|
CounterPunch
March 31,
2003
Hedging His
Bets
Bernie Sanders Votes Maybe on
the War
By RON JACOBS
The US House of Representatives recently voted
to endorse Bush and Rumsfeld's war on Iraq. They did this under
the guise of a bill nominally supporting the troops that, in
reality, endorses Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
Only 11 congresspeople voted against the bill and 22 stood aside.
The rest of the so-called representatives of the people outdid
many of their constituencies in their unabashed support for America's
latest imperial war. Indeed, many of those congressmembers who
voted for the this resolution and the war represent districts
where the sentiment continues to be against the current violence
in the Gulf region. Perhaps nowhere was this more apparent than
in Vermont, which is represented by its lone "independent"
representative, Bernard Sanders .
Upon receiving notice of Sanders vote,
I immediately called his office and registered my dismay. Within
days, I received a letter from the office wherein Sanders reminded
me that he voted against the October 2002 resolution granting
GW Bush authority to use whatever force it required to take over
Iraq. He wrote that he believes history will prove this to have
been the correct vote. Further to his credit, before Sanders
cast a yes vote for the most recent resolution, he entered a
short speech into the Congressional Record decrying the partisan
nature of the resolution. He went on to state further that he
did not support the Bush administration's policies that "led
us to where we are today." After stating his support for
the UN inspections regime and reminding the House of the "phenomenon
of blow-back," Sanders attacked the GOP leadership for
cutting veteran's benefits in the same session they voted to
create more veterans.
There seems to be some kind of contradiction
here. Sanders may have voted against the budget that cut these
veteran's benefits, but by voting to support Bush's war (no matter
how much he protested it), history will most likely judge him
to have sided with that leadership. Like a baseball line score,
when one looks back at a legislator's voting record, s/he only
sees the "yay" or the "nay." There is no
play-by-play account--your team either has the winning score
or the losing score. No details are provided about runners on
third who got thrown out at the plate or an incredible pitching
performance. Likewise, when history looks back on Bernie's vote
for this resolution, they will see that he cast his lot with
the GOP hawks, and not the Democrats and others who voted against
the bill, despite their support for the human beings wearing
America's uniform in Iraq.
At one time, Sanders claimed to be a
socialist. When he was elected mayor of Vermont's biggest city,
Burlington, in 1980, his victory was almost universally cheered
by left and progressive folks in the US. Since he moved to Washington
six terms ago, however, those cheers have diminished, especially
amongst those who know him bes--his fellow Vermonters. It is
time the rest of the country wakes up to this truth: Sanders
Sanders is not a socialist and is not that progressive, especially
when it comes to matters of war and peace. Instead, Bernie's
politics are reminiscent of the Social Democrats of Germany during
and after World War I. Despite a popular groundswell against
that war, the Social Democratic leadership supported the war
against the wishes of many in their own party. Then, during the
failed revolution of 1919 against the German government, it was
some of that same leadership that diverted the revolution from
the masses and had Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht killed,
precisely because these two revolutionaries exposed the duplicity
and anti-worker policies of the Social Democrats.
This is not the first time Sanders has
supported America's wars. For those of us with a memory longer
than the average US news reporter, we can remember Bernie's staunch
support for Clinton's 100-day bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo
in 1999. I served as a support person for a dozen or so Vermonters
who sat-in in his Burlington office a couple weeks into that
war. Not only did Sanders refuse to talk with us via telephone
(unlike his Vermont counterparts in the Senate-Leahy and Jeffords),
he had his staff call the local police to arrest those who refused
to leave until Sanders spoke with them. The following week Sanders
held a "town meeting" in Montpelier, VT., where he
surrounded himself with sympathetic war supporters and one university
professor who opposed the war and Bernie's support for it. During
the question and answer part of the meeting, Sanders yelled at
two of the audience's most vocal opponents to his position and
told them to leave if they didn't like what he had to say. They
chose to remain and point out that Bernie's style of democracy
seemed awfully authoritarian.
After the bombing of Yugoslavia had ended
and the US plan to Balkanize the Balkans neared its completion,
I received many emails and calls regarding our sit-in at Bernie's
office and opposition to his politics of war. Most of these messages
came from outside of Vermont and considered what we did to be
counterproductive. After all, the messages stated, Sanders went
to Chiapas to support the Zapatistas and he's against the various
free trade agreements and the WTO. He's more of an ally than
a foe, isn't he?
My answer to these challenges is that
I'm not sure. So called progressive politicians who do not draw
the link between corporate America's wars and its attack on social
security, health care, the minimum wage, forty- hour work week,
and other issues working people consider important are doing
us a disservice. The wars fought by the US military are ultimately
fought for one reason only--to maintain and expand the power
of corporate America at the expense of workers and the poor around
the world. Didn't neoliberal writer Thomas Friedman write, "McDonald's
cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the
F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon
Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force
Navy and Marine Corps."
As the reader can tell, Friedman thinks
this is a good thing. Judging from Bernie's support for the current
war on Iraq, the sanctions against that country, and his support
for previous US adventures in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, one
wonders if Sanders thinks so, too. Is this what progressives
want to support? If not, I urge you to send Sanders a letter
opposing his war support (no matter how lukewarm it might be)
instead of a donation the next time you get a mailing in his
name. Perhaps he will listen and mount a movement in Congress
to end funding for the folly in Iraq. After all, in his letter
to me, he wrote: "Please be assured that I will remain a
strong voice for peace during these difficult times." Leading
a congressional movement that calls for an immediate ceasefire
and refuses to fund Bush and Rumsfeld's folly in Iraq is a good
place to use that voice.
Ron Jacobs
is author of The
Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground.
He can be reached at: rjacobs@zoo.uvm.edu
Yesterday's
Features
Ben Tripp
Blood
for Oil: the Exchange Rate
Cathy Breens
Report from Baghdad: Mothers, Kids and Crash Kits
Scott Handleman
Fourth
Generation Protesting: Shutting Down San Francisco
Vanessa Jones
Paint
Them Red
Brian J. Foley
Patriotic
Protest for Professors
Zoltan Grossman
After Saddam, a War on Iraqi Rebels?
Philip S. Golub
Inventing Demons
Richard Lichtman
On the Current Experience of Terror
Milan Rai
Blitz-Coup
Pepe Escobar
A Cheap Family Farce
Floyd Rudmin
The Nightmare at the Back Door: Nuclear Plant's as Terror Targets
Chris Floyd
See Rome (poem)
Website of the War
Iraq
Body Count
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- Turkish Delights: a Pre-War Diary by Tariq Ali;
- The Plot to Frame the
Zapatistas: Talkers
and Cowards;
- Drugging Kids: The Plague of Neuroleptics;
- The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal:
a New Investigation.
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
Take a Bite Out of Phil Knight's Bottom Line: Buy No Sweat Apparel!
March
29, 2003
Kathy
and Bill Christison
"Like Being Autistic with
Power": an Interview with Jeff Halper
Ben
Tripp
"My Empire for a Map!": Geography
American Style
Ann
Harrison
The War on Protesters: San Francisco's
Berserk Cops
Kurt
Nimmo
Dead People: Don't Go There
Chris
Floyd
Blood on the Tracks: Cheney the
War Profiteer
Ann
Pettifer
Israelis: Victims No Longer?
Jo
Wilding
Dispatch from Baghdad: Nowhere
is Safe
Ramzy
Baroud
Horror Chamber: Inside the Al-Amiriya
Shelter
David
Krieger
Perle is Gone, But the Looting
Continues
John
Gershman
Dreams of Empire; Eulogies for International
Law
Robert
Fisk
Bombing the Phone System
Brice
Abel
War, Bush and the Jesus Torilla
Tom
Stephens
The Chickenhawk Circle of Hell
Alexander
Cockburn
"War Not Going According
to Plan"
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|