From rhetoric to action
This week much of the country will be watching the Democratic National Convention unfold in Chicago. For many people the parallels to the 1968 convention are unmistakable. It is a vivid reminder that public demonstrations matter. And that they are rarely welcomed by those in authority.
In 1968, demonstrations fueled by a desire for dignity at home and peace in Vietnam forced an incumbent president to withdraw from the presidential campaign. The nation was deeply divided over an increasingly unpopular administration and demonstrations demanding peace were growing stronger and more vocal. The Chicago Police Department was well known for its anti-democratic, violent use of force. The ultimate selection of Vice President Hubert Humphrey as the candidate was an effort to transcend these differences. Humphrey was defeated by Richard Nixon, who went on to continue war policies and to crack down on demonstrations.
This convention is very different. It is taking place in the context of fresh, new energy brought by the candidacy of Kamala Harris and popular optimism ignited by her selection of Tim Walz as a vice-presidential running mate. People recognize that we are in the midst of historic shifts, opening new possibilities. There is a growing hope that this campaign can move national politics in a more progressive, human direction.
But the question that will become clearer through the convention is whether or not the Democrats have the capacity to move from their unexpected embrace of a new style of politics to the substance of policies that reflect an understanding of our changing world.
The war on Gaza is the central issue that crystalizes the possibilities of this shift.
While Kamala Harris has distinguished herself from the current administration by calling for an immediate cease-fire, peace advocates know this is simply not enough.
Layla Elabed, a co-founder of the Michigan uncommitted movement that helped force Biden to step aside said recently, “We’ve seen a huge shift in language — when she talks about Palestinian right to self-determination but Palestinian children can’t eat words. Words are not going to make their limbs grow back.” Ms. Elabed wants Ms. Harris to commit to an arms embargo that might actually force Israel to change its behavior.
As the scenes of death, torture, and starvation emerge from Gaza, demands for an arms embargo will intensify.
The role of the US in supplying the weapons that are killing people is widely understood. Just a few days after human rights groups documented that the bombs the Israeli military used to blow up a school inside a mosque were made in the USA, the US announced another $20 Billion in weapons sales to Israel.
Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council, said what much of the world is thinking, “I find it incomprehensible that the U.S. is continuing to provide indiscriminate weapons to an indiscriminate warfare in a place where the population is trapped — there is no escape from Gaza — and where we are prevented from really helping them with sufficient humanitarian aid. There should be no more arms going into that place before there is a ceasefire.”
The path to peace in Gaza is clear. The question for Harris and Walz is whether or not they have the bravery to not only listen to the voices of people around the globe, but to act. Our history tells us that only sustained mass organizations and mobilizations for peace force politicians to move from rhetoric to action.