[NYTr] Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul Challenge Their Parties to Take Peace Seriously

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by Kevin Zeese - Nov 29, 2007

Two Candidates Explicitly Put Peace Before Party: 

Kucinich and Paul Challenge Their Parties to Take Peace Seriously

Peace voters have choices in 2008; 
will they have the courage to support peace candidates?

By Kevin Zeese

In recent debates the candidates were asked whether they will support 
the nominee of their party.  Despite increasingly harsh rhetoric
between the candidates only two candidates had the courage to put peace
before their party and refused to issue blanket support for their party 
nominee. Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Dennis Kucinich responded they would
not support the nominee unless the nominee opposed war as an instrument
of foreign policy.

This deserves loud applause from the peace movement.  No doubt both 
candidates will pay a political price for taking such a stand.  They
may get the "Gravel Treatment" -- presidential candidate Mike Gravel
was harshly critical of the top tier candidates of the Democratic Party
and now is excluded from the debates because the Democratic National 
Committee no longer considers him a serious candidate and the corporate 
media, which walks lock-step with the corporate parties, has refused to 
invite him to any debates. His campaign has all but disappeared.

Kucinich and Paul face other potential repercussions for putting the 
life and death issue of war and peace before party loyalty.  Both are 
incumbent congressmen and if they are unsuccessful in getting their 
party's presidential nomination will seek re-election to Congress. Will 
they find themselves with a well-funded primary challenger?  And, if 
elected, will they find their committee assignments downgraded?  Will 
they be appointed to subcommittee or committee chairmanships or passed 
over in favor of party loyalists?  There are many ways for a political 
party to punish lack of party loyalty.  So, Kucinich and Paul deserve a 
great deal of credit for publicly standing up for peace before party.

And, Kucinich and Paul did not just come out in opposition to the 
current disastrous occupation of Iraq.  They came out more broadly for 
an end to the aggressively interventionist U.S. foreign policy that is 
dominated by militarism.  This is the type of paradigm shifting policy 
change that is needed in U.S. foreign policy. 

The fact that the U.S. spends as much as the whole world combined on
the military ensures that every other aspect of American civil life is 
underfunded.  It is why the debt is increasing, infrastructure is 
failing, the U.S. remains addicted to oil, college is overpriced,
health care for all unachievable, and pre-school for children widely 
unavailable.  If the U.S. wants to build economic security at home it 
needs to stop spending half the federal government's discretionary 
spending on the military.  If we want to build security from terrorism 
the U.S. needs to stop creating enemies faster than we kill them.  If 
the U.S. wants "them" to stop hating "us" we need to stop behaving like 
an empire.

Sadly, at least one peace group, Friends Committee on National 
Legislation, is turning its back on these real peace candidates.  FCNL 
whose slogan is "War is Not the Answer," has published a voter guide 
that excludes Kucinich, Paul and Gravel -- the three candidates who 
really believe war is not the answer.  FCNL readers will not learn
about these peace candidates in their on-line voter guide.  Why?  FCNL
decided on an arbitrary cut-off point in polling that excludes these 
candidates.  All the candidates that are included keep the military 
option for Iran on the table and do not advocate cutting military 
expenditures, only one (Bill Richardson) calls for complete withdrawal 
from Iraq.  Are these "war is not the answer" candidates?

For Kucinich and Paul this stab in the back from a peace group comes at 
a bad time.  Kucinich recently won a straw poll by the progressive 
Democracy For America and in early returns Kucinich is leading in the 
Progressive Democrats of America straw poll.  Paul has been doing 
extremely well in straw polls around the country as well as in 
fundraising and in some polls is bettering candidates like John
McCain. Both seem to be getting some traction but if the peace movement
is not going to even report on their positions -- a movement which
should be the base of their support -- then what hope do they have?

Sadly, the FCNL view is not uncommon among peace voters.  Too many look 
at which candidate is most likely to win.  Peace voters need to learn 
that voting for peace candidates is the way to increase their power.  
Voting for candidates who support the occupation or waffle on whether 
they will remove the troops in their first term is voting against the 
interests of peace.  It is voting for war as the primary instrument of 
foreign policy and empire as the goal of U.S. policy -- because that is 
the view of the candidates covered by FCNL.  Peace voters need to have 
the courage to vote for peace candidates.

Paul and Kucinich differ on many issues -- Paul is a free-market
thinker who sees the solutions to economic disparity, lack of access to
health care, poor education, the environment and the housing crisis in
less government and more market-based solutions.  Kucinich, while
agreeing with Paul on bolstering civil liberties and individual rights,
sees the solution to health care as ending the for-profit dominated
health insurance industry and replacing it with a non-profit single
payer system provided by the government.  Similarly on environmental
issues Kucinich favors a major government investment in alternative
energy that is clean and sustainable, Paul doesn't.  Kucinich favors
abortion rights, Paul opposes federal government involvement in
abortion.

Peace voters have a choice between two solid peace candidates with two 
very different views of government and the economy, but they have
more. Mike Gravel is another long-term peace advocate who has been
active against war since the Vietnam era.  Some peace voters may also
see a candidate in Governor Bill Richardson who favors a complete
withdrawal from Iraq, but is keeping the military option on the table
for Iran and does not advocate shrinking the U.S. military.

And, in the General Election, peace voters will have other options no 
matter what the two establishment parties decide.  The Green Party 
recently acquired a new member in Cynthia McKinney.  The former Member 
of Congress recently registered as a Green in California and filed with 
the FEC to seek the Green presidential nomination.  She has been 
strongly anti-war for her whole career and during her last
congressional term sought impeachment of President Bush for his illegal
invasion of Iraq.

Ralph Nader, the long-time consumer activist and former presidential 
candidate who has been working against the Iraq invasion and occupation 
since before the war began, is also considering a run for the 
presidency, possibly as a Green or as an independent.  He has
tirelessly worked to end the Iraq occupation and throughout his career
has been an advocate for less spending on the military and more
spending on the necessities of the people.  Nader has also been a
long-term advocate for impeachment of President Bush and Vice President
Cheney for their deceptions and manipulations that led to the Iraq
invasion.

Another Green candidate worthy of mention is Jared Ball.  He is an 
assistant professor at Morgan State University in Baltimore, has a
radio show in Washington, DC, and is founder of FreeMix radio which
puts together a monthly hip-hop compilation.  He is a veteran of Desert 
Shield/Desert Storm and an opponent of the Iraq occupation.

The Libertarian Party also has several candidates running and they are 
likely to nominate a peace candidate as well.  The LP's official 
position on the Iraq occupation is: "It is time for U.S. forces to 
withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible in a manner consistent with 
the safety of our troops."

Peace voters will have choices in 2008.  There are several candidates 
who oppose both the Iraq occupation and the use of aggressive military 
force as the dominant approach to foreign policy.  Peace voters make up 
the majority of Americans, but will they have the courage to vote their 
convictions or will they be manipulated by the two parties and the 
corporate media? Will they work and financially support peace 
candidates?  It is a test for the peace movement to see whether it as 
the courage to put peace first.

[Kevin Zeese is executive director of Democracy Rising at
http://www.DemocracyRising.US and Voters for Peace at
http://www.VotersForPeace.US