Bringing Out the Worst...

Aldahlia has an interesting post up (yesterday, but I'm behind) which, among other things, takes a view on the Cindy Sheehan protest which I've heard echoed here in Texas quite a bit:

Cindy Sheehan is bringing out the worst in people.  And, while I can see the value in exposing monsters… it’s not especially pretty, and it’s not helping me think that this country is headed for anything but more ugly.

Maybe it's true, and, to be sure, there are people taking advantage of this situation.  And perhaps we are headed for an ugly period in our nation's history (and there have been those who've demonstrated, in the past couple of days, that they are unwilling to keep things civil there in Crawford).  I'd argue, however, that things have been ugly for quite a few years now and the reason that there's such attention being drawn to Cindy Sheehan is that those of us who've been screaming into the storm of faux-bravado disguised as patriotism only to have the words blow back into our faces have finally found someone who is unequivocal about their stance and who's words are breaking through to an audience who have otherwise refused to listen.

And, to that end, I want to be clear about what I saw down there in Crawford.  There were certainly some crazy hippies.  There were definitely people handing out Marxist tracts.  There were, apparently, exhibitionists there to get attention to (in more ways than I expected).  But, those were the exceptions to the rule.

For the most part, the people that have joined up with Cindy Sheehan in Crawford are simply normal, everyday people who've been against this war for a long time.  Many of them are anti-war activists in general, and many of them, like me, believe that to everything there is a season, and sometimes the season calls for war.  But those who are there for legitimate reasons are there united because of anger at the way the war was presented to us, disappointment at the lack of accountability that the leaders have been held to, and frustration and the inability we've all felt to convey those reasons to the normally well-meaning, good people around us.

So, to that extent, Cindy Sheehan has become more than just a grieving mother.  She has become a symbol in many ways.   But Rosa Parks, MLK, JFK... they all became symbols too.  It is never fair for human beings to become symbols for a movement, but sometimes people need something they can identify with.  I'm not comparing Cindy Sheehan to Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, or John F. Kennedy, but she has, like those people did, given a large group of us hope -- Not a hope that this one action will end an unjust war or change the President's mind in some way, but that the fact what she's doing may help persuade a public that is beginning to see the folly of the war.

Many have argued that Cindy Sheehan has now morphed from grieving mother to political activist.  This argument is intended to discredit her to the point where she's ineffective.  I don't get it.  George Bush is a political activist too.  He had the money and the family name to take his action in public office.  Activism isn't a bad thing.  Without activism, we simply stand by while others make decisions for us.  That's the definition of a nanny state.

And I can think of no better reason to become an activist than to see your loved ones die in a war that you feel was wrong.  As she said:

What happened to Casey and humanity because of the apparent dearth of honesty in our country's leadership is so profane that it defies even my vocabulary skills. We as Americans should be offended more by the profanity of the actions of this administration than by swear words. We have all heard the old adage that actions speak louder than words and for the sake of Casey and our other precious children, please hold someone accountable for their actions and their words of deception

Cindy Sheehan may be in over her head, and we may have made her bigger than she needs to be, but that's all the more reason why good people, with no more agenda than simply wanting to stop our fellow Americans from dying on a fool's errand, need to help prop her up.  Maybe it's foolish, but it is something we can do.  As more people have joined her, more people have begun to hear.  That is all we can hope for.

Comments

[Ty]

I think the attention Ciny Sheehan is bringing to the antiwar movement is great. But I do not think she is in over her head. If you listen to her speak (which I am sure you have a lot lately), besides her soft voice and motherly mannerism, she is very tough. She is smart, and quite honestly sounds better on camera than many politicians. She knows exactly what she is doing. I would imagine she has had this pretty well planned out for some time now.

The thing I worry about is her asking the president to bring home the troops immediately. As much as I hate to admit it, we can't do that yet. We made a horrible mistake going there, but now that we have destroyed the country, its infrastructure, its military, we have to stay and fix it. Yes we went there for all the wrong reasons, but we can't leave a country in shambles either and expect that no one will retaliate and that the Iraqis will just get on with their lives. In my opinion, what she should be asking for is a change of strategy. A change that turns our time in Iraq into a rebuilding effort instead of a war against insurgents. Perhaps if we were really putting the country back together, the fighting would die down. But even if it was impossible to do that, even if her asking for it didn't work, it would shame the president with a more politically moderate plan. It would be much harder for the right to ignore. To just pack up and leave is too outlandish. It can't happen and we all know that deep down. But to suggest a change of strategy that would benefit the Iraqis--even a hard core Republican couldn't lambast that without looking like a cold-hearted bastard.

[Jack Diederich]

Cindy is sincere and a sympathetic figure. She is also an activist. Media loves the former (espcially 24 hour cable news) and is willing to overlook the latter (they already have plenty of activists on speed dial if a soundbite is needed). She is spending her authenticity and sympathy capital for a purpose, that is fine - celbrities burn their celebrity capital in much more frivolous ways all the time.

The story of a mother who has lost a son is compelling. People will listen to her out of sympathy until what she says tries their patience. People who already sympathize with her message are just less likely to change sides. Since her message is outside the middle those folks weren't going to change their minds about changing their minds anyway.

In short, she can spend her capital to get a hearing from those on the fence. Troops-out-now types aren't changing their minds and stay-the-course types feel betrayed for her standing on the corpse of her son. Those in the middle might listen because of who she is and might be swayed because of what she says (especially because the media presents a muted version of her opinions). Who she is and what she says are unrelated but likely to be covered together (which is what Hitchens was talking about).

I know you stand in the compelling camp and you know where I stand. Just a fair warning that while she may be the straw that broke the camel's back she is not the place to hang your hat. Don't measure her by the number of her supporters but by the number of her converts and don't confuse the two.

[Dylan]

Ty,

The problem is we are 5-10 years from being able to do that. Can we really afford the cost of staying there another decade? I'm not so sure we can.

Jack,

I agree with a lot of what you said. I think it is a fair analysis of the "Cindy Sheehan" event.

But I disagree with you on this one point: The measure of her success isn't in the number of converts but in the degree to which awareness is increased. This is a country where a good many people still believe that Sadaam Hussein attacked us on 9/11, that we did, indeed, find weapons of mass destruction, and that Sadaam and al Qaeda were always in league together, all of which even the President has said publicly are untrue.

If Cindy Sheehan is effective, it is in the degree to which she can bring the real issues of the war to the attention of a sleeping public that is just now beginning to wake up (and in large numbers, as polls have shown for a few months now... the middle-to-bring-them-home side isn't as small as I think you are making it out to be).

[Ty]

I think you know I lean pretty liberal on this sort of thing, but I just can't see how we can just leave right now. I mean, honestly sit down and think about it. If we left Iraq a war torn mess, factions will rise up to lead and we will be left with A) a civil war in Iraq or B) a government that is worse than Saddam's.

Believe me, I want our troops out too. I have a very close friend who is currently flying refueling planes over there on his FOURTH tour. I want him home. I want him to stop flying with 250,000 gallons of fuel under him. But, I also can't reconcile with myself the idea of leaving a country to the heathens of Al-Qaeda. It truly would become a haven for terrorists if we left the country without proper infrastructure, military and government.

It is a reactionary idea to want the troops to come home immediately. I mean this in the kindest possible way, but seriously, Dylan, sit down and think about it without emotion. Think about what would happen if we got our way and the troops did just up and leave. Ignore the fact that our president is a lying SOB who took us there for the wrong reasons in the first place. Ignore the fact that there were no WMDs or connections to 9/11. We have to get past his idiocy and start to think how to solve this. It does no good to continue bringing up the past without coming up with a plan for the future. We can scream to have the troops come home all we want, but then what?? What if we got our wish?

[Dylan]

I understand what you are saying, Ty. I do. Up until recently I've been one of those people that has said, "Now that we are in, we can't leave."

And yes, pulling out now will leave Iraq in a huge mess. But I'm no longer convinced that we can achieve anything closely resembling structure or peace in Iraq.

It is unachievable.

This isn't about emotion or anger at a lying President... It is about realism.

Read this, especially the part about troop levels. I am just no longer convinced that our presence in Iraq is aiding the Iraqi people in any way, however, I am more and more convinced that our continued presence there is more harmful to the Iraqi people than our pulling out would be (and that is even with the understanding that there will be a bloody civil war in Iraq if we leave).

While we stay, it is bad for Iraqi's and American's keep dying (we're approaching 2000 dead Americans and over 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians). By leaving, the American dead are out of the equation. Maybe it's selfish, but that's what happens when you go into a war that was unplanned for and unwinnable. To me, it has become a no-brainer.

[Ty]

But don't you think if we pulled out we would be setting ourselves up for a country swarming with terrorists?? In my opinion, if we pull out, we will be providing the terrorists, who ALREADY hate us, a safe haven. I can't imagine that wouldn't spur more terrorism. At least while we are there they can't use Iraq to their full advantage. As I see it, at the moment, at least we have some control over them--as minimal as it might be--and that helps protect you and me, over here.

And to be perfectly blunt, what would happen to the troops if we did pull out?? Where would they go? My guess is probably on with the "war against terrorism" and into another hellish situation. They would still be in harm's way and we would have fostered a terrorist state. I can't imagine they would all just come back here and play peaceful games of poker at night on base.

And on top of all of that, I don't like the idea of leaving the country we detroyed in shambles. That doesn't seem right. That doesn't seem American to me. We created the mess. We need to clean it up.

I rarely disagree with you on politics of this nature, but I just can't see a pretty picture. If we pull out, we are probably upping our statistical probability of more terror attacks over here. I can't see allowing more civilians to be killed here.

We made a HUGE mistake. One that history will probably look back on as one of the worst mistakes this country ever made because it will create a trickle down for years to come. In Vietnam, at least when we left, it was over. Done. In this situation, leaving will leave a country in devastation,AND have spurred the ability for the enemy to have freedom to plot, plan and train. The enemy is infinitely patient. They will wait us out. And now that we have stirred them up like a hornets' nest, they are just waiting for us to give them the freedom to sting. At least at the moment, there are very few places where they are openly welcome. They are forced now to work in hiding and secrecy. If we left Iraq, we would be handing over an entire country for them to operate in. And by your own admission, Iraq doesn't have the forces to control their own country.

At this point, I don't see anything "winnable" in the situation. I simply see that we should own up to our mistake, and do our best to fix a country we destroyed. The Iraqi civilians deserve a country with electricity and clean water, and a government that can protect them, and they cannot do it on their own at the moment.

[Dylan]

That's the point, Ty. We currently have a country swarming with terrorists. Terrorists that weren't there before we got there.

I'd be 100% behind your position, and was up until fairly recently, if I had any faith or there was any indication that we could make any headway in any real way in Iraq. Unfortunatly, I don't see that happening anytime in the next over the next decade, and that amount of time comes at too high a price.

I've enjoyed this conversation, though. Thanks, Ty.

[Ty]

I have too...it's been too long since I have been involved in these discussions...And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what I want to happen. A pullout or not. Both ways seem indescribely awful.

But, I do wonder what could happen if we TRULY changed strategies to simply rebuilding.

But, the whole point of this discussion was that I don't like what Cindy Sheehan is asking for. And I still don't. I still think her statement is to reactionary to really do any good. It creates a poo-pooing effect from the Right and the left only comes out looking, well, whiney. On the other hand, I still fully support her attempts to sway the president and the country, and I think it in general is really good for the country to hear.

I wish I could have been at the vigil with you last night...sounds like it was just a few miles from my house.

[Auguste]

I can't remember who it was, but I listened to a speaker on NPR who said the following [paraphrased]:

"People ask me, what can we do? If we withdraw, there'll be civil war. If we stay, we'll continue to lose troops and risk developing it to even more of quagmire. What can we do?

And my answer is: Quite possibly nothing. It may already be too late."

[goatchowder]

At this point, I'm with Billmon on this. I bought into the hem-hawing, "moderate" line that, well, we just can't "pull out" (as George Carlin said a long time ago, "It'd be UNMANLY!"). For a long time (and unfortunately, all through the 2004 election cycle), I believed we could salvage some stability in the region by staying. But the clusterfuck in Iraq is so severe, that at this point I think it's time to cut our losses and get the hell out of there.

That's the pragmatic point. But Sheehan isn't making that point, she's making the *moral* point, which arrives at a similar conclusion. As Kerry once said, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Really, that's what we've come to at this point, and she's right.

[waitingtoderail]

"I think you know I lean pretty liberal on this sort of thing, but I just can't see how we can just leave right now. I mean, honestly sit down and think about it. If we left Iraq a war torn mess, factions will rise up to lead and we will be left with A) a civil war in Iraq or B) a government that is worse than Saddam's.

But don't you think if we pulled out we would be setting ourselves up for a country swarming with terrorists??"

What do you think is happening right now?

[Halfmad]

Why not compare her to Rosa Parks? Rosa Parks simply reached her breaking point one day and refused to give up her seat on a bus. I'm sure she had no idea in the moment that she would have such a tremendous impact on the Civil Rights movement. Cindy Sheehan probably also had no idea how much coverage she would receive, how this would galvanize a nation. I say, make all the comparisons you want. it's about time somebody gave a voice and a face to the majority of this nation who are against this war.

[Jimby]

We should all be very aware of Cindy Sheehan's media "shelf life". I fully support her position and her cause, but while we are pouring on her accolades of being the second coming of Rosa Parks, other issues are being ignored by the media that could help further the anti-Iraq-War movement.

Important issues like the Pentagon's refusal to release the latest Abu-Gharib torure photos, Karl Rove and the Plamegate issue, etc. are all being ignored. There is no question that Sheehan has validity as a focus for media coverage, but let's not drown out the other issues that could help bring our troops home by veritably putting all of our ant-war eggs in Mrs. Sheehan's basket.

[Dylan]

Jimby,

I'm right there with you. And, I want to make sure and mention that I agree, she's not the second-coming of Rosa Parks.

But here's the thing. The latest Abu-Gharib photos, Karl Rove, Plamegate... how much are they being covered in the media. Little if at all. The attention Cindy Sheehan has gotten is useful to us as a conduit to bring the light to those issues, because she's the only anti-war... I dunno.... thing... that has garnered enough attention to make a difference.

[Rose Armitredge]

Cindy Sheehan has discovered her true calling in life - to find celebrity in the death of her son. Cindy Sheehan is a grieving mother, true. If my son died I would be beside myself with grief. I would be prone to outbursts of emotion and harshness. Loosing a child has got to be right at the top of the list of worst things that could ever happen.

Now, all that being said, it is obvious that Cindy has transcended the death of her son as has now come to view herself as some kind of celebrity figure. This is sick. This is wrong. This is pathetic. A quote today from Cindy as close as I can remember it, "Years from now [when history looks back on Camp Casey] you can tell people that you met [Casey's] mom". Well, excuse me lady, but who gives a damn? Is this about you? Why will I want to have met you? This whole experience in Crawford is a sham. Every day I saw more media around than protesters when "the wonderful Cindy Sheehan" was here.

I wish the war never happened. It's incredibly sad to consider all the loss of life. It's hard to imagine how this is ever going to end. I wanted Camp Casey to bring attention to THAT instead of just serving as a launching pad for that horrible woman's fifteen minutes of fame.

[Ms. Q]

Rose, If Cindy Sheehan had wanted to be a celebrity, I am sure she could have managed to figure out another way to acheive that. To say that she is a horrible woman because she did something different than what you would do, is the same thing as the assholes who call her names and attack her integrity and motives. If anyone in this scenario is horrible it is all of the other people that have shown up to opportunistically jump into the spotlight thereby diluting the real message which you seem to have forgotten already. She simply had some questions, and if our President had just answered them, or even listened to them, this whole thing could have blown over and we wouldn't even be talking about it now. I thought only idiots like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh said things like "it is obvious that Cindy has transcended the death of her son as has now come to view herself as some kind of celebrity figure".

[Rose Armitredge]

I'm not talking like that Limberg guy I hope. I have seen O'Reilly on TV, though (I watch a lot of news coverage about Crawford). I don't know, I just think that what started as something honest has become something phony. I watched Cindy Sheehan change during her time here. I started to see things from her that I believe (and some others I spoke with down here) show that this has become her little game.

I definitely agree that there are a lot of bandwagon types here. Some people will do anything to get on TV. That's not what I mean when I talk about Cindy Sheehan. In her case it's more sinister. This stopped being about her son and now is more about her - that's the horrible thing.

Look, I never talked with her myself. My take could be off, I guess. I am not getting "my jollies" by putting this on here. I definitely wanted something good to come from this event and I'm dissappointed by how it went. My biggest fear is that this woman is going to be parading around the country in front of the cameras for the next year or so. If she wanted to say her piece, then fine. I think that's a good thing. I don't think it's a good thing for her to suddenly become the face of the antiwar movement. She's too concerned about herself.

I hope that makes my other note clearer. I don't think I'm an idiot. This is what I saw.

[Bill Davis]

I can't believe some of the post's here being so full of FauxNews talking points, people admitting they watched Bill O'LIEly and saying how this is all about Cindy Sheehan, and painting a picture of a person who just wants her 15 minutes of fame. Get over yourselves already.

She asked a single question, "What is the noble cause our kids are dying for", and she would not have gained any fame at all if team bu$hCo had an answer, or even the guts to meet with her. She would have had all of the wind taken out of her sails if she had just been asked to come in and have a cup of coffee.

And you guys want to BLAME her for seeking fame, and not blame the media for failing to hold team bu$hCo accountable for their lies..., I'm sorry, but some of you are just wankers.

[Rose Armitredge]

Yes, I've seen O'Reilly on TV. I also like to watch CNN (no I don't like Fox "News"), Al Franken, Larry King, and even Jon Stewart (he's sooooooo funny!). I only mentioned O'Reilly because I was accused of being some right-wing apologist. I figured that in the spirit of full disclosure I would say that I've seen that show.

You think you understand what I'm talking about but I think otherwise. I would totally agree that Mrs. Sheehan started with the best of intentions. Your point about her meeting with Bush is absolutely correct. Where we part ways, though, is that I think that this whole episode has taken on some kind of freakish life of it's own. Just this morning I read that Cindy Sheehan plans to spend EVERY summer down here in Crawford! Please spare us! If this were about having BushCo answer her questions then there would be no need to make an annual pilgrimage here. Mrs. Sheehan has tasted fame and she LOVES it. I was an eyewitness to the transformation - were you? I can guarantee that I've paid more attention to this than you have because I'm right here where it's happening.

Disagree with me if you will but don't misrepresent what I'm saying. I am not against the message of accountability or even the president having the common decency to meet with a grieving mother! The story doesn't end there, unfortunately. It's very disappointing to see good intentions corrupted by selfishness.