Sheehan: Pacifist Extremist
I read Pho’s coverage of the Sheehan appearance yesterday and gritted my teeth. I read Tim’s praise this morning and began hammering on keys.
First, I value both voices, but sense there are times that Pho and I diverge - sometimes quite drastically. Still, the voice is valued, even when our positions form a Y in the road of progressive thought.
Tim’s comment that someone should buy Cindy a timeshare on the beach so she can get over herself is, well, pure Tim - and one I find offensive. While I value his political voice, opinions, and experience, Tim could spend a bit more time practicing empathy and a little less time on the ego…but I digress.
Underlying all of Pho’s critical commentary on Sheehan is a vein of discomfort with being seen as “extreme”. I think the term “extreme pacifism” was even used, which struck me as funny. What is extreme pacifism? Is this like hard core compassion? Or maybe it is akin to death metal jazz, I’m not quite sure. When reading the phrase, though, I was struck with the beauty of it. It makes as much sense to me as “wage peace”, which Pho also seems to poke at when making reference to Kucinich’s Peace Department (not sure if it’s poking, just seemed that way).
A sign of this “extremism” is picking on Colin Powell. I’m sorry, but Colin Powell did go to the UN and knowingly mislead them - something he has publicly said he regrets. Why do we not hold Colin to a higher standard and expect him to resign over such a serious thing as leading us into war on false pretenses? Give him a pass because he tried to be a voice of reason? Right. I dont’ find anything extreme about calling him on this.
I think the point was missed on “patriotism” versus “matriotism”. If you think more deeply on this it makes more sense than something you can conveniently and tritely dismiss as mad talk from a looney toon. The underlying premise would be that we need more mothering within foreign policy and less fathering. More reason and less blunt force trauma. Sure, the father may be respected…but this respect might come out of fear. The mother, on the other hand, is respected out of love and understanding which I would argue is a deeper respect. Respect from fear is paper thin. Respect born from trust is much stronger. I think what Cindy is saying is that we need to earn respect based on trust, understanding, and good will. NOT from smart bombs and Humvees. But I guess it easier to just say “yes she really said that” and dismiss it as some nutty pacifist comment, which dovetails fine with the overall theme.
Which is more radical? Embracing peace or supporting war as a necessary evil? Some might argue that there are times when you can’t have peace without war, but I would argue this is not one of those times. There was nothing about the current war even remotely close to last resort. Peace: a new radical idea.
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy? - Mahatma Gandhi



I think you are touching on something crucial here. Disagreeing with Cindy is one thing. Ridiculing her position as “extreme pacificism” is — sorry, gotta say it, guys — is a fear of being emasculated, the old testosterone worship that got us into the Iraq mess, the arousal that some men (and a few women) get from the whole idea of war.
I too think Dennis’s idea about a Department of Peace is flaky and unfocused, but I understand his sincerity and see it as issuing a challenge t be debated, not something to be ridiculed. Sabre-rattling and ridiculing those who would strive for peace is destructive, dangerous and non-productive — and it won’t make you any more manly. Especially those who have “other priorities” when it comes to putting themselves on the front lines, such as our sabre-rattler-in-chief, Dickie Cheney.