Make no mistake: Cadbury’s speech is cringeworthy. Some of the quotes as reported by the Times:

You can prove to your oppressors that their objectives and methods are not only wrong, but unavailing in the face of the world’s protests and universal disapproval of the injustices the Hitler program entails.

By hating Hitler and trying to fight back, Jews are only increasing the severity of his policies against them.

If Jews throughout the world try to instill into the minds of Hitler and his supporters recognition of the ideals for which the race stands, and if Jews appeal to the German sense of justice and the German national conscience, I am sure the problem will be solved more effectively and earlier than otherwise.

The idea that we might be able to appease Hitler was obviously wrong-headed. To tell Jews that they should do this is patronizing to the extreme.

But in many ways, all this is also vintage Quaker. It is in line with how many Friends saw themselves in the world. To understand Cadbury’s reaction, you have to know that Quakers of the era were very suspicious of collective action. He described any boycott of Nazi Germany as a kind of warfare. They felt this way too about unionization–workers getting together on strike were warring against the factory owners.

When John Woolman spoke out about slavery in the 1700s, he went one-on-one as a minister to fellow Quakers. During the Civil War, Friends wrote letters one-on-one with Abraham Lincoln urging him to seek peace (they got some return letters too!). Cadbury naively thought that these sorts of personal tactics could yield results against authoritarian twentieth-century states.

Missing in Cadbury’s analysis is an appreciation of how much the concentration of power in industrializing societies and the growth of a managerial class between owners and workers has changed things. Workers negotiating one-on-one with an owner/operator in a factory with twenty workers is very different than negotiating in a factory of thousands run by a CEO on behalf of hundreds of stockholders. Germany as a unified state was only a dozen years old when Cadbury was born. The era of total war was still relatively new and many people naively thought a rule of law could prevail after the First World War. The idea of industrializing pogroms and killing Jews by the millions must have seen fantastical.

Some of this worldview also came from theology: if we have direct access to the divine, then we can appeal to that of God in our adversary and win his or her heart and soul without resort to coercion. It’s a nice sentiment and it even sometimes works.

I won’t claim that all Friends have abandoned this worldview, but I would say it’s a political minority, especially with more activist Friends. We understand the world better and routinely use boycotts as a strategic lever. Cadbury’s American Friends Service Committee itself pivoted away from the kind of direct aid work that had exemplified its early years. For half a century it has been working in strategic advocacy.

Friends still have problems. We’re still way more stuck on racial issues among ourselves than one would think we would be given our participation in Civil Rights activism. Like many in the U.S., we’re struggling with the limitation of civility in a political system where rules have broken down. No AFSC head would give a lecture like Cadbury’s today. But I think it’s good to know where we come from. Some of Cadbury’s cautions might still hold lessons for us; understanding his blind spots could help expose ours.

One might call this whole episode the triumph of Waspy good intentions over Jewish common sense… But of course Quaker schools—and Quaker camps, like the one I once attended, and Quaker meetinghouses—are, these days, pretty Jewish places. The Times article has a burlesque feel, with a bunch of Jewish students and alumni performing in Quaker-face.

He also makes interesting points about the cultures of Jewish humor (“We Jews survive because of Hitler jokes”) and that of Friends:

The Quaker practice of silent worship can disposes its practitioners against the loud, bawdy, contentious discourse that infuses Jewish culture. I’m not making claims about individual Quakers—I can introduce you to perfectly hilarious Quakers, some of whom interrupt even more than I do—but at their institutions, the values that come to the fore are Gene Sharp not Gene Wilder. In their earnestness, Quaker schools are David Brooks not Mel Brooks. You get the idea.

I’m always a bit unsure how seriously to take cultural Quaker stereotypes as motivating forces in pieces like these. I wonder how many Friends actually work or study at a Manhattan Quaker school. A more generic headmaster fear-of-conflict seems as likely a cause as anything to do with silent worship. Then too, we don’t know what other issues might be at play below the surface of privacy and confidentiality. But the Friends Seminary incident seems as good a marker as anything else of the complicated dynamics within Friends schools today.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/258394/jewish-teacher-fired-from-quaker-school-for-making-nazi-joke

That one finally becomes the thing he violently fights is a fact that Hitler understood, in 1933, when he said, “The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.” It would be a tragic thing indeed if we Americans were stripped of our freedom by a foreign and aggressive power; it is all the more tragic that we gradually and somewhat unknowingly give up our freedoms, one after another, in the pursuit of that force which we claim will guard our liberty.

— Bayard Rustin [Source]

My predictable post-election essay is over on Nonviolence.org, “Four More Years”. Aside from the politics, I’ve been fascinated how the election was finally framed in terms of “moral issues” and how this measurement somehow translated to support for President Bush.
Friends and other lefty Christians need to take the “moral and faith issues” question as personal and corporate queries. (As usual Beppeblog has a good post about this, “Tough numbers for a fag like me…”:http://beppeblog.blogspot.com/2004/11/tough-numbers-for-fags-like-me.html). If someone had come up to me after I voted yesterday and asked me what I thought was the most important issue in this election, I would have replied “the war”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/cat_iraq_antiwar.php. The answer would mask the fact that for me war is a moral issue defined by a deep passionate faith (a deep passionate Christian faith). It’s too easy for me to talk around my faith though, and to frame the debate in secular language. I tell myself I’m being more inclusive when I use pragmatic rationales, but in reality I’m hiding from my listeners my true understanding of Christ’s work in the world and our role in His covenant.
A majority of voters are suspicious of us East Coast liberals and they should be. I just talked to a Friend buying a book for a Bush supporter who, she explained, “doesn’t understand the complexity of life.” Talk about judgemental! Would you support someone who thought you were a idiot if you didn’t support Kerry? The Democrats are starting to look at the turn-off of this form of elitism; from today’s _New York Times_ (of course, here _I_ am, quoting from the official publication of elite America):
bq. “Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter got elected because they were comfortable with their faith,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a former Clinton aide. “What happened was that a part of the electorate came open to what Clinton and Carter had to say on everything else–health care, the environment, whatever–because they were very comfortable that Clinton and Carter did not distain the way these people lived their lives, but respected them.”
He added: “We need a nominee and a party that is comfortable with faith and values. And if we have one, then all the hard work we’ve done on Social Security or America’s place in the world or college education can be heard. But people aren’t going to hear what we say until they know that we don’t approach them as Margaret Mead would an anthropological experiment.”
h3. War and tolerance as moral issues
Why am I not more explicit about my faith and my politics? Why don’t I say that I voted against Bush because I question his moral judgement and his faith? Why don’t I say that war is a Christian issue and that all Christians should be against war? Why don’t I say that charity and love is a Christian issue and that all Christians should honor loving same-sex relationships?
The Revealer has an article called Gay Marriage, GOP secret weapon. The author recently wrote a book about religion in America and concluded that the “greatest common denominator of American belief is anti-homosexuality.” But here’s a telling observation from his interviews of Christians:
bq.. Most of these people are surprisingly abstract in their thinking. There may be a certain disingenuousness to the popular anti-homosexuality mantra, “hate the sin, love the sinner,” but nearly everyone we met really did distinguish their hatred of homosexuality from their dealings with homosexuals.
How do I know? Because many, if not most, thought that Peter and I were a gay couple, by virtue of the facts that we�re writers and had come from New York City. We�re neither a couple, nor gay, but there never seemed to be a polite way to say that, so we didn�t, and still some of the great homosexual-haters of America welcomed us into their homes and their churches and their temples.
p. This does mean the laws are abstract and we shouldn’t worry. I’m sure there were plenty of Germans in the 1920s who could work themselves into a lather against Jews but be good friends with actual Jews. This sort of casual bigotry grows cancerous when government gets involved. When Hitler took power it was all too easy for them to pretend that the obvious wasn’t happening.
In this election, religious conservatives were able to craft a message making same-sex marriages look like an afront to apple pie and baseball and of course people voted against it. What if we could have somehow framed this election with the details of human suffering that these laws suggest?
The most striking moment of all three debates came when the top lieutenant of the most loyalty-obsessed administration in modern history said he disagreed with his president on the proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. Vice President Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter and that experience forced him to see the human consequence of these otherwise-abstract laws. Both Cheney and his debate opponent “John Edwards are United Methodists”:http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week745/news.html. What if Edwards had broken the debate rules, walked over to Cheney and asked that they use his ninety second response time as an opportunity to offer up a joint prayer on love and charity? They could have held hands (gasp!) and could have turned the issue around right then. What good is faith if we don’t witness to it when it counts?
h3. Elsewhere on the Net
* “Gary Hart: Why the Personal Shouldn’t be Political”:http://nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08hart.html
Who would have thought that the Howard Dean of the 1980s would be so incisive about the issues of religion? I didn’t realize how religious a man he is and he explains why: “As a candidate for public office, I chose not to place my beliefs in the center of my appeal for support because I am also a Jeffersonian; that is to say, I believe that one’s religious beliefs — though they will and should affect one’s outlook on public policy and life — are personal and that America is a secular, not a theocratic, republic.… Declarations of “faith” are abstractions that permit both voters and candidates to fill in the blanks with their own religious beliefs. There are two dangers here. One is the merging of church and state. The other is rank hypocrisy.” Found via “The Revealer”:http://www.therevealer.org/
* “Beppeblogs’s roundup of post-election talk”:http://beppeblog.blogspot.com/2004/11/inspiration-about-elections-beyond.html
* “Omri Elisha: God Save the Queen”:http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001162.php
An explanation of Christian Evangelical appeal of Bush, and why for them qualifications aren’t as important as faithfulness (a principle any Quaker should agree with). “The Esther story, and that passage in particular, is read by evangelicals as a sign of the individual�s role in God�s sovereign designs for human history. They see it not as a story of heroism, but of instrumentalism; Esther is a vehicle, a tool. Mordecai�s statement (�Perhaps you have come to royal dignity for just such a time as this�) sounds like grandeur, but for evangelicals it is read as a radical call to self-abnegation.” These are Quaker themes too, and there are possibilities for “Liberal Quakers and Evangelicals to connect on these issus”:http://www.nonviolence.org/Quaker/emerging_church.php.
* The Friends Committee on National Legislation has issued a “Minute on Moral Values”:http://www.fcnl.org/legpolcy/moral_109th_printer.htm. It’s kind of the predictable press release you might expect but it’s good to see them weigh in.

Yesterday I got an email from Nick Holliday, a U.S. Marine serving overseas:
bq. I am a U.S. Marine assigned to the Diplomatic Security Service in a country I choose not to name… You have no idea why we went into Iraq and like myself, probably never will. Do you know why? Because you don’t need to. Because you probably wouldn’t understand.… Here is an idea. If you hate our Government and our military and our leaders so much, move. Leave. Better yet, go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Live free and peacefully. You would last about 5 minutes. Grow up, shave your beard, sell your Hybrid Toyota and be a man. Support your country, pay your taxes and quit whining. You’re pathetic.
I get emails like this every day, of course, but I still can’t help feeling sad for America. Here’s a intelligent American saying that I don’t need to understand the reasons for war, that I wouldn’t understand them. What kind of surrender to blind authority is this? I could imagine this argument in Medieval europe or in the darkest days of iron-fisted Soviet rule. But the United States is built on the very idea that the common man and woman do know enough to run the country. We don’t need to military strongman like Hitler to decide our best interests for us. We don’t need a religious Ayatollah to tell us how to live. We don’t need statues of Saddam Hussein on every street corner to remind us of the absolute authority of the government. Our leaders are civilians just like us and we can (and must!) criticize and double-guess them. Over two hundred years ago, America broke the mold of tyrannical governments to bet that the give-and-take of free speech and democracy would produce the most free country the world had ever seen. So far it has.
But the last part of Holliday’s email is a threat. An armed representative of my government is asking me to leave the country because he dislikes my political views. Someone who has promised to defend the Constitution with his life thinks nothing of sending a threatening email to a dissenter who is expressing his free speech. I get these emails every day. I know they’re just a way for Armed Forces personnel to vent off. But these threats are inappropriate. They are not an honor to the uniform.
I understand that many U.S. Armed Forces personnel like Nick Holliday might not like what I have to say. But if “America” is something special worth fighting for, it’s not because here an ultra-patriot can shoot their mouths off (ultra-patriots the world over are supported by their governments). What’s special about America is that here our Marines promise to protect even the dissenters. Some U.S. military personnel stationed in Iraq recently complained about the war to the press. This was roundly criticized as going against the military code to serve steadfast but silently, to sow disgruntlement or challenge civilian authority. I think it’s time for military personnel to pledge not to challenge American dissenter’s right to free speech. They should honor their country and renew their promise to defend the right to free speech.
I have written the following pledge for Nick Holliday and his colleagues in uniform.
h4. Pledge to Support Right of Dissent
*As a member of the Armed Forces I support freedom of livestyle*
* I support Americans’ right to eat what they want to eat, drive the car they want to drive and keep their facial hair in whatever style they choose.
*As a member of the Armed Forces I will never tell someone to move to Iraq/Afghanistan/Current enemy*
* I’m proud that dissenters can live safely in America without fear of reprisal. I may not agree with their arguments but I trust that any outrageous ideologies will be debunked in the political arena without military intervention or threat of expulsion.
*As a member of the Armed Forces, I encourage American’s active political participation*
* I support American’s right to ask questions. I understand that in a democracy, national strength comes from an informed and empowered electorate.

But as we write, the U.S. government continues pursuing a war that has no clear realistic goals, has led to even more killing in the region, and has seriously disrupted post Cold-War relationships with Russia and China (See George Lakey’s “Cold War Returning? — A Chilling Russian Visit”).

At home, Americans just watch the pictures on TV as they go about living a glorious Spring. We laugh, cry, work and play; we make trips to the shore for Memorial Day weekend; and we obediently flock to a movie called Phantom Menace that tells the story of the start of cinema’s most famous Evil Empire.

A new empire is being shaped here. The United States has been able to claim the title of “empire” for at least a hundred years. But something new is at work here ( see my own War Time Again). We’re witnessing the birth of a new American order which is starting a new wars every three months. New kinds of wars, which barely touch American lives, even those of the bombers waging them from 20,000 feet. The Pentagon and State Department’s planners are building on lessons learned at the start of the decade in the Gulf War. They’re refined their missiles for accuracy but they’ve learned how to spin the media

Now every new villain is presented to the media as the new Hitler. Saddam Hussein. Osama bin Laden. Milosvic. Everyone calling for peace is painted as a neo-isolationist, a contemporary Chamberlain appeasing a tyrant. Afterwards it’s easy to see how overly-dramatic the propaganda was and how ineffectual all the American bombs were. But still, here we are in Kosovo, in another Nineties war and next year we’ll be in yet another. Unless we stop the zest for these Clinton wars now.

What do we have to do to end this war? And what do we need to do to stop the U.S.‘s newfound zest for cruise missiles? How can peace and antiwar activists start acting beyond the press releases and isolated vigils to think creatively about linking folks together to bring new people and ideas into the peace movement?

I don’t pretend to know what exactly we need. All I know is that I’m personally bored of the standard issue peace actions we’ve been engaging in and want to see something new. Some of it might look like clichés from the 60s and some might look like rip-offs of McDonald’s latest ad campaign. But we need to build an antiwar culture that will intrude upon a sunny spring and remind people that a war is on. The real phantom menace this summer is an American Empire that is retooling it’s military and re-conditioning its citizens to think of war as a normal course of affairs.

We’re told it’s because U.N. inspectors believe that Iraq has hidden “weapons of mass destruction.” But of course so does the United States. And Britain, France, Russia, the Ukraine, China, India and Pakistan. Iraq doesn’t even hold a regional monopoly, as Israel certainly has atomic weapons atop U.S.-designed rockets aimed this very moment at Hussein’s Baghdad palaces.

Insanely-destructive weapons are a fact of life in the fin-de-Millennium. There’s already plenty of countries with atomic weapons and the missile systems to lob them into neighboring countries. Hussein probably doesn’t have them, and the weapons U.N. inspectors are worried about are chemical. This is the “poor man’s atomic bomb,” a way to play at the level of nuclear diplomacy without the expenses of a nuclear program.

Clinton seems oblivious to the irony of opposing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction with our own. The aircraft carriers and battle fleets that have been sent into the Gulf in recent weeks are loaded with tactical nuclear missiles.

If the possession of weapons of mass destruction is wrong for Iraq, then it is wrong for everyone. It is time to abolish all weapons programs and to build real world peace along lines of cooperation.

He’s our Bully

Most Americans, on hearing a call to let Hussein be, will react with disbelief. Conditioned to think of him as our modern Hitler, anyone opposing a new Gulf War must be crazy, someone unfamiliar with the history of the appeasement of Hitler prior to World War II that allowed him to build his military to the frightening levels of 1939.

But Americans have alas not been told too much of more recent history. Saddam Hussein is our creation, he’s our bully. It started with Iran. Obsessed with global military control, the U.S. government started arming regional superpowers. We gave our chosen countries weapons and money to bully around their neighbors and we looked the other way at human rights abuses. We created and strengthened dictators around the world, including the Shah of Iran. A revolution finally threw him out of power and ushered in a government understandable hostile to the United States.

Rather than take this development to mean that the regional superpower concept was a bad idea, the U.S. just chose another regional superpower: Iraq. We looked the other way when the two got into a war, and started building up Iraq’s military arsenal, giving him the planes and military equipment we had given Iran. This was a bloody, crazy war, where huge casualties would be racked up only to move the front a few miles, an advance that would be nullified when the other army attacked with the same level of casualties. The United States supported that war. International human rights activists kept publicizing the abuses within Iraq, and denouncing him for use of chemical weapons. They got little media attention because it was not in U.S. political interests to fight Hussein.

Nothing’s really changed now except U.S. political interests. Hussein is still a tyrant. He’s still stockpiling chemical weapons. Why are U.S. political interests different now? Why does Bill Clinton want U.S. media attention focused on Iraq? Look no further than Big Bill’s zipper. Stop the next war before it starts. Abolish everyone’s weapons of mass destruction and let’s get a President who doesn’t need a war to clear his name.