The Progs of War
March 26, 2008
There’s something missing in the Vermont Progressive Party’s platform. In fact, it’s also missing from the platform of Progressive Party gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina. And it’s no small matter – it’s the Iraq War.
Go and look for yourselves. I did, and I didn’t find one word about the Iraq War or its many associated ills even mentioned in either platform. Moreover, I did a word search in the Progressive Party’s 27-page platform and absolutely nothing turned up when I searched for “war,” “Iraq,” “peace,” “national guard,” or “soldiers.” Nothing. Zero. Not even a mention.
To be fair, I also did a similar search of the Vermont Democratic Party’s platform. And, frankly, I was pleasantly surprised to find a whole host of references to those very same search words. The word “peace,” in fact, was in the platform’s very first paragraph. But the Vermont Democratic Party didn’t just drop the peace words, they made sense with them. For example, consider this paragraph that appears under the headline, “The War in Iraq:”
a. We condemn the false claims that justify the war in Iraq, and the failure of current foreign policy to consider the historical, cultural and religious forces in the region.
b. We are committed to a sensible and clear strategy to bring those who still serve home from Iraq quickly and with dignity.
c. We are committed to an active policy to cooperate with other nations to support a financial and political commitment to stabilizing and securing Iraq.
d. All military personnel, veterans and their families must be recognized for their courage and service and are entitled to full medical, emotional and financial support.
See? That’s not real hard, is it? Or controversial, for that matter, since nearly 80% of Vermonters want an end to the Iraq War.
Why, then, would Vermont’s Progressive Party and its perennial candidate of choice, Anthony Pollina, refuse to even acknowledge the war in their platforms? In a word: Politics. Or, if you’d prefer a few more words: A failure to lead.
Back in late-2001 when this nation was in its bloodthirsty post-9/11 rage, the nascent Progressive Party set the stage for ignoring the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq by resorting to parliamentary maneuvers to squelch efforts by party activists to pass a resolution condemning the deafening drumbeats of war at the time. At its November 2001 state party convention, a resolution condemning the war talk was first passed by those in attendance. But then Progressive Party leaders, led by then-Representative Carina Driscoll, quickly maneuvered to “table” the resolution and – with breakneck speed – succeeded in killing it.
I remember it well. Because I was there. And I remember the confusion amongst those in attendance when one moment we thought the Progs were about to do the right thing by opposing the Bush war machine and then the next minute being undercut by underhanded maneuvers that effectively ended the debate.
At the time, I was a columnist for Seven Days so I approached Anthony Pollina and asked him about why the party leaders killed the anti-war resolution.
“We want the party to focus on statewide issues,” Pollina told me at the time. “9/11 and the response to it isn’t a Vermont issue.”
It was a mantra that the leaders had apparently agreed upon because they all repeated the same line as I made my way from one leader to another – from Driscoll to Ellen David-Friedman to Chris Pearson. They were in lockstep: The Progressive Party would not lead on the war issue – nor would they even mention it.
After the Party’s convention, Pearson sent out an email update to the Party faithful, declaring that there was “relief” amongst many that the Progs didn’t take a stand on the upcoming wars. The apparent “relief” they were feeling was about not wanting to “marginalize” itself from the voting population before Pollina was about to launch a run for lieutenant governor.
And so the war silence began for the Progs. Worse, that silence continues to this day.
To date, six Vermonters have returned from the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq in body bags. But the Progressive Party apparently still doesn’t believe it’s a “Vermont issue.” Moreover, according to the Policy Priorities Project, Vermont tax-payers have coughed up more than $680 million to fund the Iraq war, while Vermont’s Progressive Party or favorite son, Pollina, won’t even mention the war in their platforms. They’d apparently rather express “relief” in ignoring it.
Unfortunately, ignoring the war is a privilege many of us can’t share with the Progressive Party’s leadership. The six Vermonters who lost their lives can’t ignore it. Their families can’t ignore it. Those of us with an understandable sense of outrage over the Bush administration’s lies and deceit while marching us to war can’t ignore it. And those of who can think of much better ways to spend the $680 million can’t ignore it, either. Indeed, nearly 80% of Vermonters don’t want to ignore the issue of the War on Iraq – they want it ended, and ended now.
The Progressive Party’s “duck and cover” approach to the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq is in direct contrast to the rich history of bold leadership that has been found in alternative parties in this country. Its silence on the number one issue of the day should tell us a lot about the current leadership of the Progressive Party and its apparent “relief” in not leading.
Vermont’s Progressive Party should be ashamed of the deaf ear it’s turned toward the most pressing issue of our time. Because there’s nothing “progressive” about avoidance.
–
This is what dissent looks like:
Comments
14 Responses to “The Progs of War”
Got something to say?
Posts
Good one. And if you are now a Prog candidate for Gov., the War (which has been, or should be, everyone’s issue) has just become a Prog Party issue. The debate is going to be a pisser. Maybe they’ll try to organize a ’silent’ debate.
I have only recently moved back to Vermont and I only heard of the Progressive Party a little over a year ago. So I don’t know an extended history of the party nor have I spent hours digging through it’s website.
Wanting the official VPP platform to spell out words that take a stand against the war is valid. In my short year back in Vermont, I have experienced actions by the Progs that are very anti-war. When it comes to being against the war, action matters more to me than words. Having both would of course be best.
When we were pushing hard for impeachment last year, which is intrinsically tied up with this illegal war, inside the Statehouse most of the Republicans laughed at us, most of the Democrats tried to ignore us, but the Progressives were the ones who welcomed us from the start. When we had 120 people there, and later 400 people there, Dave Zuckerman and other Progs were an incredible support. Chris Pearson made one of the only arguments for impeachment during the floor debate and they are the only party that voted 100% in support of impeachment.
All of the Progressives supported the Troops Home Now resolution as well.
Dave Zuckerman represented the Progressive Party and was the most articulate and passionate speaker against the war at last year’s big peace march/rally in Burlington, marking 4 years in Iraq. He is one of Vermont’s only politicians willing to point out in public that Peter Welch’s rallying campaign cry was not “Let’s bring some of the troops home in a few years!” Chris Pearson filled that role this past Saturday. The Progressive Party donates their sound system for all of these rallies too.
Last spring the Progressive Party’s state committee unanimously passed an impeachment resolution.
Last spring, Anthony Pollina, Rep. Chris Pearson and IVAW member Adrienne Kinne were spoke together as a panel. It was a forum organized by the Progressive Party on the topics of impeachment and troop withdrawal from Iraq.
I noticed Anthony Pollina was at an event in Barre a few weeks ago honoring long-time peace activist Lucy Nichol. He came to the Community Forum about the war last week in Montpelier and mostly listened, but also spoke. The Rutland Herald wrote that he spoke against the war at the rally in Rutland on Saturday.
I realize that you want the Progressive Party to make sure that a clear anti-war statement is part of their platform. I agree with that.
I would just say that from my one year back in Vermont, I’ve observed the Progs doing a tremendous amount to end this war. I know that for most of those in the peace movement, actions speak louder than words. Look at how much our Congressional delegation talks against the war but too often takes actions that support more funding…
Okay, Liza, but where’s Pollina been when it comes to holding Sanders, Leahy and Welch accountable for their continued votes to fund the war? Not a word. I also don’t think he was around when impeachment was debated or when Sheehan came to town. It seems like he enjoys speaking to the ant-war crowd at election time but won’t codify his position on his own or his party’s official documents/websites. Why? Ask him, not Colby. If Pollina’s against the war or has some positions he’d take when governor, let’s hear them.
So basically Liza’s telling us that Pollina’s good at showing up at events. Isn’t that what Douglas does best? I thought we were looking for a new LEADER.
I listened to Pollina’s radio show pretty regularly and I don’t remember a day that went by when he didn’t rail against the war. There’s not been anyone more vocal about it.
Let’s see his published words or proposals. Would he call the Vermont National Guard home? Has he ever asked Leahy, Welch, and/or Sanders to stop funding the war? If so, let’s see the letters. Why no mention of the war in his platform? Aren’t we supposed to be asking these questions instead of just being thankful that he “shows up” to applaud a campaign contributor (Nichols) at her retirement party?
I think it’s quite rational to wonder why a Vermont candidate for governor from the “left” and a third-party from the “left” do not even mention the war in their platforms. Sure, certain Progs and even Pollina have been showing up to rallies of late — it’s election season. And it’s hard to run into anyone other than the wingnuts on True North Radio in Vermont who think the war is a good thing. Hell, even Jim Douglas is on record as saying he’d like an end to the war and for the troops to come home soon. Whatever.
What are Pollina’s proposals/policies with regard to the war? The governor is, in fact, considered the commander-in-chief of Vermont’s National Guard. All he’s said is that the war is bad and it’s costing too much money. Duh.
In the campaign I am preparing, I intend to announce that — if elected — I will call the Vermont National Guard home immediately. And I will call on the legislature and the attorney general to write and defend the laws that will keep our National Guard home and out of illegal wars on foreign soil.
Moreover, I will instruct the commissioner of education to either end all military recruitment in our public schools or require counter-recruitment materials to be similarly available. Our high school students should not be fodder for this war while being lied to about the nature of their potential “service.”
I will also publicly and openly lobby our federally elected officials — Leahy, Sanders and Welch — to do anything and everything they can to stop the War on Iraq, beginning with the easy step of no longer voting to fund it.
Finally, in the first 30 days of my administration, I will call for a series of town hall-style meetings in every part of the state to bring together Vermonters of all stripes to build support for the ways Vermont can remove itself from this war.
These are all easy and practical steps that a new governor must take to help end this war and stop wasting tax-payer money on it.
Michael,
Check out John Odum’s GMD post on the $200,000 bailout by an anonymous donor to The Vermont Milk Co.. I think he’s handed you another plank in your platform. Nice to see the two of you on the same page. And don’t forget, when you’re Governor, I want the smoking bans repealed, pot legalized, and the mandatory broadcast of Frank Zappa’s “Plastic People” at all ski resorts–and the Church Street Marketplace. Other demands to follow–do not attempt to contact the authorities. I have people watching you. Your passport files have been accessed.
Did you hear VPR today? They covered the story about Pollina’s Vermont Milk Company facing financial troubles. Pollina said something about it all being a “real life” lesson for him.
Now I guess we’ll wait for the mainstream media to follow your lead on Pollina’s double talk on the war.
why does anyone care what happens to dairy in vermont? it is a dinosaur and belongs in a tar pit.
I agree that it is good and rational to push for a change in the Progressive Party’s platform. That is the role of the peace movement.
I am as frustrated as everyone else about the absolute nothingness going on around ending the war.
I also think we need to support the efforts and allies that we do have in this movement, and the Progressive Party, in all the things I mentioned, is an ally.
It is simply not true that there has been a Progressive Party “silence on the war” or that they have turned a deaf ear to it. You are making claims that are not true–they are very vocal critics of it and do more than talk against it, the reps vote against it, they help organize rallies and marches, they–Anthony included–organize forums like the ones you said you’d like to organize, Michael. They have always promoted any and all anti-war and impeachment events in their weekly newsletter, and on their website.
You make a good point about the party platform. But keep your claims accurate. For at least the past year that I’ve been watching, the Progressive Party and Anthony Pollina have been vocal critics of the war, not silent. They have been active participants in the movement.
Yes, we always want to push for more, but we do need to also recognize the Progressive are some of our strongest allies. Michael, from the few times I’ve spoken with you, it seems you’re someone who values actions over words… At all the office sit-ins it is the talk, talk talk against the wa by the Democrats (who are apparently ignoring their party platform), minus actions that drive us both crazy… so it is interesting you ignore all those actions I mentioned, that the Progressives and Pollina have taken and want words instead.
I’m glad you’re focused almost entirely on the war. We need more people like that. But political parties and their leaders need to take on all issues, so they’re not going to be the ones chaining themselves at General Dynamics. It is frustrating. I want them there. But I also realize that lack of health care kills probably as many Vermonters a year, if not many more, than this war has. Or focusing on IRV and campaign finance reform, so we have less influence by the war profiteers, and people more free to vote their hopes than their fears, etc. So we need to focus on that too, and all the other issues that affect people day in and day out.
They’re all part of the mess, all important. I want to rail against the war, and not against our allies in the movement like the Progressives and Pollina.
If your description of what the Prog Party did (or did not) do in 2001 is accurate, it paints a pretty depressing picture of “leaders” more interested in power than principles. Kind of like the Democratic and Republican parties.
Jesus, April Fool’s Day and no joke from Michael. What a douche! as we use to say in the late 50s-early 60s, before the world turned to shit (after Michael was born).
OK, how ’bout this:
Thomas Naylor Endorses Michael Colby For Vt. Governor (2hours ago)
In a bizarre (and revoltin’) development, Thomas Naylor, head of the secessionist Second Vermont Republic has endorsed the ‘guber’natorial bid of activist and part-time saint, Michael Colby.
In an unprepared statement, Naylor said: “This is the guy we want. If anyone can stir up Vermonters to an ultimate state of alienation, it’s Colby. The only thing we have to worry about is that an angry mob with torches and candles doesn’t lynch him before he signs the articles of secession into law. If he survives, the new Republic of Vermont will make him an official Kentucky Colonel. He can take over the one on the Barre-Montpelier Road… Who says we’re crazy?
Prove it!. sir. Or draw your sword!”
Under the “This is dissent” category, I prefer the raw, uncut, uncensored, debut of “When the President Talks to God”
Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFot6SE0MCI