Making Peace Normal

David Christopher Naylor Swanson

The marches and demonstrations against the Iraq war have apparently not
yet altered the course of that war. I plan to march on March 20th in hopes
that we finally can change the behavior of the U.S. government. But marching
alone will not do it.
Already we have, of course, impacted the content of the U.S. mass media,
in particular through the positions taken by various presidential campaigns,
including to some extent those of candidates who had voted for the war.
But what's needed now if we are going to save lives this year or in the
future is for us and the Democratic nominee to turn the anti-war protests
into pro-peace initiatives.
As long as war is the norm and peace is radical, Democratic candidates
will be put on the defensive, for example by being falsely accused of
voting to slash major sections of the military.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kerry-military-votes.html
If we can make peace normal, we will be able to force our candidates to
propose initiatives that put them on the offensive against public officials
who do the bidding of the weapons makers.
But what sort of proactive positive proposal could there be? If you're
against war you're against war, right? Isn't it just semantics to call
that a negative position?
Well, how many of us have heard what's going on in Britain?
<snip>
Those of us in the United States would not just be following Europe were
we to pick up this idea and run with it. In fact, Basterfield and McDonnell
credit an American with originating the idea of a branch of government
for peace promotion, and they have worked closely with this American on
their proposal.
<snip>

more at top link,
peace,
dp

is passe' now?

dp