[Sosfbay-discuss] Two Candidates Explicitly Put Peace Before Party: Kucinich and Paul Challenge Their Parties

[Drew Johnson]

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=44226
Two Candidates Explicitly Put Peace Before Party: Kucinich and Paul
Challenge Their Parties
Kevin Zeese

Kevin Zeese is director of Democracy Rising.

November 29, 2007

Peace voters have choices in 2008, will they have the courage to support
peace candidates?

In recent debates the candidates were asked whether they will support the
nominee of their party. Despite increasingly harsh rhetoric between the
candidates only two candidates had the courage to put peace before their
party and refused to issue blanket support for their party nominee. Rep.
Ron Paul and Rep. Dennis Kucinich responded they would not support the
nominee unless the nominee opposed war as an instrument of foreign policy.

This deserves loud applause from the peace movement. No doubt both
candidates will pay a political price for taking such a stand. They may
get the “Gravel Treatment” – presidential candidate Mike Gravel was
harshly critical of the top tier candidates of the Democratic Party and
now is excluded from the debates because the Democratic National Committee
no longer considers him a serious candidate and the corporate media, which
walks lock-step with the corporate parties, has refused to invite him to
any debates. His campaign has all but disappeared.

Kucinich and Paul face other potential repercussions for putting the life
and death issue of war and peace before party loyalty. Both are incumbent
congressmen and if they are unsuccessful in getting their party’s
presidential nomination will seek re-election to Congress. Will they find
themselves with a well-funded primary challenger? And, if elected, will
they find their committee assignments downgraded? Will they be appointed
to subcommittee or committee chairmanships or passed over in favor of
party loyalists? There are many ways for a political party to punish lack
of party loyalty. So, Kucinich and Paul deserve a great deal of credit for
publicly standing up for peace before party.

And, Kucinich and Paul did not just come out in opposition to the current
disastrous occupation of Iraq. They came out more broadly for an end to
the aggressively interventionist U.S. foreign policy that is dominated by
militarism. This is the type of paradigm shifting policy change that is
needed in U.S. foreign policy.

The fact that the U.S. spends as much as the whole world combined on the
military ensures that every other aspect of American civil life is
underfunded. It is why the debt is increasing, infrastructure is failing,
the U.S. remains addicted to oil, college is overpriced, health care for
all unachievable, and pre-school for children widely unavailable. If the
U.S. wants to build economic security at home it needs to stop spending
half the federal government’s discretionary spending on the military. If
we want to build security from terrorism the U.S. needs to stop creating
enemies faster than we kill them. If the U.S. wants “them” to stop hating
“us” we need to stop behaving like an empire.

Sadly, at least one peace group, Friends Committee on National
Legislation, is turning its back on these real peace candidates. FCNL
whose slogan is “War is Not the Answer,” has published a voter guide that
excludes Kucinich, Paul and Gravel – the three candidates who really
believe war is not the answer. FCNL readers will not learn about these
peace candidates in their on-line voter guide. Why? FCNL decided on an
arbitrary cut-off point in polling that excludes these candidates. All the
candidates that are included keep the military option for Iran on the
table and do not advocate cutting military expenditures, only one (Bill
Richardson) calls for complete withdrawal from Iraq. Are these “war is not
the answer” candidates?

For Kucinich and Paul this stab in the back from a peace group comes at a
bad time. Kucinich recently won a straw poll by the progressive Democracy
For America and in early returns Kucinich is leading in the Progressive
Democrats of America straw poll. Paul has been doing extremely well in
straw polls around the country as well as in fundraising and in some polls
is bettering candidates like John McCain. Both seem to be getting some
traction but if the peace movement is not going to even report on their
positions – a movement which should be the base of their support – then
what hope do they have?

Sadly, the FCNL view is not uncommon among peace voters. Too many look at
which candidate is most likely to win. Peace voters need to learn that
voting for peace candidates is the way to increase their power. Voting for
candidates who support the occupation or waffle on whether they will
remove the troops in their first term is voting against the interests of
peace. It is voting for war as the primary instrument of foreign policy
and empire as the goal of U.S. policy – because that is the view of the
candidates covered by FCNL. Peace voters need to have the courage to vote
for peace candidates.

Paul and Kucinich differ on many issues – Paul is a free-market thinker
who sees the solutions to economic disparity, lack of access to health
care, poor education, the environment and the housing crisis in less
government and more market-based solutions. Kucinich, while agreeing with
Paul on bolstering civil liberties and individual rights, sees the
solution to health care as ending the for-profit dominated health
insurance industry and replacing it with a non-profit single payer system
provided by the government. Similarly on environmental issues Kucinich
favors a major government investment in alternative energy that is clean
and sustainable, Paul doesn’t. Kucinich favors abortion rights, Paul
opposes federal government involvement in abortion.

Peace voters have a choice between two solid peace candidates with two
very different views of government and the economy, but they have more.
Mike Gravel is another long-term peace advocate who has been active
against war since the Vietnam era. Some peace voters may also see a
candidate in Governor Bill Richardson who favors a complete withdrawal
from Iraq, but is keeping the military option on the table for Iran and
does not advocate shrinking the U.S. military.

And, in the General Election, peace voters will have other options no
matter what the two establishment parties decide. The Green Party recently
acquired a new member in Cynthia McKinney. The former Member of Congress
recently registered as a Green in California and filed with the FEC to
seek the Green presidential nomination. She has been strongly anti-war for
her whole career and during her last congressional term sought impeachment
of President Bush for his illegal invasion of Iraq.

Ralph Nader, the long-time consumer activist and former presidential
candidate who has been working against the Iraq invasion and occupation
since before the war began, is also considering a run for the presidency,
possibly as a Green or as an independent. He has tirelessly worked to end
the Iraq occupation and throughout his career has been an advocate for
less spending on the military and more spending on the necessities of the
people. Nader has also been a long-term advocate for impeachment of
President Bush and Vice President Cheney for their deceptions and
manipulations that led to the Iraq invasion.

Another Green candidate worthy of mention is Jared Ball. He is an
assistant professor at Morgan State University in Baltimore, has a radio
show in Washington, DC, and is founder of FreeMix radio which puts
together a monthly hip-hop compilation. He is a veteran of Desert
Shield/Desert Storm and an opponent of the Iraq occupation.

The Libertarian Party also has several candidates running and they are
likely to nominate a peace candidate as well. The LP’s official position
on the Iraq occupation is: “It is time for U.S. forces to withdraw from
Iraq as quickly as possible in a manner consistent with the safety of our
troops.”

Peace voters will have choices in 2008. There are several candidates who
oppose both the Iraq occupation and the use of aggressive military force
as the dominant approach to foreign policy. Peace voters make up the
majority of Americans, but will they have the courage to vote their
convictions or will they be manipulated by the two parties and the
corporate media? Will they work and financially support peace candidates?
It is a test for the peace movement to see whether it as the courage to
put peace first.

Kevin Zeese is executive director of Democracy Rising (DemocracyRising.US)
and Voters for Peace (VotersForPeace.US).