New Haven Independent

Brecher recently co-authored (with Brendan Smith) an article in the Nation magazine putting into historic context the call for an Iraq Moratorium that draws on some of the organizing techniques of the Vietnam Moratorium almost four decades ago, but updated for the internet age. The new moratorium calls for local actions on the third Friday of each month (presumably until the war actually ends). The Independent spoke with Brecher from his home near Wooster Square.

Independent: All the opinion polls show a large majority of Americans are against the war and want to bring U.S. troops home (though they differ on when it’s appropriate to do so), and President Bush’s popularity has tanked. When I cover anti-war demonstrations in New Haven, I usually can’t find a single passerby who supports the war or is willing to tell me so, though many are eloquent in opposing it. Some of the latter have even wondered aloud why they aren’t more involved, but instead watching from the sidelines. Getting a hundred people out to a local protest is considered a successful event, when it’s really a drop in the bucket of public opposition.

Jeremy Brecher: I think you’re right on target in saying that the American public, not only in New Haven but throughout country, have turned hugely against the war. But despite that, the traditional means of protest the peace movement has tried obviously have not drawn in more than a tiny proportion of those in opposition — as just proven by the Sept. 15 demonstration in Washington, D.C. One of key ideas of the Moratorium is to encourage people to find their own means of protest in their own milieus and for activists not to just go to D.C. for massive periodic demonstrations, but to be catalysts to help people find what works for them.

I’ve seen you at plenty of demonstrations in the past. Do you plan to go to the United for Peace and Justice rally against the war in Boston at the end of October?

I’m in favor of anything anyone wants to do to end the war, but we need a very different approach to help people find their own way into action. We need a way that people can build and develop their action against the war, and one of the key elements is that it’s not a one-shot deal; people can build and network in their own communities. The idea of having one day every month — the third Friday- - that will be the focus of protest activities (not just frantically organize for a one-day demo in D.C.) will allow it to build from month to month and for people to see they can relate to in their own way.

In the Vietnam Moratorium, the second Moratorium day coincided with huge national demonstrations, so it’s not like they’re opposed to each other. It’s not about being in favor of local vs. national actions.

So this is something for those who don’t go to national demonstrations…

Exactly.

The second broad point I want to make is that the real power to stop the war lies with the tens of millions of ordinary people who oppose it. We need a movement of civil resistance where they say they won’t tolerate it and business as usual can’t proceed.

Some examples?

Counter-recruitment activities in schools [countering military recruiting] is something that people could and should be doing.

In New Haven, there’s going to be an action on Sept. 21 by Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice and AFSC [American Friends Service Committee]. There are also activities on college campuses.

One thing that makes this very different from the Vietnam era is there’s a lot of activity that’s being done on the web. What I hope happens over time as this builds is that groups will weigh in in their own way, so churches will have their own activities, unions, community groups — that fit into all the ways people live their lives.

How is what you’re proposing different from what MoveOn.org does? They organize locally and hold vigils and rallies and bake sales against the war.

Certainly MoveOn has played a big role in the development of these kinds of approaches, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this catches on if it became something that MoveOn latches on to. I think the idea of it building month to month is something that MoveOn has not really connected with so far. The other thing is that MoveOn tends to be very, very oriented toward the political arena, closely associated with the Democratic Party. I think this is a more non-partisan effort to express our interest and responsibilities directly, not through the political process. That doesn’t mean people involved in this are opposed to working through the political process, but it’s one that’s not tied to the electoral system.

One thing MoveOn is very successful at is getting people to give money for anti-war efforts, like millions of dollars for newspaper ads opposing administration policies.

It’s very important that people do that, and MoveOn has played a useful role in getting people to do that, but if we’re going to stop this war, people are going to have to play a much more direct role.

How do we get to the next level?

By “withdrawing the pillars of support” — the war can go on because of the acquiescence of people and there are many forms withdrawing our acquiescence can take. Certainly civil disobedience is one; so is helping people resist pressures to go into the military; so is the mobilization of institutions like churches and unions to withdraw their blessing and support for politicians involved with the war. We certainly mean to up the ante and raise the level of opposition. The peace movement has to experiment with defining ways of acting that are meaningful and comfortable for them. We can’t just repeat the same tactics; we have to help people find the tactics they feel are worth doing. I don’t want to give a laundry list; we want to promote creative ferment and ask them to participate in the anti-war movement in a way that’s right for them. If we knew what was the right form for them, we’d already be doing it and they’d already be participating. We have to create the conditions to allow that to develop.

Look at the differences in opposition to this war almost five years into it, compared to five years into the U.S. escalation of the war in Vietnam around 1969 — then not only were there major mobilizations in Washington; there was lots of civil disobedience, like the burning of draft files (not to mention draft cards) and sit-ins on campuses; the mobilization of many faith communities, even, as you point out in your article, business executives mobilized against the war.

That’s why we have to create a situation where people can find their voice.

But what’s the key difference? No military draft? People are distracted by all their toys? Americans are immobilized by fear of another terrorist attack?

All these arguments are very self-flattering to the peace movement. We have not made it possible for people to find the channels to express themselves; we haven’t done nearly enough.

Sign Up for Email AlertsEmail This Story

Your Email:

Recipient's Email:
Your Email:
Message (optional):

Your Name:
Your Email:
Message: