Michael Lerner tattles: the state of the antiwar movement
[Thanks to Lou Proyect for pointing this out. His comments are at http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/eavesdropping-on-a-phone-conference/. The original transcript is at http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=20070907191110516&mode=print.]
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5723.html
Anti-war leaders stymied, frustrated By: Mike Allen September 10, 2007 07:32 PM EST
A well-known anti-war leader has gone public with the transcript of a
private conference call that shows peace activists are exasperated
with the Democratic congressional leadership and at a loss for a long-
term strategy.
The Aug. 29 call highlights divisions in the Democratic Party that
Republicans are gearing up to try to exploit as Congress debates its
response to the report on Iraq this week by Gen. David H. Petraeus
and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
On Monday, the pair begins two days of testimony on Capitol Hill.
Republicans say the call reflects the degree to which war opponents
have failed to gain the advantage that many in both parties thought
would build over the summer.
Rabbi Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun magazine, posted the
transcript Friday on the website of the Network of Spiritual
Progressives, of which he is a co-chair.
The transcript shows that opponents of the war in Iraq plan to try to
convince freshman Democrats from conservative districts that they
might not get reelected unless the party produces something serious
in the way of resistance to the war.
But the call shows the war opponents are having little success
because of fears about the impact on next year’s elections if the
party is seen as defeatist.
The call, which Lerner titled “Strategizing With Leaders of the Anti-
War Movement,” included two sympathetic members of Congress and
representatives of groups ranging from Code Pink to the Progressive
Democrats of America.
Lerner — who is based in Berkeley, Calif., and is a leader of what he
calls “the religious left” — told Politico in a phone interview on
Sunday that he concluded from the call that the anti-war movement
does not have a long-term strategy, even though the war “is going to
continue through the end of President Bush’s administration” and
perhaps into the term of the next president.
“A central point that the spiritual progressives are trying to make
to the secular progressives is this: People in the U.S. are opposed
to the war, but they feel that they need to have a picture of what
the world would look like if the U.S. were to withdraw from the world
by leaving Iraq,” Lerner said.
Lerner said he posted the transcript in an effort to convince war
opponents that they need “some fundamentally new thinking.”
“Right now, we could write the story of this Congress as ‘Profiles in
Cowardice,’” Lerner said. “There’s a great deal of frustration with
the Democrats in the Congress – a sense almost of betrayal.
The Democrats don’t have – and even the people in the anti-war
movement don’t have – a coherent alternative world view from which to
base a strategy. That’s why they end up debating everything on the
same terms that the Republicans do.”
Lerner, 64, said he is on the Orthodox side of the Jewish Renewal
Movement; he gained a measure of fame early in the Clinton
administration when then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton quoted his
phrase “politics of meaning” in speeches.
Lerner said the transcript was prepared by his staff and that he is
certain it is accurate.
Republicans are circulating the link to the transcript and think it
makes their case that opponents of the war in Iraq are losing ground.
“This call shows the tables may have turned,” said one Republican
official.
“It shows the tightrope Democrats have to walk with an angry group of
liberal organizers who are sensing defeat.”
The transcript quotes Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), who is co-chair
of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as saying: “The people that
need to hear are the moderate Democrats who are holding up the whole
thing.
They’re the ones who have to know that their people care, that they
[want to] bring our troops home. They swear they don’t. They swear
that they’ll lose their elections if they do the right thing.”
When one peace organizer talks about “peeling away Republican support
for the war,” Woolsey interjects: “Maybe you folks should go after
the Democrats.”
Chris Shields, Woolsey’s press secretary, said in reply: “As a leader
of the anti-war movement, the congresswoman is committed to working
with outside groups, her colleagues in the House and her party’s
leadership to bring our troops home to their families in a safe and
orderly manner.”
During the call, Woolsey advises the activists: “Help people change
the conversation from ‘abandoning the troops’ to funding orderly
redeployment. I’m telling you, that’s going to take six months to a
year. … Progressives know that whether we spend money on this or not
is going to make the difference. That’s all the House can really do,
the budget part of it.”
The activists express discontent with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-
Calif.). At one point, Woolsey, who represents Marin and Sonoma
counties, is quoted as saying: “I believe that Nancy is with us, and
she’s counting on you guys … and me to push from the left in the
Congress.”
Lerner, in the interview with Politico, was not sympathetic. “We’re
not that concerned about what’s going on in her heart,” he said.
“We’re trying to end the war, and in that, she does not seem to be
very much with us, [she] is not willing to take any serious political
risk.”
Jennifer Crider, a Pelosi aide who is communications director of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in response: “We
understand their frustration. Democrats are frustrated more
Republicans won’t listen to their constituents and join our fight to
end the war.”
The other lawmaker on the call, Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), defends
Pelosi. “The speaker doesn’t have the votes,” he said. “If you see
what has happened in the Democratic Caucus, I don’t think you’d be
quite as critical of the speaker. She really is trying. … We cobbled
together a majority by winning in a lot of seats that tend to be
conservative: in the South, in the rural Midwest, and so on. These
members are very much afraid that if they get too far out front,
they’re going to lose their seat, and they’re being advised to not
take risks so we can sustain this majority.”
“You know, it’s a calculated decision, and it’s a difficult one,”
Moran added. “I think I know where Nancy is in her heart, and I think
she is where we are. But she’s in a leadership position now. She
needs to represent more than her immediate constituency; she’s got to
represent the Democratic Party, and there’s a whole lot of Democrats
that are far more reluctant to challenge this president and to make
waves.”
Moran talks about finding cracks in Republican support. “Just as we
have Democrats in conservative Republican seats, they’ve got more
Republicans in what have become Democratic seats,” he said.
“We’ve got to target them. They’re going to have to choose between
their loyalty to their constituency versus their president. Their
president is on his way out, and when you talk to them privately,
they share a lot more misgivings than they express publicly, and I
think we need to tap into those misgivings.”
Lerner said he plans to hold a similar call “after the congressional
thing plays out – probably in the middle of October.” He said he is
debating whom to invite and is not sure it makes sense to include the
members of Congress.
“They’re trying to explain to us why they can’t stop the stop the
war,” Lerner said. “I have tremendous respect for these people, and I
don’t mean to be sounding too negative about them. But I don’t know
if it would be that profitable to have a conversation with people who
have this need to protect Nancy.”