gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/03/91)
Much has been made of the fact that, of people who were awake at all, 91% approved of Bush's handling of the Gulf crisis and 9% disapproved. While I have a lot of doubt about these polls, let's assume that 9% is factual and represents three components: hard-core pacifists, the peace movement, and irreducible curmudgeons (those who disapprove of _everything_.) And let's assume that the proportion of hard-core pacifists and curmudgeons remains about the same over a period of time. I think this is a reasonable assumption because hard-core pacifism and irreducible curmudgeonry have little to do with outside events and conditions; they're internal and personal. Now, during the war in Vietnam, the opposition was even smaller at its lowest point: 6% (in 1965). I remember this well because it was so at variance with my own perceptions -- but that's another story. Let's assume that this figure, too, is factual, or if it is non-factual it is non-factual in the same way as "9%." Now, if we assume that the proportion of the population which consisted of hard-core pacifists or curmudgeons was the same, then the peace movement has been growing rather rapidly. In fact, the smaller you say the peace movement is, the faster you say it's growing. For instance, let's say the constant element in the opposition to the appropriate war is 5%. Although there are not many hard-core pacifists, it is certainly difficult to think that fewer than one out of twenty is a curmudgeon, given what we see in daily life. 5% seems like a minimal figure. If it is, then the peace movement grew from 1% of the pollable population to 4% in 26 years -- one generation. If its numbers increase fourfold in every generation, it will represent 16% of the population 26 years from now and become a majority in about 45 years. However, if you say that the constant element in the opposition to the war is 5.5% (it can't be more than 6%) then the peace movement went from 0.5% of the population in 1965 to 3.5% in 1991, that is, increased sevenfold. At this rate the peace movement will become a majority in 27 years. In other words, many of you now in your twenties or thirties have an excellent chance of seeing the dissolution of the War Machine in your lifetime. And you would not know this without the public-relations victories of the War Machine's servitors and sycophants. Keep the faith. -- Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf
gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (04/04/91)
| gcf@mydog.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) writes: | >have an excellent chance of seeing the dissolution of the War | >Machine in your lifetime. And you would not know this without | >the public-relations victories of the War Machine's servitors | >and sycophants. Keep the faith. j silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman) writes: | (Most of the analysis deleted.) And, given enough time, there will | be more members of the peace movement than people? Wow, animal | sentience!:) Okay, some of the math was a little bit humorous. But the humor decorates a valid point: there's a much bigger anti-war movement than there used to be. | Seriously, there are differences in the peace movement | then and now. In the Desert Storm peace movement, a fair number | of the nay-sayers were pessimists (I must admit that I was a bit of one | myself until after the airwar started) who just thought it would be a | bad idea. Remember, back in September and August the talk was of the | large number of casualties engendered by an immeadiate ground offensive. | The other thing to keep in mind was that back in the early days of | Veitnam, large portions of the American left were actually in favor of | the war, for a variety of reasons. Do you mean by the Left alleged liberals like Adlai Stevenson, Jacob Javits, the Kennedys, the AFL-CIO, that lot? If so, yes, they were in favor of it; in fact, they engineered it. I don't know of anyone in what I would consider the real Left of that time who was in favor of the war, although a good many of the more authoritarian types have now recanted -- sucking up to a more authoritative kind of authority, I imagine. Before Johnson overtly committed the troops (Kennedy had been sneaking them in) American public opinion was about evenly divided on whether military action was a good idea. So this was rather similar to the recent situation. Then as now, the people who were seriously against war in general managed to alienate those who were not against war in general but against the current war in particular, although this war developed so fast it didn't matter. Had Congress been unwilling to go along with Bush's plans I'm sure an incident would have been provided to get things moving. If the Iraqis had fought like the Vietnamese or the Germans, we might have seen very high casualties indeed, but that in itself would not have done much but increase the thirst for vengeance and justification by violence. The time to stop a war is before it starts -- long before. It's probably already too late to stop the next war, which I would guess will be directed at Cuba, although as I noted in an article on the subject, there are quite a few potential targets. -- Gordon Fitch | gcf@mydog.uucp | uunet!cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!mydog!gcf