Timid Democrats and the Antiwar Movement by Ralph Nader

The current issue of the UTNE Reader (May--June '07) carried a short but sensibly provocative article protesting the stagnation and the cul-de-sac nature of street protests that involve nonviolent civil disobedience.

Joseph Hart, the author, asks why the current antiwar movement is so impotent, despite "a staggering 67 percent disapproval of President Bush's handling of the war--a level that matches public sentiment at the tail end of the Vietnam War, when street protests, rallies, and student strikes were daily occurrences."

He believes it is because, quoting Jack DuVall, president of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, that "a street demonstration is only one form of protest and protest is only one tactic that can be used in a campaign. If it's not a part of a dedicated strategy to change policy, or to change power, protest is only a form of political exhibitionism."

Both gentlemen are being incomplete. Even without a military draft in place to arouse a larger public, the protestors against the Iraq war have affected the 2006 elections, performed sit-ins in Congressional offices, filed lawsuits against Bush's violations of people's civil liberties, brought Iraqi spokespeople to meet with influential Americans, worked with Iraq veterans against the war as well as with numerous former high ranking military, diplomatic and intelligence officials now retired from service in both Republican and Democratic Administrations who openly opposed the invasion at the outset.

Clearly all this has not been enough to move the Democrats to decisive action.

The obstinate, messianic militarist in the White House remains unmoved. With his ignorance of history itself becoming historic, this latter day obsessively compulsed, King George thinks he's a 21st century Winston Churchill.

Through the wide arc of his persistent lawlessness, Mr. Bush has done the country much damage here and abroad. But he has also demonstrated how variously the rule of law can be swept aside with impunity. He is both outside and above the Constitution, federal statutes, international treaties to which the U.S. is solemn signatory, and the restraints of the Congress and the federal courts.

A major restructuring of our laws to embrace the outlaw Presidency under Mr. Bush, or any like-minded successors, now has a solid empirical basis from which to move forward. Presidential outlawry did not start with Mr. Bush. It has been building up for a long time going from the episodic to institutionalized forms.

For example, it is now routine for the courts to opt out of giving any citizen, group or member of Congress legal standing on matters of foreign and military policy even to plead their cases against the President. Here the courtroom door is closed.