Althouse: The paucity of anti-war protest on Syria.

September 10, 2013

The paucity of anti-war protest on Syria.

A candlelight vigil in Berkeley drew "[a]round 100 people."

An elderly crowd, based on the photos.

More photos here.

20 comments:

madAsHell said...: Do these people all dress from the same closet?

Why do I see confusion, and anger in their eyes? Is it because they can't fit any more stickers on the rear bumper?; 9/10/13, 12:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Hmmm, young folks busy with classes? Or do they agree with Obama? Looks like the elders are leading the way. Looking more like old hippies than tea partiers, which is fine with me, better actually.

Speaking of the Tea Party, have they come out with a public opinion on this besides what Rand Paul has indicated? The across the spectrum disapproval of getting embroiled in another war is intertersting and indicates that Americans are still capable of independant thought and are ready to buck the party of their choice when they need to.; 9/10/13, 12:46 PM
donald said...: Well, the tea party MOVEMENT isn't about foreign policy, its about a bloated voracious government.

No matter how much you and your fellow travelers lie and distort, that's what it's all about.; 9/10/13, 1:03 PM
jr565 said...: In addition to thinking the Syrian "war" is necessary I do have to admit that I LOVE the position that it's putting both obama and the anti war crowd in.

Having Ed Asner saying that Hollywood isn't coming forward because they don't want to be seen as anti black is freaking awesome!

Why would Republicans want to short circuit the process and not make the anti war crowd live up their hypocricy for as long as possible?; 9/10/13, 1:21 PM
jr565 said...: Inga wrote:
Speaking of the Tea Party, have they come out with a public opinion on this besides what Rand Paul has indicated? The across the spectrum disapproval of getting embroiled in another war is intertersting and indicates that Americans are still capable of independant thought and are ready to buck the party of their choice when they need to.

Dropping bombs is not the same thing as getting involved in Iraq II. When clinton bombed Iraq back in 1998 it was a limited bombing that didn't also involve an invasion.
When Israel bombed Syria's nuke program in 2006 they didnt' put a single boot on the ground.; 9/10/13, 1:22 PM
jr565 said...: Inga wrote:
Speaking of the Tea Party, have they come out with a public opinion on this besides what Rand Paul has indicated? The across the spectrum disapproval of getting embroiled in another war is intertersting and indicates that Americans are still capable of independant thought and are ready to buck the party of their choice when they need to.

but the reverse also holds true. I'm supporting Obama on this and I'm not normally an Obama supporter. So wouldn't that be me bucking my party and supporting the opposition?
And is Rand Paul bucking anything? His father had the exact same position when it came to all the wards that occured in the last administration, and Rand Paul is following suit.
So, he's acting true to form.; 9/10/13, 1:26 PM
Unknown said...: Where I come from, near Concord Massachusetts, nearly all of the street anti-war protesters are old. This has been true for at least 10 years.; 9/10/13, 1:34 PM
Seeing Red said...: So when will you need to, Inga?; 9/10/13, 1:35 PM
Hagar said...: It's Berkeley, Inga, Berkeley.; 9/10/13, 1:57 PM
Drago said...: Inga fails to understand the Tea Party movement.

It's a movement.

Not a single "party".

There is no central body.

It's just alot of groups all joined philosophically (not operationally) by a sense that the Federal government has grown too large and onerous and dangerous to it's citizens.

When you ask "Speaking of the Tea Party, have they come out with a public opinion on this besides what Rand Paul has indicated?" you have already demonstrated an inability to understand that reality.

There is no "Tea Party" public opinion on this. There are simply hundreds of groups and tens/hundreds of thousands of people who have their own opinions on Syria.

This is what confuses those on the left since the left is so amenable to top-down directive setting and astro-turfing (one of Axelrod's specialties).; 9/10/13, 2:09 PM
Drago said...: And oh, the paucity of anti-war protests is simply because the "anti-war" left is not really "anti-war", they are anti-republican and anti-conservative.

Period.

Fens Law.

As if we needed another example!; 9/10/13, 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm against our bombing or any military involvement in Syria, I've said so several times.

So buck you, lol.; 9/10/13, 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/10/13, 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh lookie here, another Tea Party Platform statement!

Freedom Platform; 9/10/13, 4:07 PM
poppa india said...: Inga, the platform you linked to deals with economic issues and the size of our government, not with foreign policy questions. It looks to me like they are limiting themselves to issues in the United States. Apparently they do not want to comment on foreign affairs, probably because it is outside of the group's interest.

Why, then, should they have a public opinion on the Syria question?; 9/10/13, 4:20 PM
Drago said...: Inga: "I'm against our bombing or any military involvement in Syria, I've said so several times."

I don't doubt that for a second. I take you at your word.

What we are discussing in this thread, however, is how few of those "rabid" "anti-war" protestors are hitting the streets to express their disapproval of possible military strikes.

The reason for that "paucity" is quite simple.

The anti-war left is not really anti-war, they are just anti-conservative.

The lefties just use whatever "issue" is at their disposal to launch whatever political attack they think will work that day.

Do you remember the massive anti-war/anti-missile deployment protests in Europe in the 1980's after Reagan deployed intermediate nukes?

Of course, the deployment of US intermediate weapons was in RESPONSE to the Soviets moving their intermediate missiles into Eastern Europe....which of course precipitated precisely 0 lefty protests against "militarization" and "nukes!" and "get the missiles out now!".

Why?

Because the lefties then were not against "nukes" or "missiles"...they were just against the US missiles/nukes.

Same old same old.

Yawn.; 9/10/13, 4:32 PM
Anonymous said...: From teaparty.org

I have no idea who these people represent, but thought it was interesting.; 9/10/13, 5:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Poppa India, I beg to differ. It appears that there are Tea Party groups that are commenting publicly on Syria. It doesn't really matter to me, they have a right to express their opinion, but they do have one.

See my other link also.

"Tea Party Leading Opposition to War in Syria"; 9/10/13, 5:42 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Well, the tea party MOVEMENT isn't about foreign policy, its about a bloated voracious government."

And our wars abroad--which fall under the area of "foreign policy," if I am not mistaken--are singularly contributory to the bloat and voracity (and authoritarianism) of the government. A government engaging in war--even if the war is legal or justified, which ours are not--customarily restricts freedoms at home, increases secrecy regarding its own affairs, and enshrines militarism as a virtue and aspect of civic culture. If you want a government to become a tyranny, send it to war and encourage it in its endeavors.; 9/10/13, 8:20 PM
DougWeber said...: This worse than it looks. Most "protests" in Berkeley happen on Shattuck Ave in downtown Berkeley, near BART and "close" to Cal.

This protest in the the rich enclave of North Berkeley, a few miles from down town. It is on a traveled street but a street only used by Berkeley people to commute and go to the Monterey Market, the near by food stores, and the fields of MLK Jr for soccer and tennis for the kids.

In essence this protest is out of the way and playing to the converted anyway.; 9/10/13, 11:22 PM