Too Many Broads in the Peace Movement, Apparently

Antiwar.com’s Don’t F*ck Me Up With Peace and Love? brought my attention to this piece from American Conservative, “Solving Non-Interventionism’s Tough-Guy Problem.” George Hawley writes:

The tendency to categorize everything into dichotomous categories is a major problem with contemporary American political thought. One idea that unfortunately survived the 60s is that only limp-wristed hippies care about peace, and if you don’t want to be lumped with those indolent, unshaven wusses, you should make it a point to support whatever you think they hate. My suspicion is that a great percentage of the GOP’s voters think very little about American foreign policy, but instinctively believe that only America-hating wimps are against America’s wars, whereas Real Men “support our troops.” These people don’t really care about Iraqi or Afghani civilians, and consider stoically accepting American casualties a sign of “American Grit.” This does not mean they cannot be persuaded by non-interventionist arguments, but doing so will require a message stripped of all traces of humanitarian, we-are-the-world gobbledygook.

Oh my God. Being antiwar is too gay, is it? Next I suppose Real Men will stop wanting to get married, since they hear that’s what the gays want to do now.

Americans have not always associated peace with poltroonery. As far as I know, few people argued that the America First Committee was primarily motivated by spinelessness. Still, since the 60s, the anti-war movement has unfortunately been associated with “Flower Power” and other sissy slogans. Anyone serious about reviving an older, pre-hippy anti-war tradition and making it a major political force would be wise to eschew all rhetoric that conforms to this unfortunate stereotype.

Get all those old queens out of the antiwar movement. Understood.

Lamenting the suffering created by harsh economic sanctions and bombing campaigns is a good way for non-interventionist right-wingers to suck up to their leftist friends and colleagues, but so what? The people moved by such arguments are already anti-war. Building a powerful anti-war coalition on the Right will require an entirely different rhetoric. At all costs it must avoid sounding like Code Pink.

Again, oh my God. At a time when mainstream feminists openly support pro-war candidates and troop surges, we’re supposed to believe that the peace movement is too soft and feminine and humanitarian? We can take the antiwar sentiments of leftist colleagues for granted when, as amply documented by Arthur Silber, the American Left has largely abandoned a principled antiwar stance? I don’t know about you, but whenever I try sharing with leftists my opposition to tyranny and war, they largely hear “I hate roads,” or “I want to deprive the poor of healthcare.” Little things, like a million Iraqi dead, are just one of the unfortunate side effects of a system primarily designed to build pretty parks and pathways. Find me a leftist who thinks culpability for America’s aggressive interventions doesn’t begin and end with Bush II, and you can take a well-earned vacation.

Anyway, I’ve been thinking a lot about recruitment tactics lately, and I’ll be sure to keep the “harness contempt of women and gays” tactic in my toolbox. You can actually build a pretty broad coalition with that one. Even feminists don’t shy away from using it.