Ezra Klein: Sheehan's Exit

« Low Hanging Fruit | Main | The Obama Health Care Plan »

May 29, 2007

Sheehan's Exit

I wasn't totally aware Cindy Sheehan was still around, so her publishing of a "resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement " took me by surprise. But she sort of buried the lede. Happily for the anti-war movement, it's actually become a broad-based, overwhelmingly popular movement, and needs neither faces nor tribunes. The role Sheehan played in the dark days of 2005 is not nearly so necessary in 2007. That's a good thing! Maybe not for Sheehan, but certainly for the cause she professes to believe in.

May 29, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

I saw Sheehan speak at an anti-war event just a couple months ago. She was fantastic on the stage, obviously she had honed her skills after dozens or hundreds of similar events. She spent a fair amount of time speaking to regular folks in the crowd too. However, her appearance was really just a small part of the whole. The event was in a smallish college town, but it was a good turn out and the crowd was amazingly diverse, every age/ethnic/religious group imaginable was there together.
Sheehan is apparently followed around the country by a hundred or so "counter-protestors" who yelled at us through bullhorns and tried to disrupt things, but no one seemed bothered much by them and it was a remarkably uplifting, happy event.

Posted by: sprocket | May 29, 2007 12:03:56 PM

Ezra, what is it with the "professes to believe in?" That's a very strange way to speak of Sheehan.

And how would it be that the anti-war cause not needing a face anymore is bad for Sheehan? If I had been pillorid, vilified and ridiculed for years, I think I, too, might get tired. And then the Democrats don't seem to be all that ready, or capable, or both, of ending the war. She has done all she can.

Strange comments, Ezra. If you've got something to say, just come out and say it.

Jake

Posted by: Jake - but not the one | May 29, 2007 12:31:41 PM

I agree with Jake. Sheehan may not be your favorite flavor of progressive but (as you yourself recognize)she has played an important role ... and even though she hugged Chavez she deserves better than to be dismissed by American Prospect type, "respectable" liberals. Heaven is full of Sheehans and Kuciniches.

Of course you are right that Sheehan, the suffering mother, is no longer indispensable to the movement and you are right that that's a good thing.

Posted by: Adrian | May 29, 2007 12:54:56 PM

Your definition of progress seems to be Democratic? Because her thesis was that the Democrats failed the peace activists. Love her or hate her- you can't seriously argue after the last couple of weeks that she is wrong.

Posted by: akaison | May 29, 2007 1:28:10 PM

Your definition of progress seems to be Democratic? Because her thesis was that the Democrats failed the peace activists. Love her or hate her- you can't seriously argue after the last couple of weeks that she is wrong.

Frankly, the choice offered to the Democrats was between being responsible for the most disastrous form of exit and the President being responsible for a disastrous continuation of the war. I can't bring myself to blame them for choosing the disaster that they themselves aren' tresponsible for.

-- ACS

Posted by: ACS | May 29, 2007 3:17:04 PM

Pardon me but give me a fucking break- those were not the only two choices. Those are two choices that those who don't want to do anything or want to be apologists for the Democrats want to pretend were the only two choices.

Posted by: akaison | May 29, 2007 3:39:39 PM

Posted by: akaison | May 29, 2007 3:39:40 PM

The role Sheehan played in the dark days of 2005 is not nearly so necessary in 2007

Shorter Ezra, I've been down so long, it looks like up to me.

Posted by: jerry | May 29, 2007 3:52:09 PM

I think it's worth keeping in mind that a number of liberals - me included - were not necessarily as attached to Sheehan and her cause as others were. I think the notion of her as a "leader" in the antiwar movement was somewhat overhyped (by, I would point out, the right, which liked to take some of her more extreme views and paste the whole of Democrats with her rhetoric), and partly for that, and partly for other reasons, she was an imperfect messenger. That's not meant to be disrespectful; I think we should just keep her role on the public stage in perspective. It was, and continues to be, important to hear from parents and friends of soldiers who question our continued involvement in Iraq, and her speaking up as bravely and forthrightly as she did is admirable, especially given the extremely difficult personal loss involved. But the overall discussion needs to be broader, and opposition, akaison, needs more possibilities than you may like. The more we make this "you're not opposed enough, angry enough, etc, the less likely we are to get to the withdrawal we all agree is what we want, ultimately. I think Sheehan's decision to step back is an appropriate one, and I respect her for seeing that. The cause will go on.... and I think we need to be prepared for the goal to take longer, and be harder than some might like, without turning on one another.

Posted by: weboy | May 29, 2007 4:57:59 PM

weboy frankly since you totally missed my point I am not sure how to even respond. I will try. I was responding to a poster who used my quote to then tell me what I thought the options were. In other words, my annoyance- not anger- was about the posters all too much used in politics tactic of pretending to respond to something I say by then limiting the debate to two choices that will make his position right when I made no such statement or argument. Indeed,- I challenge you in the other thread on Iraq to find a statement where I say we need to have did "x." What I am defending here is the need to keep the Democratic Party represents feet to the fire. That's it.

You repeat the offense by doing the exact same thing as the poster to whom I was responding. Please don't tell me what I think the options are. Please don't assume you know how I think. You don't. Nor do you know how I feel. Because my emotions aren't the point.

It's insulting that you and the other person assume that you do just because I find it odd that Sheehan (who I didn't agree with by the way) was treated poorly not for her stance, but because she didn't support the Democratic leadership after they came into power. She didn't change. Those who were around her did. And that is why I have a problem with this diary.

It only has taken 7 months for the democratic rank and file to commit the same you are either with us or against us menality of the right. did you read sheehan's diary by the way- or are you just commenting on what you think of as "anger" rather than what is actually annoyance at laziness with regard to how we should view leadership?

Posted by: akaison | May 29, 2007 5:19:41 PM

I'm wondering what, exactly, you think the Democratic party could do -- given that any accountability will be vetoed, and there aren't enough Republican defectors to break a veto -- to ensure accountability in Iraq? Sure, we could cut off every last drop of military funding, but that would be shooting ourselves in the foot, in terms of giving us enough flexibility to have any sort of plan for how to leave Iraq and what to do to at least make an attempt to unshit the bed.

-- ACS

Posted by: ACS | May 29, 2007 5:46:08 PM

this issue has already been discussed in an earlier thread. i am not going to rehash it - my point was and remains that giving simple minded dichotomies may make it easier for you claim yourself right, but it doesn't mean the two options you present are the only two choices.

Posted by: akaison | May 29, 2007 6:09:57 PM

akaison - I'm really not in a fight for how you should see things; I appreciate that we see the recent events on Iraq funding differently. I was less specifying your views on opposition to the war than a general sense from a number of commnters I've seen here and elsewhere that "good liberals" must be upset with Democrats in congress (though I think your "either/or" options above is a little limiting). And as I've said, at some length, I'm just not there. I don't think we should all be in lockstep; but if we're not, we need to acknowledge that opposition to our involvement in Iraq comes in different flavors and differents speeds. I freely admit (and admitted) I do not follow Sheehan closely, nor do I plan to; she didn't speak for me. But I respected her opposition to the war, and admired her speaking up at a time when someone surely needed to take that stance publically. I also admire and respect her decision to step back now, rather than be a lightning rod for the right. My only view on this is a long view, that we need a broad consensus and a flexibility to achieve what we want to achieve. I don't insist anyone hew to a particular line, and all I ask in return is a similar acceptance that I don't march in lockstep to prevailing liberal orthodoxy. That, to me, is why we're liberals - we'll get there, it just may take a while and be a little messy. If the argument gets a little passionate or a little angry, that's okay too. I still think you're beautiful, man. :)

Posted by: weboy | May 29, 2007 6:18:47 PM

Once again Weboy- I am not commenting on the specifics of what Sheehan's message was on the war. I was commenting on her right to call out the Democrats without others treating her like a heretic for doing so because there will come a time when we wiill have to keep the leaderships feet to the fire. That's it.

Posted by: akaison | May 29, 2007 9:30:23 PM

I don't think Sheehan's comments on Democrats were "heresy"; I do think they were provocative, and I think if you plan to be in that space, you should be prepared for the fact that some people will disagree, some strongly. I think the "heretic" assertion works both ways, because I think those who do feel the congressional leadership were to blame for the Iraq funding bill are having a hard time accepting that some of us don't see it that way. This isn't a religion; it's politics. We're bound to have disagreements. I think there's more to how Sheehan is viewed than one set of comments on Democratic leaders - I feel fairly comfortable saying her views were pretty far to the left, further than others, myself included. I'd feel better if we all ratcheted down words like "heretic" and made this less revival meeting and more simply a political discussion. I am moderate like that; it's why a lot of the antiwar movement - which at times feels serious and heavy and religion-like - doesn't entirely appeal to me. I suspect I'm not alone in that, and I think it's why the antiwar movement may need to broaden its appeal and its acceptance of a variety of views on how and when to end our involvement in Iraq, if we're serious about it. It's also why, I think, Sheehan may not be the best "face" for what antiwar activists need to accomplish right now. I think Democrats, especially progressive Democrats (those further left) have often struggled with where they need to compromise on the things they feel passionate about, things like using moderate messaging with broad appeal over more extreme views that will not attract some people. I get the dilemma; I've been there. Age has mellowed me somewhat, and as my Mom says, I'd rather do what we need to do to get things done rather than wait for the perfect alignment of moon and stars - I just don't have time to keep waiting. If that means a softer message with a broader appeal, I'm okay with it. I can understand that others aren't. But I think the question is whether we want to accomplish something - which requires some compromise - or hold fast to one viewpoint and one goal. The more we make this a "one way or no way" argument, the less likely we are to succeed. That's my take.

Posted by: weboy | May 30, 2007 6:56:21 AM

the point which you choose to miss is that she's pointing out that people do treat politics like religion and she got burned by it. since you don't follow her I am not a) sure why this matters so much to you b) can assert that she wasn't treated like she said and c) can know whether some people do treat politics like a religion. No knowing any of these things your whole post is silly. By the way I was threatened with banning over at a promenient blog for simply disagreeing with the orthodoxy that progressives equal being for changing copyright law. You keep trying to flip this into something other than what I said. I find that to be a waste of time after about the third try now. Good luck.

Posted by: akaison | May 30, 2007 8:35:25 AM

It matters to me because I don't think Politics is religion, or should be. I think what Sheehan saw - in the middle of the storm - is idfferent from what other see, and I think both perspectives have some validity. I don't trhink Sheehan is a heretic, but I think she chose a path of being provocative and public and wasn't, necessarily prepared for all that entailed. As I said, I think politics, especially lefty politics, would be better if we ratcheted down a lot of this talk of "heresies" and "orthodoxies" and I think we have to agree to disagree on some things. It strikes me we're neither that far apart, nor all that different on any of this, so I'm mystified why you're quite so annoyed with me. I'm not unsympathetic to Sheehan, I just think the public spotlight may not have been the right role for her. The cause will continue.

Posted by: weboy | May 30, 2007 11:04:44 AM

It doesn't matter what you think. It matters what is or is not.

Posted by: akaison | May 30, 2007 12:54:44 PM

by the way this is the same problem I have with several other posters- ie sanpete who regularly argues against a position I am taking solely on what he thinks. what you think should be in teh case in politics is irrelevant to what ms sheehan did or did not experience. one to me is more valid because its her actual experience versus what you wish were the case. the later maybe needed to better society, but it's not what you use to judge the veracity of someone's account of events. this is why i said earlier it didn't take long for the democrats to act exactly likt he GOP.

Posted by: akaison | May 30, 2007 12:56:45 PM

Give it up, akaison. There's no reasoning with delusional pwogwessive do-nothing nutbags. They don't know of anything outside their comfy-cozy democorporate party and they don't want to know.

Posted by: AlanSmithee | Jun 1, 2007 8:30:43 AM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘