Woolsey's Way to Peace-Was Kucinich was too conservative?
David Swanson's latest commentary (below) references an amazing poll which you ought to look at. See the link in Swanson's note below. He talks about Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's new plan, which is based on what the majority of Americans really want, as shown in that poll, as opposed to how Congress has been voting. It seems very much in line with what Dennis Kucinich and other progressives have been saying for some time. However, the poll mentioned below shows that Americans want even more progressive policies than what Kucinich advocated. They want it, but they're not getting it, and the mainstream news media and most politicians aren't talking about it. With the exception of a few like Kucinich, and David Van Os here in Texas, most politicians seem to be in complete ignorance of what the people want. No wonder they are so afraid to speak up!
This poll was set up to let participants make adjustments in how money for the national budget is split up. It has some amazing results. Examples:
* It shows a clear majority of Americans want military funds cut substantially (a 31% cut in military spending, as opposed to Kucinich's proposed 15% cut!)
* Americans want increases in spending of 39% in education, 1090% (yes, that's right) in conservation and alternative energy, 263% in job training and employment, 53% in medical research, and 40% in veterans' benefits. The increases are relative to the actual budget that the White House proposed to Congress last year.
* Americans want tax reductions for the rich rolled back, and the deficit reduced.
The poll was conducted in Feb. of last year, of randomly-selected American adults across the country. See the link in Swanson's article for lots of juicy details. The poll report should be required reading for anyone running for Congress or state legislatures.
If someone has some reason to disbelieve the poll referenced here, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I think we need to use it to do some serious educating of candidates who are afraid to say that we need to cut defense spending so we can pay for education, alternative energy, medical research, etc.
And let's help David Van Os, since he's one of the few candidates so far (in Texas) that I've heard saying this -- that the majority of people ARE progressive. It's just the news media and the other candidates who are in the dark.
Bill
>From: "David Swanson" <>
>Subject: Woolsey's Way to Peace
>Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:33:22 -0500
>
>Woolsey's Way to Peace
>
>By David Swanson
>
>We've all heard the line. "That would make us look weak on national security." That line is supposed to be based on public opinion, not just the opinions of media corporations and pundits working for Pentagon-funded think tanks. That line is supposed to have something to do with the general American public. But it does not.
>
>Take a look at this survey from last spring by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (University of Maryland):
>
>According to this data, the largest cut by far that most Americans would make in federal discretionary spending is in the military budget, which they would cut by nearly a third. In particular, majorities favor reducing spending on the capacity for conducting large-scale nuclear and conventional wars. Next on the list of cuts after the "defense" budget? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most Americans believe that spending on economic and humanitarian aid is much higher than it is, and yet they want it increased significantly. Most Americans favor multilateral approaches to security.
>
>On issues where public opinion diverges this far from common media depictions of public opinion, it is rare to find elected officials acting on behalf of real majorities (rather than taking their advice from strategists with election win-loss records of 0 and 43).
>
>But on this issue, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, a Democrat and Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, is leading the way. There are 53 co-sponsors of her H. CON. RES. 158, also known as a "Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism (SMART) security platform for the 21st century."
>
>Woolsey is not aiming for machismo here, but for intelligence. "Our Iraq policy hasn't just been immoral," she wrote in an op-ed, "it's been incompetent. There is a better way to ensure national security than the brawn-over-brains approach."
>
>Woolsey is not simply advocating a "Get tough on al Qaeda instead of Iraq" policy of the sort you hear from so many Democrats eager to ignore their base and pursue their opponents'. As we saw this week, when Bush gets tough on al Qaeda it's by bombing civilians, and should he ever manage to kill Osama bin Laden, some of his political opponents will be left with nothing further to say. Woolsey, on the contrary, has proposed a serious alternative.
>
>The SMART bill has five sections, aimed at creating a security strategy that
>
>(1) prevents future acts of terrorism by strengthening international institutions and respect for the rule of law;
>
>(2) reduces the threat and stops the spread of weapons of mass destruction and reduces the proliferation of conventional weapons;
>
>(3) addresses root causes of terrorism and violent conflict;
>
>(4) shifts United States budget priorities to more effectively meet the security needs of the United States; and
>
>(5) pursues to the fullest extent alternatives to war
>
>
>This op-ed by Congresswoman Woolsey about this security plan might just restore in you some hope for our country and world:
>
>Woolsey is launching a new website this week at
>
>If we do want to end the war, we'd be smart to keep Lynn in Washington and to thank her for her leadership. Lynn Woolsey voted against the Iraq war.
Read the rest of David Swanson's article, with more details about Woolsey, at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6842
Bill