimentary. There is no divergence in the essential message of either group. In the greatest democratic tradition one group protested what it sees as a misuse of U.S. power; the other group stands in support of a strong military presence and the men and women who are that presence--two different messages that are not necessarily in conflict.
So what was the sound bite that CNN used for the entire weekends events? The organizer of the Support the Troops event was spewing his revulsion at the "cut and run" meaning of the anti-war protesters. The fact that most of the protesters were opposed to this war before its inception and the fact that this president does not have an exit strategy seems to have eluded the editors in favor of a hot news story about how the country is divided. If this country is divided it is closely related to the media's disconnection from the people.
I get along with my co-workers and neighbors who sometimes have a different point of view. I can talk to most of them about an issue and generally find some common ground for agreement. I do not think that this is unusual around the rest of the country. I do not get the sense, as in Lincoln's time, that we are a house divided against itself.
The House and Senate are split but is there that much difference between the two giant federalist parties? Accenting the extremes of any issue or group is not a very effective means at getting at the truth of a given issue. You would think that having to deal with the difficulty of presenting a balanced perspective of an administration that is extreme would compel the press to look for moderation in stories that are not necessarily extreme. Nope, the press feeds on division and seldom takes the time to consider the value or real relevance of a story. In fairness I must say that the print media does seem a bit more reflective than its faster paced competitor, television but who reads papers?
The News Hour pitted a peace organizer against a support organizer. The gist of the confrontation was that the country must be fully behind the administration or risk emboldening the insurgency. The other side was for immediate withdrawal. The only function of such a debate is to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the viewing public. Might we have been better served by a more scholarly and less partisan discussion? There will never be a shortage of those who would divide us but I would prefer to see their message in its proper perspective--two lines on page 17.
Page one: We hold these truths to be self evident… We the people… We stand on a great battlefield of that war. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. The real rift stems from our inability to say we any longer; we seem to have to speak for a faction or interest. This tendency skews reality.
As the stem is skewed so screws the society
Before you know it the bow breaks.
If you can' speak to the third person
You can't understand
That a seat at the table don't make you a man.
That all of your riches are so much weight.
That the thing we call freedom is devoid of your hate.
This message was brought to you by the word we.
No comments:
Post a Comment