- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It was linked on Antiwar.com last night. I read it then, and while I was reading this blog entry this morning, I thought the theme seemed similar, then the article was linked. Durp.
The article also offered solutions, and iirc Cole was responding to criticism he has received for his criticism regarding the effectiveness of street protests in influencing politicians (he argues that they don't matter). He suggested an "America First" PAC that has two purposes:
So I am proposing a coordinating committee that would have two purposes:
1. It would develop a large database of leaders of concerned civic organizations so as to tip them when big votes in Congress were coming. These organizations would then tip their members, who would deluge Congress with millions of emails on what is at stake. There are lots of allies in US civil society for this enterprise, including religious congregations (liberal synagogues, Presbyterians, Catholics, Quakers, Mennonites, Muslim mosques, Unitatiran Universalists, etc.). Such an effort could also mobilizer Greens, Libertarians, and Socialists, as well as sections of the Democratic and Republican Parties.
2. It would direct sympathetic PACs to donate money in close races to anti-war candidates,and to defend representatives and senators who dared buck the Israel lobbies from reprisals. It would also try to unseat hawks like Joe Lieberman and Saxby Chambliss.
This "For America Public Affairs Committee" could easily be organized and could quickly become very influential. All we would need to do is win a couple of rounds with AIPAC and suddenly congressional votes would be much closer.
It would also coordinate the lobbying of those existing small PACs which are more narrowly focused but which have a strong interest in the peace process--J Street, the Peace Action Politica Action Committee, the Arab American Political Action Committee, the National Iranian American Council, etc., etc.
Sounds like a good idea and something that Accountability Now!/Strange Bedfellows might be interested in. I mean, his idea and AN!PAC seem to have the same basic premise, to influence Congresscritters by providing disincentives for pro-war, anti-Civil Liberties, anti-American votes in the Congress. Like Cole said, "win a couple of rounds with AIPAC and suddenly congressional votes would be much closer".
AIPAC is merely a lobby. It is powerful because it is efficient, well funded, and well organized. ATM there is nothing to counterbalance it. Does anyone else think that a single issue Foreign Policy PAC that is antiwar and not beholden to the two party system would be successful in cracking AIPAC's (and the Establishment at large) pro-war armor?
