The failure of progressives to make major inroads in electoral
politics in the United States today could not be better illustrated than
a recent decision by Democracy for America, a million-member political
action committee founded by former Vermont governor Howard Dean which
claims leadership in the support for progressive candidates for office,
regarding a veteran U.S. senator facing reelection in November.
The senator has strongly defended Israeli attacks on civilian
population centers in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Lebanon and has
categorically rejected calls for linking the billions of dollars in
U.S. aid to human rights considerations. The senator has attacked
reputable human rights organizations and leading international jurists
for daring to document war crimes committed by Israeli forces (in
addition to those committed by militant Islamists.) The senator has
openly challenged the International Court of Justice on the universality
of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War, co-sponsoring a Senate resolution attacking the
World Court’s landmark 2004 decision. The senator has led the effort in
the Senate to undermine President Obama’s efforts to halt the expansion
of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories, insisting
that Obama refrain from openly challenging Israel’s right-wing
government to suspend its illegal colonization drive. The senator has
attacked supporters of nuclear nonproliferation for calling on Israel to
join virtually every other country in the world in signing the NPT. The
senator has endorsed Israel’s illegal annexation of greater East
Jerusalem and expansion of settlements in violation of a series of UN
Security Council resolutions, as well as Israel’s construction of a
separation barrier deep inside the occupied West Bank to facilitate
their annexation into Israel and virtually eliminate the possibility of
the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The senator defended
Israel’s illegal attack in international waters of a humanitarian aid
flotilla, even after a United Nations investigation revealed that five
people on board, including a 19-year old U.S. citizen, were murdered
execution-style. Indeed, this senator has consistently sided with
Israel’s right wing government against those in both the United States
and Israel working for peace and human rights.
How did Democracy for America respond to the senator’s reelection
campaign? Not only did they give her their enthusiastic endorsement,
they gave her the coveted honor of “Progressive Hero of 2010.” The
senator, Barbara Boxer of California, has for years angered progressives
here by her strident position in support of some of the most
militaristic tendencies in Israel.
There was a time — such as during the Vietnam War or during U.S.
military intervention in Central America in the 1980s and the Vietnam
War earlier — that such callous disregard for human rights and
international law would have exempted a member of Congress from ever
getting an endorsement from a major progressive organization, much less
such an exemplary designation, however progressive their domestic agenda
may have been. For example, during their long Senate careers,
Democratic senators like Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson took
leadership on such progressive causes as civil rights, labor, and the
environment, but they were widely despised among grassroots Democrats
for their outspoken support for the Vietnam War.
Indeed, imagine if, during the 1980s, Barbara Boxer had taken
positions on Central America comparable to her current positions in the
Middle East: supporting billions of dollars worth of unconditional
military aid to the rightist Salvadoran junta and the Nicaraguan
Contras; attacking Amnesty International and the United Nations for
documenting human rights abuses by these U.S. allies; attacking the
World Court for its ruling against the U.S. war on Nicaragua; or,
defending the murder of humanitarian aid workers by U.S.-backed force.
Democrats who did support the Reagan administration’s policies — who
became known as “Death Squad Democrats” — were subjected to widespread
protests by their constituents and were challenged by progressives in
the primaries and by progressive third party opponents in general
elections.
Nowadays, however, so-called “progressive” organizations like
Democracy for America seem to care little about the fate of people of
color in faraway lands. There simply isn’t much concern if an
influential senator on the foreign relations committee defends those who
use white phosphorous, cluster munitions and other illegal weapons
against civilian neighborhoods and defames conscientious supporters of
human rights who speak up for the rights of non-combatants. For groups
like Democracy for America, support for the international legal
conventions which arose from the ashes of World War II are apparently
not that important.
U.S. policy toward Israel and its neighbors has traditionally been a
weak spot for many otherwise liberal senators. Indeed, Russ Feingold,
Patty Murray, Harry Reid, and a number of other Democrats facing tough
reelection fights this year have, like Boxer, alienated many in the
peace and human rights community by their support for the militaristic
policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. According to the
U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli occupation and other groups opposing
U.S. support for Israel’s rightist government, however, Boxer is tied
with lame duck Senator Evan Bayh as having the most right-wing record of
any Democrat in the Senate. Even more significantly, only about a half
dozen Republicans are as bad as Boxer; none are worse.
And she does not embrace such a hard-line militarist position due to
pressure from her ethnically diverse and relatively liberal California
constituency. While an overwhelming majority of Democrats still strongly
support Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, there is growing
unease at unconditional support for Israeli policies which have
violated international legal norms, jeopardized the peace process and
resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of innocent civilians. Polls
show most Democrats — including Jewish Democrats — oppose the
hard-line Netanyahu government’s policies (a trend particularly strong
among younger voters), while most Americans who support the current
right-wing Israeli leadership are voting Republican anyway.
Indeed, just as the Iraq War made it easier for Democratic voters to
recognize that one can be a patriotic American and still oppose the
United States invading and occupying an Arab nation, it is also
increasingly clear that one can oppose similar Israeli policies and
still support the state of Israel. There is also a growing awareness
that just as such militaristic U.S. policies have hurt our strategic
interests in the region, similar Israeli policies are threatening that
country’s legitimate security needs as well.
Unfortunately, California’s senior senator has a hard time
recognizing this. And Democracy for America — along with MoveOn and
number of other supposedly progressive organizations — doesn’t seem to
have a problem with backing those who support the self-destructive
policies of Netanyahu, though they would refuse to support those who
backed the same kinds of policies under Bush.
Indeed, Democracy for America, MoveOn, and others who are so
enthusiastic about Boxer, Feingold, Murray and other Democratic hawks
are not unlike Bush supporters: They are so enamored with their
candidate that they ignore the reality of their policies. Their
candidate supports illegal invasions of Muslim nations at the cost of
thousands of lives? No problem. Their candidate attacks the United
Nations, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal
Court, and other international bodies which try to enforce international
humanitarian law? No problem. Their candidate repeatedly makes
demonstrably false claims in order to justify illegal military
operations? No problem. Their candidate tries to discredit Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, the International Red Cross, and
leading international jurists for publishing empirical studies which
counter the lies she spews out in trying to justify the war crimes of
foreign right-wing governments? No problem.
This does not mean that, with so much at stake this election year,
that progressive organizations should necessarily endorse third party
candidates and allow Republicans to win critical races. Indeed, it is
important to recognize that the Republican nominee challenging Senator
Boxer is no better regarding Middle East peace. For example, at a recent
event in Los Angeles, Carly Fiorina declared, “We must stand up
unequivocally and declare that Israel is our most important friend and
ally in the Middle East and that we will stand with her always no matter
what” the right-wing government might do. Like Boxer, she criticized
the administration for joining the rest of the international community
in calling for a moratorium on the expansion of Israel’s illegal
colonization efforts in the occupied West Bank.
The problem is that one of the most right-wing members of the Senate
on one of the most critical foreign policy issues of the day is labeled a
“progressive hero” rather than the lesser evil that she is.
Yes, “evil” is a strong word. But what else can you call defending
the mass murder of Lebanese and Palestinian children? Or allocating
unconditionally billions of our tax dollars every year to provide the
weapons and ordinance for the murderers? Or opposing restrictions on the
export of cluster bombs to countries which use them against heavily
populated areas? Or criticizing the UN and other international bodies
simply for trying to fulfill their mandates to enforce international
law? Or attacking prominent jurists and human rights workers for
documenting war crimes she denies ever took place? Or claiming that the
murder and beatings of humanitarian aid volunteers in international
waters constitutes legitimate self-defense?
Indeed, when it comes to this critical issue in foreign affairs,
Boxer is closer to her right-wing Senate colleague Jim DeMint (R-SC)
than she is to the liberal Pat Leahy (D-VT), closer to the
fundamentalist Christians United for Israel than the liberal Churches
for Middle East Peace, closer to the neo-conservative Heritage
Foundation than the liberal Institute for Policy Studies, and closer to
the rightist American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) than the
liberal Zionist group Americans for Peace Now.
This is not about the supposed power of “the Israel Lobby.” Any
right-wing lobby will appear all-powerful if there is no progressive
counter-lobby. Boxer takes the positions she does not because AIPAC
forces here to do so against her will, but because she can get
progressives to campaign for her, donate money to her, and vote for her
anyway regardless of her contempt for human rights and international
law. She and other right-wing Democrats will not change unless and until
liberal groups stop labeling them “progressive heroes.” Peace and human
rights activists in the 1980s ended US support for the Nicaraguan
Contras and the Salvadoran junta by refusing to support Democrats who,
like Boxer, defended war crimes by right-wing allies and trashed human
rights activists who exposed them. As a result, a number of them lost
their re-election campaign and were replaced in the subsequent election
by progressives, while others, fearing the same fate, changed their
positions.
Progressives routinely find themselves having to support candidates
who are less than perfect. Indeed, no one can support perfection under
the current system. However, it is profoundly disappointing that, as we
enter the second decade of the 21st century, there are still prominent
Democrats who do refuse to respect the Fourth Geneva Convention and
other basic tenets of international law, such as the UN Charter’s
recognition of the inadmissibility of any country expanding its
territory through military force. You can’t get more fundamental than
that. Indeed, that principle is the foundation of the post-WWII
international legal system, which Boxer appears to be doing her damndest
to undermine. In short, progressives here in California who refuse to
back Boxer are not “single-issue” voters, for this is not about a single
issue: these are fundamental principles at the heart of international
law and human rights.
And, however one may choose to vote in the California Senate race
come November, to label Barbara Boxer as the “progressive hero of 2010”
is just plain wrong.