Peacemakers - The old saying

Peacemakers - The old saying The pen is mightier than the sword could only have been coined by someone who never had to bet his life on it.

Fun aphorism, right? I've always liked that one. I always thought a friend of mine coined it - although he tells me I did. Going, going...

Here's another fun aphorism, credited to a high school teacher of Dinesh D'Souza's:If Hitler had ruled India, Gandhi would have been a lampshade.

I love aphorisms!

So do the "Southern Minnesota Peacemakers". I've been reading this site for a few days, trying to figure out exactly what to write about them, after first encountering their website via a picture on Rachel Lucas' site.

And after three days (give or take) of stewing on it, I still have no idea what to write.

I thought about something pithy and dismissive, like P.J. O'Rourke's description of a World Council of Churches delegation to a rally in Washington, "...people who have self-righteousness like some people have bad breath". Read the site - it fits.

I thought, "maybe Rachel Lucas has the right idea - call everyone involved an assclown and call it square". But that's intellectually unsatisfying, and it only ennobles your opponent.

I even thought, maybe it'd be good to call then on their creaking ignorance of history, which is on hilarious display on their homepage. No, it's not the quote by Jeannette Rankin (a congresswoman who voted against declaring war on Japan, on December 8, 1941 - sort of the Paul Wellstone of her day) - her quote is standard fare among the groaningly self-righteous among the peace movement. Funnier is the Boake Carter quote. Carter was a CBS radio commentator from the 1930's and '40s, famous for making up the news and eventually sliding off the right wing into territory that'd make Pat Buchanan blanche and Lyndon LaRouche giggle with joy; he once called Franklin D. Roosevelt a greater threat to world peace than Adolph Hitler.

Of course, their opposition to the new concealed carry law provides a wealth of material. Read the page - its big sources of information are Michael Moore (a story that's been debunked as a fraud from "Bowling for Columbine", at that!) and Chris Rock, and a DFL-appointee former police chief with a vested political interest in opposing concealed carry.

But none of it quite rang the big bell for me.

Then, while reading Instapundit this morning, it all came together - in a piece by Charles M. Brown, "Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist", in the Middle East Forum. The whole article is worth a read - it's going into my permanent bookmarks for future reference - but there are a few money quotes, here:

What did we know about Iraq? Hardly anything. Stephen Zunes, a "progressive" activist academic, once acknowledged that "peace activists largely share with most Americans a profound ignorance of the Middle East, Islam, and the Arab world."[6] This was certainly true for our group, but we didn't give it much thought. We saw ourselves as people of action, not reflection. Did we really need to learn the intricacies of Iraqi history and politics and plumb the broader political and economic issues? Who wanted to sit in the library when there were prayer vigils to organize? We opted to march, fast, and hold our signs. Here was a new cause, in need of champions, and that's just what we were. Iraqi sanctions had to go!

Why, indeed, learn the intricacies of Middle Eastern history (the Peacemakers reference the sanctions on their site) or shall-issue (their site isn't even riddled with inaccuracies - just Moore's fictions and the self-adulatory bloviations of sympathetic politicians) or any other issue where violence is a possible byproduct?

No, indeed - it's all about our agenda - and when you're an activist, the agenda is you, and you are your agenda!

We were so preoccupied with our own agenda that we didn't notice or care that the regime made use of us. When critics asked us whether the group was being exploited by the Iraqi regime, we obfuscated, and in so doing put Saddam and his minions on the same level as the U.S. government

Truth, objectivity, moral right and wrong - none of them hold a candle to the Agenda! And we are the agenda, right?

It's the message, dammit! It's not what you do, it's the message you send!

But it's OK - because unlike the activists you model yourself after - Martin Luther King, the Berrigans, Desmond Tutu - there are no real consequences. No snipers, no jail time...

All of these interrelated social movements are characterized by "dramaturgy"—the combination of drama and liturgy, with ostensible prayers for peace and dramatic protest action in the face of significant jail terms. For some of these activists, dramaturgical protest has become nearly synonymous with other (traditional) Catholic sacraments, as exemplified by the title of Jesuit priest John Dear's popular volume, The Sacrament of Civil Disobedience...in December 1998, Voices was notified that it was to be fined a total of $163,000 by OFAC. Nothing further happened until Bert Sacks, a Seattle member, was actually served with a $10,000 fine by OFAC in May 2002. Sacks declined to pay the fine, seeing it as unethical to give money to the government he saw as responsible for the situation in Iraq.

So with its own version of Berrigan-esque "dramaturgy," Voices fancied itself as heir to the mantle of the Catholic ultra-resistance, the Berrigans, and the Plowshares movement. There was just one problem: we refused the punishments that we defied the government to impose on us. The Berrigans were sentenced to significant jail terms and served years in prison for their protest activities. Voices always refused the (few) fines levied on it and escaped serious consequences.

Remember the Twin Cities' "Honeywell Project", which staged vigils for years outside various Honeywell plants? Hundreds of symbolic, "plastic handcuff" arrests - no jail time. Such a sacrifice!

OK - so compare the examples above - and in Brown's article - with what you read on the "Peacemakers" website. Especially read this snide little photo essay, featuring group poobah Chuck Handlon.

What's it scream? "It's all about me! MY beliefs! MY moral certitude! MY views! MY right to protest the injustices I see (absent any consequences to ME, of course)!"

Look at that smug little T-shirt; "Carries No Gun". Read the group's list of values:

# We will harbor no anger, but suffer the anger of the opponent.
# We will refuse to return the assaults, verbal or physical of the opponent. What opponents? What assaults? You're a bunch of pseudo-religious poseurs in ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA!
# We will refrain from insults and swearing. As should all of us!
# We will protect opponents from insults or attack. Really? Let's debate Shall-Issue. Let's see how your group protects it's opponents from insults; I've yet to meet an anti-shall-issue person who won't resort to insult, implied or explicit, sooner than later.
# If arrested, we will behave in an exemplary manner. We will not evade the legal consequences of our actions.But we won't be going out asking for the maximum potential fine, or insisting on metal handcuffs when we get our whiffleball arrests, will we?
# As members of a nonviolent demonstration, we will follow the directions of the designated coordinators. In the event of a serious disagreement, we will remove ourselves from the action. But since you're only going to events where there is no coherent opposition (right? Right?), that's not really going to be an issue, is it?
# Our attitude as conveyed through words, symbols and actions will be one of openness, friendliness, and respect toward all people we encounter, including police officers and workers. On your website, you tout the City of Duluth's "Guns Not Welcome" sign campaign, a pet project of ultraliberal Gary Doty. As a citizen who has never so much as stolen a candy bar in my life, I do not find this "open, friendly and respectful" - it is, in fact, corrosively bigoted.
# We will not damage property. Nor should you.
# We will not bring or use any drugs or alcohol. Whatever floats your boat!
# We will not run or use threatening motions. Er...that's common sense...
# We will carry no weapons. That'd be inconsistent, now, wouldn't it?

it's all about buffing the "peacemaker's" sense of invincible self-righteousness to a fine sheen, without fear of that self-righteousness being challenged in any meaningful way.

And maybe an unwillingness to face any challenge - a request for an email interview went unanswered.

It's still out there.

Posted by Mitch at July 30, 2003 05:51 AM