How to end the war in one day
by Gregg Gordon
March 13, 2008
This week, at hundreds of events across the country, tens of thousands of people
will mark the fifth anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq and demand an
end to the occupation and the withdrawal of all US troops. They will march,
vigil, sit-in, teach-in, write letters, call their Congressman, block recruiting
offices, sing songs, wear orange, call in sick, buy Citgo (Venezuelan) gas, all
in an effort to get the nation's political leadership to take notice of the 70%
of the American people who think this war has destroyed too many lives, done too
much damage to our own country as well as Iraq, cost far too much, and gone on
way too long.
Washington, D.C., will be the focus of much of the activity. A "Stop-Loss
Congress" campaign starting March 10 is delivering stop-loss notices to
Congressional offices, cancelling their planned March 15 vacation until all US
troops are brought home from Iraq. March 13 will see the beginning of four days
of "Winter Soldier" hearings sponsored by Iraq Veterans Against the War,
focusing on the horrific toll the war is taking on even the soldiers lucky
enough to return from their tours of duty alive and uninjured. March 19, the
actual anniversary of the invasion, will be a day of nonviolent civil resistance
in all 435 Congressional districts, although perhaps tellingly, events in the
Capitol will focus on the offices of war profiteers rather than Congressmen.
Organizers apparently don't expect the "stop-loss" campaign to succeed.
I encourage everyone who opposes the war to participate in these events. I'll be
at every one I can get to, as I have for the last five years. It's good for my
soul. But frankly, I don't expect these events to be any more successful than
those earlier ones were, and it seems our numbers dwindle even as the percentage
of people against the war grows. Indeed, before the war began, millions of
people around the world hit the streets in protest. The reaction -- "a focus
group," President Bush said.
I remember back in 1981 attending a huge "Solidarity Day" march in Washington,
when every significant labor union and activist groups from the NAACP to
Greenpeace to the Democratic Socialists of America -- some 250,000 people, far
larger than Martin Luther King's March on Washington or anything from the
Vietnam era -- converged to protest the direction the Reagan administration was
taking America. The result -- seven more years of union-busting, poor-bashing,
environment-trashing, and dirty wars around the world.
Marches and other, highly-visible forms of civil disobedience have their place.
They lift our spirits and let us know we're not alone. They can bring attention
to an issue. And, if persistent enough, they may eventually convince the
powers-that-be that their misguided, destructive policies simply aren't worth
the hassle, and they should find other ways to make money. But a march requires
truly impressive numbers to get much attention, and the trends haven't been
going in our favor. And $4 gas isn't going to make it any easier -- maybe that
was part of the plan. In any case, scattered, sporadic, one-shot efforts have
little chance to make an impact. They know that soon we'll all have to go home
and get back to our lives, and they can easily wait us out.
But there is an approach that asks of people something so easy, effortless, and
free of personal risk that you just might get the participation of the millions
necessary to really end this war. And at the same time, it speaks in the
language that power understands, and in a way it can't ignore.
Remember 9/11? Lines to give blood wrapped around the block, and the entire
country stood at the ready for marching orders, practically pleading for
meaningful ways to sacrifice for the greater good. And how did our president
respond? "Go shopping."
Well, times have changed -- boy, have they. So if Bush's way of having us help
him fight his war was to go shopping, I say the way to end it is just as simple
-- stop shopping.
For all the talk about how the United States has been transformed into a
corporatocracy, we make a mistake when we view it monolithically. It's true that
Halliburton and Exxon/Mobil have made mind-boggling amounts of money off this
war. But every dollar you spend putting a tiger in your tank is a dollar you
can't spend at the mall, so Sears, Roebuck -- not so much. But you're not likely
to hear them speak out. It might cause problems at the club. It might scotch an
invitation to join a corporate board, those interlocking mutual admiration
societies devoted mainly to padding each other's bank accounts at shareholders'
expense -- the easiest money imaginable. After all, if a moral compass or
nonconformity was part of their DNA, they would have chosen a different career
path. Just look at how they dress. They need our encouragement. They need our
help. They need to feel our pain.
So I propose an economic boycott to stop the war and bring the troops home. Not
a boycott of any particular war profiteer -- a boycott of everything. One Day to
End the War. On the last day of the month (just because that would be easy to
remember), if you want the war to end, you don't spend a dime on anything,
nothing, nada, zero, zilch. And you keep doing that every month until it's
enacted into law -- veto overriden if necessary -- that every last soldier be
out of Iraq within one year.
If every one of the 70% of the American public -- more than 200 million people
-- that opposes the war were to simply remove their participation from the
economy for even a day, do you think that would not have an impact? If every
Home Depot and Starbucks, every fast food joint, department store, gas station,
and movie theater in the country were to see their sales drop by 70% one day, do
you think you would not be heard?
Of course, that's not going to happen. To reach that level of participation
would require a massive public education campaign. Liberal blogs and talk radio
could surely be brought on board, but those of us involved in those things tend
to overestimate their reach (ask Ron Paul). And you could expect no help from
free media -- their advertisers would scream. So you probably need paid media
(and even then, paid media might be denied too on the grounds of "controversial
advertising." Not spending money to end an illegal war -- controversial. Buying
gym shoes made by slave laborers in Asia -- not controversial). But assuming you
could do paid media, I have no clue what that would cost, but . . . well, it
ain't me, babe (although if you know George Soros, you might send him this
link).
But if you could get even half of war opponents to participate -- participate in
non-participation -- or even 30%, that would translate into a 20% drop in
consumer activity at the low end, and that's enough to be noticed. These are
people to whom a few percentage points of market share -- even tenths of a
percentage point -- mean millions of dollars. "Pennies per pound," Kris
Kristofferson says in the movie, Fast Food Nation. "Pennies per pound."
Comfortable lives for heirs yet unborn are at stake. They care.
To some extent, this action would be symbolic. Most economic activity would
simply be transferred to the day before or the day after the event, but not all.
You're not going to eat at McDonalds today just because you didn't yesterday,
and the retailers don't want to pay their "associates" to stand around all day,
even if they'll be a little busier tomorrow. And symbolic actions can matter.
Gandhi's Salt March was largely symbolic, and the British Empire began to crack.
The beauty of the idea is that, unlike a march, it requires so little effort to
participate, and also so little risk. You can't get arrested for it. You can't
get fired for it. Indeed, it requires more effort to not participate. At most,
you have to break a few habits like the ritual morning Starbucks stop, and think
ahead if you're going to need gas or groceries. But you still have the
heightened awareness of taking action. (The biggest problem would be getting
people to not go out for lunch. I know people who would consider that an almost
inconceivable sacrifice, the obesity epidemic and the example of Ramadan
notwithstanding.) And the kinds of locally-initiated protests that are already
occurring could and should continue -- friendly reminder pickets at shopping
centers would be helpful -- but tying them into a boycott would provide them
with a common focus nationwide, rather than the disparate, isolated events they
now are.
And heck, with Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz now putting the
long-term cost of the war at $3 trillion -- and every last penny of it on your
credit card -- setting aside one day a month to not spend money strikes me as
just a minimally prudent savings plan. You can hardly afford not to do it.
It will be easy for me. For me, SARS stands for "Shopping Avoidance Reflex
Syndrome." I hold up a silver cross at the very sight of a mall. For more normal
people, the first month may be tough, but the second will be easier, and by the
third, as you realize 24 hours without shopping does not lead to physical
withdrawal, you might start to find it liberating, and you might begin to find
all kinds of occasions to not shop. That's what would terrify them. That's what
threatens the whole basis of their economy, society, existence. That's the
chance they can't afford to take.
So this week, by all means, march, vigil, write your Congressman, wear orange,
call in sick, make as big a pain-in-the-butt of yourself as you can. Raise hell!
But if, after March 19, you simply go back to business as usual, it will all be
for naught. We'll be back to cursing the spinelessness and duplicity of
Democrats and bemoaning our own powerlessness.
So on March 31, join me. Don't shop.
---
Gregg Gordon is a writer, musician, and activist in Columbus, Ohio. He can be
reached at gregorino2003@yahoo.com.