I’ve expanded the previous post into a longer essay, which has been featured, with minor editing, on frontpagemag.com.
If Abraham Lincoln were president today, there’s a good chance that the doors would be shut at the New York Times and CBS, and Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, and even John Kerry would be rotting in jail. I’m not saying that would be a good thing. I’m just saying that the line between what is and is not treason in the U.S. has moved a considerable distance in the last 142 years.
In 1862 Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, on his own authority, as a means of dealing with the “Peace Democrats”, better known as copperheads. The copperheads were advocating letting the Confederacy go its own way, rather than going to war. They were actively interfering with enlistments in the Union army. Many of them were congressmen and other elected officials. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton decreed that anyone “engaged, by act, speech, or writing, in discouraging volunteer enlistments, or in any way giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or in any other disloyal practice against the United States” was subject to arrest and trial “before a military commission.” Some 13,000 people were arrested and held without charges as a result of Lincoln and Stanton’s edicts, and prosecuted by military tribunals instead of civil courts. Historians have generally considered this to be somewhat of a blot on Lincoln’s otherwise exemplary record, and that may be so. On the other hand, had the Peace Democrats prevailed, there would be no United States of America, with all that that implies.
One of the most famous cases was the arrest of a former Ohio congressman named Clement L. Vallandigham. Vallandigham opposed emancipation of Negroes and argued that the war was needless. He spoke against the draft law, without going so far as to encourage young men to disobey it. Vallandigham’s hyperbolic speeches may sound somewhat familiar, e.g., “the men in power are attempting to establish a despotism in this country, more cruel and more oppressive than ever existed before.”, and, “I see nothing before us but universal political and social revolution, anarchy and bloodshed compared with which the Reign of Terror in France was a merciful visitation.” For these and other statements, he was arrested, locked in a military barracks, held incommunicado without charges, and brought before eight army officers who put him on trial for making disloyal speeches against the government.
Today we have political leaders and activists speaking out against the war in Iraq, and even, though you don’t hear it much anymore, against the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Some, like Michael Moore or Tom Hayden, openly advocate American defeat in Iraq, rhetoric that goes far beyond anything Vallandigham ever said. Others, like Al Gore and Ted Kennedy, rail against the war, the President, the Secretary of Defense, etc., with over the top hyperbole that is very similar to Vallandigham. But they do not advocate American defeat, nor, I am sure, do they desire it.
Vallandigham might have been Al Gore’s speechwriter when he said, “How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein’s torture prison.” Or when he said, “He [Bush] has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet’s nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name.” At a rally in Nashville, Gore shouted, “He [Bush] betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place.” This is extreme, hyperbolic, political overkill, that probably would have resulted in arrest in Lincoln’s day, but no reasonable person today would consider it remotely akin to treason.
Ted Kennedy has gone Gore one better with some of his execrable pronouncements, such as, “There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud.”, and, “On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, ‘Who would prefer that Saddam’s torture chambers still be open?’ Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management – US management.” These are statements that go well beyond Vallandigham, but nobody nowadays would consider them to be illegal. In fact these statements by Gore and Kennedy all but accuse the President of treason, whereas there have been no such counter accusations coming from the Bush administration.
Michael Moore and Tom Hayden fall into a different category. They make no bones about their fervent wish to see America defeated in Iraq. Michael Moore, who was given a place of honor at the Democratic convention, seated beside Jimmy Carter, has said, “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?” He believes that American soldiers killed in Iraq are getting what they deserve, as evidenced by his statement that “the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe — just maybe — God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.” Again, there has been no accusation of treason or disloyalty emanating from the White House against Michael Moore, nor will there be.
Tom Hayden, founder of SDS (I was a member back in the day), has become respectable. He served in the California state legislature for sixteen years as a Democrat, and received the Medal of Freedom Award from Jimmy Carter. Tom Hayden and John Kerry were two of the most prominent anti-Vietnam war activists in the 60’s. Hayden traveled to Hanoi to meet with the Communist leadership to plan and coordinate the anti-war movement, which was a centerpiece of Hanoi’s strategy to win the war. Kerry traveled to Paris, when he was still a reserve officer in the United States Navy, to meet with the same Communist leadership with the effect of helping them in their negotiations with the U.S. Their efforts were instrumental in bringing about the American defeat in Vietnam, and the subsequent horror of the boat people and the millions who were tortured and murdered in Vietnam and Cambodia. Neither man has ever apologized for these actions, or shown any regret whatsoever for their consequences.
The Vietnam anti-war movement is the prototype for today’s anti-war movement, and is even being led by many familiar faces. Tom Hayden has written an article which outlines how to organize an effort to ensure that the United States is defeated in Iraq. The opening sentence reads, “The anti-war movement can force the Bush administration to leave Iraq by denying it the funding, troops, and alliances necessary to its strategy for dominance.” He begins by lauding the success of the anti-war movement within the Democratic party with the congratulatory statement, “The pressure of anti-war voices and the Kerry campaign led Bush to delay the request for a supplemental $75 billion appropriation, the assault on Falluja, and the U.S.-sponsored Iraqi elections until after Nov. 2.” In other words, giving the enemy breathing room to regroup, delaying democracy for the Iraqi people, and denying our troops the funding they need, is a good thing, and the movement has been able to achieve it to some extent. But it’s not enough. More must be done to make sure that American forces are defeated and forced to withdraw. Why? Because “Once the election was over, the Bush administration turned Falluja into a slaughterhouse”. This is enemy propoganda pure and simple, breathtaking in its utter disregard for the truth about the gangsters who controlled Falluja and who videotaped beheadings of innocent people.
Hayden then goes on to lay out his plan: “The first step is to build pressure at congressional district levels to oppose any further funding or additional troops for war. If members of Congress balk at cutting off all assistance and want to propose ‘conditions’ for further aid, it is a small step toward threatening funding. If only 75 members of Congress go on record against any further funding, that’s a step in the right direction towards the exit.” To accomplish this, the Democratic party must be pushed into becoming the anti-war party. “The progressive activists of the party should refuse to contribute any more resources, volunteers, money, etc. to candidates or incumbents who act as collaborators.” Note the use of the word “collaborators”, which means, of course, those who “collaborate” with the duly elected government of the United States.
OK, persuasion and activism are democratic means, but what are the ends? “Instead of assuming that the Bush administration has an ‘exit strategy’, the movement needs to force our government to exit.” It is clear that when Hayden uses the word “exit”, he means “lose”, as in this statement, “Ending this bloodbath is the most honorable task Americans can perform to restore progressive priorities and our respect in the world. We have passed the point for graceful exit strategies.” References to Vietnam and Cambodia are scattered throughout the article, and although it requires a procrustean effort to equate the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, the similarities in the movements against them are striking. And the desired result is the same. Hayden points out, “Though most discourse on Vietnam ignores or underplays the factor of dissent within the American armed forces, it was absolutely pivotal to bringing the ground war to an end.” In other words, one important tactic is to foster dissent, disobedience, and hopefully, desertion in the American military. “The movement will need to start opening another underground railroad to havens in Canada for those who refuse to serve, but for now even the most moderate grievances should be supported.”
Hayden summarizes his six point plan for “ending” the war by saying, “In short: pinch the funding arteries, push the Democrats to become an opposition party, ally with anti-war Republicans, support dissenting soldiers, make ‘Iraqization’ more difficult, and build a peace coalition against the war coalition. If the politicians are too frightened or ideologically incapable of implementing an exit strategy, the only alternative is for the people to pull the plug.” As if “the people” and the politicians which they democratically elected, are two unrelated entities. Stripped of obfuscatory verbiage, his plan boils down to defunding our soldiers in a war zone, encouraging mutiny in the armed forces, and preventing the Iraqis from taking democratic control of their own country. This is to be accomplished by building a “peace” coalition.
Are these statements and activities treasonous? Disloyal? Should habeas corpus be suspended so that Michael Moore, Tom Hayden, et. al. can be summarily arrested and tried by a military tribunal? Of course not. It is unimaginable in a country where Michael Moore is a multi-millionaire academy award winner, Tom Hayden has been honored with the Medal of Freedom, and John Kerry came within three percentage points of being the next President.
The concepts of treason and disloyalty have gone out of fashion. Words like treason and disloyalty automatically trigger the not-listening mode in even middle of the road Americans. Part of the reason for this is a fashionable notion that more highly evolved people owe their loyalty to humanity as a whole, rather than to obsolete nation-states. Those who work to undermine the war effort and who provide aid and comfort to America’s enemies, do not do so because they support the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. Rather it is because they envision a world where states have withered away and we are all citizens of the world, ruled presumably by Kofi Annan and the Security Council. The United States, as the most overwhelmingly powerful nation on earth, is therefore the greatest obstacle to this utopian vision. The hard truth is that democratic (and dare I say it, capitalist) nation-states in general, and the United States in particular, are the only guarantors of peace and freedom that we have, or are likely to have for the foreseeable future.
It can be argued that Lincoln faced much direr circumstances than our situation today. The Confederate army was on the outskirts of Washington. The north was riddled with Confederate sympathizers. Whereas the war in which we are, have been, engaged is fundamentally different. Our enemies are not primarily or even secondarily a military threat. By far the most potent weapon the enemy has is the ability to affect our political psychology and military will. American and Iraqi soldiers are fighting and dying on the battlefield in Iraq, but the purpose of the enemy is not to win an impossible military victory. It is not for physical territory that they fight. It is for territory in the American and European mind and heart. Those Americans who, knowingly or unknowingly, collaborate in this effort, are the spearhead of the campaign to kill or subjugate all who disagree with the enemy’s fanatical version of Islam.
So what is to be done? Mass arrests are not the answer, and nobody is advocating anything like that, despite hysterical leftist paranoia about the Patriot Act. But what does need to happen is the rejuvenation of meaning to words like patriotism, loyalty, and treason. Nobody is going to be arrested or persecuted for being unpatriotic, disloyal, or even treasonous, but those who believe in defending their country against its enemies have every right to use these words in public speech, and to apply them to those for whom the shoe fits. If Tom Hayden and Michael Moore are free to advocate the cause of America’s enemies in a time of war, then patriotic Americans must have equal freedom to call them what they are.
David Horowitz, in a speech at Georgetown University, makes an excellent beginning of the process of bringing such words back into the public debate. The whole speech is worth reading. It is a very clear analysis of what is and is not legitimate criticism of the government in a time of war. Language, media, the internet, these are the weapons of the vital internal front of this war.
As Voltaire said, “To hold a pen is to be at war.”