Should Antiwar Activists Begin More Aggressive Non-Violence?

Should Antiwar Activists Begin More Aggressive Non-Violence?

A former CIA official says yes!

By Bill Christison

Democracy has become little more than a hollow word. … It is the Free World’s whore. … Until quite recently, right up to the 1980s, democracy did seem as though it might actually succeed in delivering a degree of real social justice. But modern democracies have been around long enough for neo-liberal capitalists to learn how to subvert them. … The project of corporate globalization has cracked the code. Free elections, a free press, and an independent judiciary mean little when the free market has reduced them to commodities on sale to the highest bidder.

Arundhati Roy, speech in New York City at the Riverside Church ,

May 13, 2003

Arundhati Roy has it exactly right. Let’s link what she says more precisely to what the U.S. has been up to lately.

The Bush propaganda machine shamelessly glorifies the U.S. invasion of Iraq , while refusing to say a word about the numbers of Iraqis killed. Few voters complain. Worse, most of our corporate-dominated media do not complain. Most Democratic candidates in next year’s election strive to outdo Republicans in praising the American military’s heroism and skill in mopping up an Iraqi army already weakened by years of sanctions. Both Democrats and Republicans never mention that the seeming invincibility of the U.S. armed forces arises, at least in part, from Washington ’s penchant for unleashing its military only against quite impotent victims.

Few in the country’s major parties want to delve very deeply into the even more important factor in the U.S. military’s invincibility – its immense quantities, far more than other nations have, of high-tech (and high-profit) weapons and gear of all kinds, much of it Gee Whiz magical stuff to us ordinary laymen. Politicians and patriots can praise this superior equipment (as long as such praise in no way dilutes the alleged superior heroism and training that must always be the root of our troops’ victories), but it wouldn’t do to discuss at any length the symbiotic, servant-master relationship between our military services and the industrial-military, globalized, and corporate-capitalist establishment that Arundhati Roy talks about and that dominates U.S. politics and policies, to the detriment of ordinary people in the rest of the world and in the U.S.

The pace of militarizing the U.S. economy continues to accelerate. Congress has authorized an increase to $400 billion in the military budget for the next fiscal year. Nothing that is happening in Iraq , in Afghanistan , or in the uncertain Israel-Palestine peace negotiations gives any hope for a slowdown in this process of militarization. Nor do probable developments in future U.S. relations with Iran and North Korea , the two remaining nations in Bush’s “axis of evil.” The conquest of non-nuclear Iraq has actually encouraged both Iran and North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons as rapidly as possible.

In addition, one of U.S. industry’s important markets for arms exports has expanded with the recently approved supplemental $1 billion in grants and $9 billion in loan guarantees for Israel . Both figures are in addition to normal annual aid amounts for Israel and are mostly for military and other supposed security-enhancing purposes. The motives for providing more arms to Israel are varied, and in part obviously have to do with the intensifying contest between the Republican and Democratic parties for American-Jewish support in future elections. At a minimum, the desire of the industrial-military establishment for greater markets meshes nicely with the desire of the Sharon government and of AIPAC, the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. , to strengthen Israel ’s position in the entire Middle East and expand Israel ’s colonization and domination of the occupied Palestinian territories. AIPAC is so secretive about its sources of funding that we may never know whether more explicit ties exist between AIPAC and other wealthy groupings that dominate the actions and policies of the U.S. government, especially the military-corporate-capitalist power structure.

The sheer scope of the unjust policies the Bush administration is pursuing leaves one breathless. Yet most U.S. voters presently show little desire to change these policies, and the Bush steamroller seems unstoppable. However much anyone opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq , once it started the dominant opinion among those in opposition quickly snapped into line with the support-our-troops view: no one in his right mind could hope for the kind of prolonged war or high U.S. casualties that would turn public opinion against the war. And of course the main-force part of the war was not prolonged; U.S. casualties were not high. Over time, the continued killings of small numbers of U.S. soldiers may cause a shift in public opinion, but the odds are that the shift will not be large enough to force policy changes on the Bush administration.

It is also unlikely, in the short term at least, that economic strains in the U.S. will be severe enough to compel the administration to deviate significantly from its present policies. The large-scale deficit financing and cheapening of the dollar that the Bush administration has encouraged should keep the U.S. economy from any rapid deterioration. Over the longer run, however (that is, any period beyond the next couple of years), all bets are off. Further misadventures in U.S. foreign and military policies, severe imbalances in foreign trade, continuing failures of economic growth in Europe and Japan, or, God forbid, a nuclear war starting in Northeast or South Asia or the Middle East or somewhere else (yes, such things can happen!): all or any of these could make today’s economic or political predictions look foolish.

Debate Over Strategies and Tactics Within the Antiwar Movement

The critical question in the antiwar movement is whether peace groups need to come up with strategies and tactics to change current U.S. policies more quickly than now seems possible. One viewpoint heard around my town is that, in the absence of some unforeseeable event, the earliest opportunity to change U.S. policies is 16 months off, when the November 2004 election occurs, and that the antiwar movement might as well accept this. In other words, many seem to believe that the best tactic is to work on the election to the extent each person wishes, and not to do much else. The opposing viewpoint starts from the proposition that, if you believe we really must try to force the U.S. government to change its policies before then, doing nothing except electoral work for the next 16 months is no strategy at all.

If you do not think the current situation is desperate, you will be more willing to wait until the next election or even longer, until a new preemptive war or some other outside event brings about change. You might even argue that time is inevitably on the side of those who wait, and therefore it’s better to do little other than talk, or maybe occasionally stand on a street corner with a sign urging motorists to honk against George Bush, but otherwise it’s not worthwhile to stick your neck out; you’re better off keeping your powder dry.

If you believe, on the other hand, that the current situation is desperate, you’ll want faster action. To present this side’s case, it is useful to start with the argument that political apathy among ordinary people in the U.S. is the antiwar movement’s worst enemy. Apathy, induced by simple lack of interest or by a sense that ordinary Americans can have no impact on the corrupt U.S. political system, is seen by many as the main reason behind the reduced voter turnouts of recent decades in this country.

Since World War I, the argument runs, consumerism has become the dominant philosophy in the United States . Consumerism has intensified apathy among voters as advertising, the media, and cultural trends have made acquisition of goods the main goal of many people. Such concentration on possessions has led to a serious weakening of interest in governmental affairs and policies. In a trend that some have called “market populism,” the choices open to consumers seem increasingly to have become a substitute for political democracy. But the apathy also arises from other causes. For the very poor, to whom the philosophy of consumerism has never offered many choices, apathy often arises from hopelessness that political change will ever improve their condition.

Some people in the antiwar movement believe another trend, a “Roman circus” effect, has also grown stronger in the U.S. over the past century. This trend, they believe, is different from but feeds on and strengthens apathy. As nominal democracy has spread in this country and in others, this Roman circus effect is seen as vitiating the actual effectiveness of “people-power” in the U.S. and other supposed democracies as well.

How does this work? For the U.S. , the explanation runs like this. Of all the groups in U.S. society giving money to the major political parties, corporations give the most. Therefore the issues of most importance to corporations, to people running them and to lobbyists paid by them, are always treated with care and attention by presidents and the Congress. Some issues (today almost anything to do with military spending, globalization, free trade or business subsidies, for example) are of maximum interest to corporations, but often do not grab the attention of average people. Other issues, such as gun control, abortion, and scandal, are of great interest to average people, while most corporations do not care much about them. Corporations and politicians in their debt are normally happy to see Americans distracted by the debates and arguments that surround these latter, usually social, issues. With political apathy arising from consumerism already present, the more distracted voters are by non-economic and non-military issues, the easier it is for corporations to slip through legislation beneficial to themselves. This is the Roman circus effect.

It is clear that a majority of voters in the U.S. today generally disagree with or, in any case, do not regard as important, any of the views just expressed. This majority does not see apathy as a meaningful issue in U.S. politics, and sees the present degree of democracy in the country as ample. It also believes life here is pretty darn good and that no need exists for major change. And finally, this majority probably believes that those who regard present U.S. policies as seriously wrong are so far out of the mainstream that they are not worth listening to.

Bolstered by these and other arguments, the Bush administration has succeeded, according to all polls, in maintaining the support for its current policies at roughly 65 percent of the people in the U.S. It is correct in believing that it has so far successfully marginalized the opposition.

* * * * *

Opportunities for, and Difficulties of, Implementing More Assertive Antiwar Actions

I am one of those in the antiwar movement who think we should be doing more – considerably more – for the next 16 months than just supporting one or another candidate in the 2004 presidential election. But given the situation described above, it is clear that we have some tough decisions to face up to. This is particularly true for those of us who believe that apathy is in fact continuing to grow among U.S. voters, and that such apathy will facilitate not only a Bush win in 2004 but also a continuation of his arrogant and unjust foreign and military policies around the world. Let’s consider a few of the difficulties as well as the opportunities we may face.

Not only do many average eligible voters in the U.S. seem less interested in many political issues than they were a hundred years ago, but they also avoid expending as much energy as they once did in pressing for more small-d political democracy. We need to emphasize that these words, “political” and “democracy,” should always go together, because so many U.S. business and government spokesmen these days use the word “democracy” to mean something else. They talk instead about the democracy of the free market, a so-called democracy for consumers and businesses that allegedly arises automatically from free market capitalism and global free trade. This is market populism again, and it in no way enhances the participation of real people in real political democracy.

Developments in the global media are another factor influencing the degree of apathy toward politics that will face us in the future. As purveyors of both entertainment and information, the global radio and TV industries are the most important part of the media in influencing public opinion.

Even though multiple information sources are still available on the internet and elsewhere today, there are already signs that a relatively few global corporations will increasingly come to control media output everywhere. One danger is that this trend will reduce easy access to the varieties of information necessary for democracies to flourish. Another danger is that an increasingly privatized media will add weight to the already mentioned Roman circus effect, by providing through entertainment programs distractions that encourage people not to pay attention to whatever information and news programs are still available.

In most advanced countries today, long-term trends toward (1) more privatization of radio and TV, along with the cutting back of public stations, and (2) the concentration of the private media into an ever-diminishing number of global corporations, may be the greatest danger of all. When combined with the rising popular apathy toward politics already encouraged by consumerism, these trends in the media will make it increasingly difficult for peoples and governments to retain even the limited elements of democracy they now possess.

On the other hand, this situation provides a key argument to those of us who think we should not go into hibernation and should not avoid controversial actions until after the 2004 elections. Waiting out the next 16 months just gives apathy more opportunity to grow. There are in addition two other reasons for believing that the present situation is desperate and that the antiwar movement should immediately initiate some striking, attention-getting actions.

1. The Bush administration is gambling that the U.S. can bring about the greatest possible degree of global peace and stability by dominating the rest of the world militarily. Those who support this gamble oppose any effort to change U.S. foreign policies as a way to reduce hatred and terrorism against the U.S. and its allies. They also believe it is appropriate and correct to introduce strict domestic security measures here at home, even though such measures restrict many of the previous free speech, privacy, and legal privileges of people living in the U.S.

To many of us, these Bush policies are an absolutely horrendous gamble, and they are arousing the opposition of most ordinary people and most governments throughout the world. The war in Iraq is very likely to be the first step toward a catastrophe. By already turning its attention and its threats first toward Syria and now Iran , the Bush administration is making the situation worse. The attempt to “transform” the entire Middle East and to use military force as the best way to spread democracy throughout the area will more likely provoke more terrorism, more hatred of the United States , more wars that could easily slip beyond anyone’s control, and a more rapid spread of weapons of mass destruction. The fact that Iraq lost the main-force war so quickly was a disaster in one additional way for the world, as well for the United States , for it is likely to encourage the U.S. to embark on further aggressions. And if the U.S. does not insist on a just resolution of the Israel-Palestine issue, the hatreds against the U.S. will only become more intense.

The United States contains only five percent of the world’s population. It is entirely anti-democratic, and it is insane as well, to believe that even with all its wealth the U.S. can or should dominate the entire globe militarily. The longer we wait, while military force appears in the short run to be successful, the harder it will be to overcome popular apathy regarding policies that support the U.S. drive toward global domination.

2. Many of us also argue that there is another aspect of Bush’s foreign policies that we should work to change immediately: his policy toward the global problem of religious fundamentalism. U.S. propaganda occasionally still mouths nice words about most Muslims being good people, not dominated by fundamentalist ideology. But at the same time Bush administration policies are actually encouraging fundamentalism around the entire world.

All fundamentalism is dangerous. Islamic fundamentalism will surely be one of the factors encouraging more terrorism against the U.S. , Great Britain , and Israel in the wake of the Iraq war. Judaic fundamentalism encourages terrorism by the settlers in the West Bank and Gaza , as well as state terrorism by the Israeli military. And Christian fundamentalism here in this country encourages the Bush administration to extend full support to Israel ’s continued occupation and colonization of the West Bank and Gaza .

It will be impossible to turn off religious fundamentalism anywhere with just a wave of the hand. But it would be a terribly wrong and immoral policy to try to turn it off by military action that kills people in the Islamic world while encouraging Judaic fundamentalism to flourish in the Palestinian occupied territories and encouraging Christian fundamentalism to grow stronger in the U.S. Yet that is precisely where U.S. foreign policies today are headed.

What should we be doing about religious fundamentalism? The best answer to this question is that there is really no other moral and civilized way to deal with the global problem of fundamentalism than to allow, and to encourage by exclusively peaceful means, the three major religions and their unique cultures to deal with the problem of extremists in their own way. This is not a perfect answer and this is not a perfect world, but one thing is crystal clear to those of us who argue this case. The use of military action, especially by outsiders, to solve these deeply embedded religious problems will make this world an entirely imperfect and unstable place to live in for years, and possibly decades, to come. This prospect of religious conflict could lead to such explosive and unpredictable results that we should not just wait to see what happens.

Many of us believe there is no time to lose. The risk is high that the Bush administration will move rapidly to take some form of military action against Iran , or Syria , or possibly other Muslim states. It may also use unnecessary violence to crush the remaining opposition in Iraq . Every step in this direction brings us closer to a new world war, a Judeo-Christian world war against Islam. Without wasting a single day, we should be taking any actions we can to prevent further war.

Proposals

What follows is straightforward discussion of possible immediate actions that peace groups might take. Much of it is advocacy, of actions ranging from minimal steps that are only a little better than standing on corners with signs, to steps that are more aggressive (but still non-violent) and considerably less safe in terms of one’s personal freedom, security, and possibly health. It bears repeating that everything on the list below is non-violent, and if any group attempts to implement anything on this list, it must remain non-violent regardless of any provocations to induce violence.

1. Talk and Noise: At the low, or quite safe, end of action proposals, we should all be making noise every day against Bush’s policies. We should be loudly calling for major changes in foreign policies, as well as in domestic security policies. We should make it clear that we will vote against any candidate in any election who supports U.S. policies that seek to dominate the world, against any candidate who supports using aggressive and preemptive wars for any policy goal whatsoever, and against anyone who supports the use of lies, distortions, or exaggerations of evidence to mislead the nation into war, as Bush and some other senior officials, including some inside the intelligence community, have just done.

And every day, we should display our displeasure with the fake democracy we have today and emphasize the need to bring real democracy back to this country. We should also constantly pose two questions to anyone who will listen: Isn’t it true that the Bush administration adopted its present highly aggressive policies not just because of September 11, but because its principal supporters in our corporate-industrial-military establishment make large profits from more wars? And isn’t it also true that the Bush administration is deliberately overemphasizing the external threat to this country, so that it can use this threat as its chosen method to win next year’s presidential election? Anyone who answers these questions with a yes should not vote for any Bush supporter, or for most current Democrats either.

Finally, we should address head on, and stop dodging, the Israel-Palestine issue. This conflict is of central importance in the entire Arab world, and unless it is resolved with as much justice for the Palestinians as for the Israelis, the Middle East , including Iran , will remain an incubator for more wars and more weapons of mass destruction. The evidence is now quite clear that the Bush administration intends to use its so-called victory in Iraq and the new constellation of forces that it imagines in the Middle East as a weapon to bludgeon the Palestinians into accepting a resolution considerably more favorable to the Israelis than to themselves. Despite any charges of anti-Semitism that may be mounted against us, and any loss of support to the antiwar movement, we should openly support a solution that ends the occupation, that creates a viable and independent Palestinian state controlling practically all of the West Bank, most of East Jerusalem, and all of Gaza (with full contiguity within and between the first two of these areas), that returns almost all Israeli settlements in these areas to full Palestinian control, and that dismantles all parts of the “separation wall” now being built outside Israel’s pre-1967 borders.

This is an exceptionally controversial issue, but unless the antiwar movement takes the position outlined here, it will not, in my opinion, be worthy of its name. It is important that we loudly refuse to vote for the large majorities of representatives and senators in the U.S. Congress who today support resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict only in ways that are beyond question unjust to the Palestinians. Consciously or unconsciously, these representatives and senators are encouraging more wars in the area.

2. The U.S. Constitution: Quit Glorifying It, Criticize and Shake Confidence in It, and Work for Major Changes in It: Another way of fighting the apathy, and the related self-absorption and greed, that seem so widespread in the U.S. today is to shock the apathy out of people by publicizing mercilessly just how much is wrong with the basic law of the nation and by openly calling for massive changes.

The 215-year-old U.S. Constitution truly does need massive changing. It is a wildly out-of-date document, even though it has been changed by amendments over the years, and changed even more by Supreme Court interpretations. Written by rich and propertied males, it is the underpinning of all the other laws that now allow the domination of our nation, as we’ve already seen, by an industrial-military-corporate culture that determines, buys, and pays for most United States policies at home and abroad. And yet, practically every spokesman you ever hear glorifies the constitution, exhorting us to bow down before it and avoid, heaven forbid, trying to change it further. Meanwhile, our democracy atrophies again, after the Bill of Rights, some 19^th and 20^th century amendments, and various state voting-rights laws had broadened democratic participation in earlier times.

Corporations, so overwhelmingly powerful today, were unimportant institutions in the 1700s, and the constitution left to the states most powers of incorporation. Today, these often gigantic entities accept few responsibilities toward other parts of society, while they dominate national policies on any issues they consider important. Given the present scale and dominance of corporations, the responsibility to license and regulate them now should reside with the federal government and be spelled out in the constitution. The unimportance of corporations 215 years ago is also the reason the constitution contains no specific provisions on the powers of the Supreme Court with respect to corporate entities. In the absence of constitutional restraints, over the last two centuries the vast majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices have developed cozy relationships with major corporate leaders, and most court decisions have been favorable to corporations. A revised or new constitution should abolish the privilege corporations now have of assuming the legal rights of individuals for most purposes, and severely restrict the role corporations may play in the politics and policies of the country.

In part because of the role now played by corporations, the two-party political system of the U.S. has also atrophied. Except for verbal posturing, partly engaged in to enhance the Roman circus effect, the two major parties today are very close together on most policy issues, and both often receive money from the same corporations. Today we have something like one-and one-quarter major parties masquerading as two. But the constitution leaves to individual states practically all power to set criteria for the founding of new parties, and the self-protective relationships of Republicans and Democrats in many states make it very tough for new parties to establish themselves. The constitution ought to be changed so that one set, a federal set, of non-capricious criteria will ease the way for new parties to start up.

The most important change that is needed, and the most difficult, is the abolition or total overhaul of the “electoral college,” a phrase that does not exist in the constitution but is a euphemism we use to describe the body of electors that technically chooses our presidents. The constitution allots to each state “a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” These electors choose the president and vice president, but in practice have no independence from their states. States with small populations inevitably have a disproportionately large voice in choosing presidents. A few statistics will show how undemocratic this system is. According to the 2000 census, the 21 U.S. states with the smallest number of inhabitants had a total population of 31,654,285 and, since the 2002 congressional elections, these 21 states now have a total of 49 representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. At the other extreme, California is the single state with the most people, having a population in 2000 of 33,930,798. It now has 53 representatives in the U.S. House after the 2002 elections. So California has well over two million more people than the 21 least populated states combined, and after 2002 has four more representatives in the U.S. House than these 21 states. That’s appropriate and reasonably democratic. (None of these numbers for representatives in the U.S. House will change again until 2012, two years after the next decennial census in 2010.)

But look at what happens in presidential elections. For the 2004 presidential election, the 21 least populated states together will have 42 electoral votes for their 42 senators in addition to the 49 votes matching the number of their representatives. Thus they will have a total of 91 votes in the electoral college. California , on the other hand, will have only 55 votes in the electoral college, 53 to match the number of its representatives, plus two for its senators. How democratic is that? If you live in California , your personal vote for president is worth considerably less than if you live in, say, Wyoming or Vermont .

In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore received half a million more votes than George Bush did. But Bush won the vast majority of small states. There were, of course, additional issues in Florida . Without the undemocratic advantage to Bush that his dominance in low-population, rural states provided, however, he could not have become president. And the extra two votes every state receives in the electoral college are tied to the very existence of the U.S. Senate. The issue of equal votes or “equal suffrage” in the Senate for all states was one of the major roadblocks in reaching agreement on the constitution in Philadelphia over two centuries ago. Another clause that made it into the constitution and is still there (the last clause of Article V) says that, “No state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” At least one American constitutional expert, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and professor Jack N. Rakove, has written that this “remain[s] the one clause of the constitution safely insulated from the sovereign voice of the people.” In other words, this author believes this part of the constitution cannot be amended. Even if the author is alone in this interpretation – and I have seen no indication that he is – his words would provide powerful support for the many people who would oppose ever changing this clause.

Even though this clause does not specifically refer to the procedures elsewhere in the constitution for electing presidents, supporters of the clause would undoubtedly argue that its inviolability would also make it impossible to change the electoral-college procedures, and their legal case would seem strong. It’s hard to know if this means that throwing out the electoral college is impossible without throwing out the entire constitution and starting over, but it is at least another reason for refusing to accept the constitution as sacrosanct. Of all the changes that should be made in the constitution to encourage more effective democracy, making presidential elections directly dependent on the popular vote is the most important.

In foreign and military affairs, the Congress as a whole has abrogated its power under the constitution to declare war and has simply left the field to the president. This has happened because the constitution, while it gives Congress the power to declare war, does not contain an explicit statement that no war may be waged unless Congress exercises that power. Given our 53 years of experience since the undeclared Korean War, it’s time we rectified that error.

Others can probably come up with additional changes to the constitution that they would like to see. The more the better. The most useful thing we can do right now is to advertise widely and publicly all the things wrong with our outdated constitution. Certainly there are many good parts to the document. And we want to keep what’s good in either a new or a revised constitution. But we should oppose the endless glorification of the present document and the constant implications that we must treat it as something sacred and unchangeable. Such glorification works only to strengthen those who do not want to change the present division of wealth either globally or locally and who are only too happy to see the corporate-military power center of the country grow even stronger.

3. Civil Disobedience: From the vantage point of mid-2003, some of us feel the situation created by the Bush administration’s aggressive policies is so terrible, and the need for change so urgent, that we should be seriously considering large-scale, non-violent civil disobedience as one of the few things left to us that might bring about a change in U.S. policies. Others argue that such disobedience would only strengthen the determination of the administration to squash it mercilessly. And what would the reaction be then? Would enough demonstrators continue the disobedience to make the government back down? Or would the demonstrators themselves back down first? These are the classic questions surrounding any acts of civil disobedience. You rarely know in advance which side is more determined, and it’s difficult to predict what factors will change the level of determination on each side.

Many close friends disagree, but my view is that we should move toward more civil disobedience, and do it now. We should choose as targets the military and foreign affairs offices of the federal government, and large facilities of the industrial-military establishment, preferably those that are already raking in profits from the government’s foreign and military policies. It is crucial that large numbers of demonstrators and top-quality speakers be involved in every instance of non-violent disobedience. Since we are not into damaging or destroying either property or people, the size of demonstrations and the (hopefully memorable) words uttered by speakers who address the participants are the main ways available to us to affect public opinion. We absolutely need to show almost continuous growth in numbers of participants in civil disobedience actions, and we should always be able to demonstrate skillful organization and planning.

All this seems to me feasible right now. But if early experience shows that we cannot meet these last two criteria, we should unequivocally end the campaign temporarily, rather than go ahead with something that would leave an impression of tiny size, no growth, poor planning, and ineffectiveness. We should immediately start again, however, to make the planning and organization better, and then to move forward once more.

4. Tax Resistance: If enough people participated, publicly refusing to pay some portion of one’s income tax would be a form of non-violent civil disobedience guaranteed to persuade a government that it faced a massive problem.

My argument for several years has been that the U.S. military budget should be cut at least in half, and probably more. If I had ever previously thought of engaging in tax resistance, I’d have figured out the rough amount by which I should cut my federal income tax payment as follows. If total federal spending for the year in question was, say, $2 trillion, and military spending for the same year was set at $400 billion, then half of the military spending would be $200 billion, or 10 percent of the $2 trillion total budgeted spending. So I should have reduced my income tax payment for that year by 10 percent and included with the payment a letter to the IRS explaining what I’d done. If I were smart, I’d also have sought public attention by sending copies of the letter to any media outlets that might have given me attention.

I did none of this. It’s something that up to now has just been unthinkable. Until recently, some unchallenged root belief embedded deep inside me assured whatever conscience I had that my government was, on balance, still pursuing policies that were doing more good than bad worldwide. Whatever doubts I had did not seem serious enough for me even to think about flouting the tax laws. Without pondering it much, I just accepted the view that no society could function unless most people paid their taxes.

The Bush administration’s actions and policies since September 11, and only those actions and policies, have made me question those root assumptions and beliefs.

On a practical level, tax resistance as a method of civil disobedience can work only if a very large number of people take part in it, and if most or all of them are willing to do so publicly. We would need a nationwide movement with massive publicity. I think we’d also need a carefully planned, coordinated campaign in which tens of thousands of individual taxpayers would submit tax returns more or less simultaneously, just before next April 15, all with payments reduced by a set percentage that we had all agreed to, and each with a letter explaining why the taxpayer was refusing to pay the full tax. If this campaign were big enough and noisy enough, it could most likely bring about major changes in both foreign and domestic policies and have a major effect on next year’s election as well. Right now, let’s get a discussion going, with positive and negative comments and ideas and proposals from a lot of other people. But let’s not waste time discussing it forever.

* * * * *

All of us in the United States recently celebrated the 4^th of July, 2003 . Bush on this day made a speech to U.S. military personnel at the U.S. Air Force Museum, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in Dayton , Ohio . He reiterated his strong support for a strategy of preemptive, aggressive wars against nations or groups that he believes threaten the United States . Hatred around the world against such U.S. policies will simply intensify.

On the 4^th of July 227 years ago, our predecessors adopted the Declaration of Independence, and that declaration signaled the start of a revolution that we still honor. What better time of year to urge the people of this country onward and upward to a new revolution – one based entirely on non-violence and one whose intent would be to give us a meaningful democracy at home, and a nation that will in its activities abroad seek to cooperate with rather than dominate others in striving for a fairer, more peaceful world.

[Bill Christison was an analyst for the CIA from 1950 to 1979. At various times, he worked on Soviet and European affairs, on global nuclear proliferation, and later, on Asian and African affairs. He also worked for three years in Germany and two years in Vietnam . In the 1970s, he served as a National Intelligence Officer and as the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. He now lives in Santa Fe , NM , and is active in local antiwar and peace movements. He can be reached at: bill@christison-santafe.com]

Join our Daily News Headlines Email Digest

Information Clearing House

Daily News Headlines Digest

HOME