I usually think that Ben Mulroney is a bit of a twit, but this week he wrote something that showed just a teensy weensy bit of insight that I would have never guessed that he was capable of.
In this week's Sunday Sun article, Peaceniks can't make case to sway unless they root argument in reality, Ben discusses the silly tactics of many in the antiwar movement, and how they are actually hurting their cause.
Those of you who have been reading this for a few weeks, know that I co-founded the Brampton Peace Coalition (BPC) a few weeks ago, but what I haven't reported is that I have already sort-of unofficially left the group. I thought that a Tory and a group of socialist anti-globalisationists could work together on the one issue we agree on, our disgust with the war in Iraq. Unfortunately they want to bring in most of their silly protest tactics like die-ins and some stuff that's borderline illegal, and that's not really the vision I had.
Back to Ben. His article ends:
**
However, in order for anti-war protesters to maintain relevance and respectability, their future arguments should be rooted in reality.
Members of the peace movement should keep up their pressure. It will ensure that the battle to liberate Iraq never loses its focus.
But if they see themselves as the voice of reason in this great debate, then reason should guide each and every one of their arguments.
Activists should be challenging Bush on his methods, not his motives; otherwise they risk slipping into the absurd and losing any chance of swaying the silent masses sitting on the sidelines.
**

This is almost exactly the same message I was attempting to bring to the Brampton Peace Coalition. Most on the left are already against the war, so the anti-war movement's message should not focus on them. Most on the right, at least the far right (CA), aren't going to agree no matter what message is presented, so the anti-war message should be focussed primarily on the moderates. That generally includes the middle class, the Liberal and the Tory supporter. And those people are not going to react favourably to "stunts", like "die-ins" in the middle of a busy crowd. You need to let those people form their own opinion of the war, and then create a passive way for them display that opinion. If you can get a person to "Honk for Peace", for instance, then you've gotten that person to commit their opinion in a small way.
Unfortunately, as Ben points out, there are a lot of folks, especially the anti-war movement's organizers, who are shooting themselves in the foot by with silly tactics. Making it less likely that middle class folks are going to get up off their couch on a Saturday and go down to an anti-war rally.
Carrying around union banners at the protests for instance. Die-ins. Calling George Bush a criminal or a Nazi. On that last point, are you going to feel very comfortable associating yourself with a person who is wearing a t-shirt that says "Bush is a Nazi", even if perhaps you might agree with his point?

Let me put it this way. The stated goal of many in the anti-war movement is "to end the war". This is silly. Demonstrations aren't going to end the war. The purpose of the antiwar movement should be to convince people who are opposed to the war that it is acceptable to stand in a crowd and be counted as being opposed to the war. The end goal being that the larger the head-count at the rallies, the more the media will have to pay attention.