APRIL 7, 2003

WAR
Is dissent relevant?

As U.S.-led forces pummel Baghdad, the quality and quantity of anti-war protests on the home front have come under increasingly sharp attack, raising important questions about the role of dissent in America. At a recent teach-in at New York's Columbia University, one professor said the only true heroes are those who help defeat the U.S. military. War supporters have been just as harsh. "Protester = Terrorist," read a placard at a Savannah, Ga., demonstration on behalf of the war, while a Baton Rouge radio host who organized a pro-war rally in Louisiana said anti-war protesters "deserve a bullet in the head."

That level of discourse is a long way from Paul's exhortation to the Ephesians to "speak the truth in love" or Henry David Thoreau's quiet, earnest civil disobedience. Political scientists, ethicists and sociologists of religion see several dangers in the deteriorating dialogue for a country founded on the principles of free debate and open opposition. And they note that a quick end to fighting could present anti-war activists with their most serious challenge yet: justifying the role of their protests, which have played differently in different regions of the country. While most denominations condemned the war, neither the president nor most congregants listened. Polls showed that Americans were interested in dissenters' views before the war, but once military strikes began, many thought protests were inappropriate.

Have anti-war actions been relevant since the war began? What role have they played, nationally and in your area? What part will dissent and debate play as the United States and the United Nations make decisions about government rule in Iraq after the war? Are there set criteria for proper dissent? Or is one obligated to stay quiet for the sake of unity?

Why it matters
Most religions were founded by people whose beliefs ran counter to the society around them, and religious people and leaders have been at the core of many anti-war groups. In a country where citizens are often deeply divided along political or religious lines, do most Americans believe there is a positive - and proper - role for dissent?

Click the map for interview sources in your state and region

Questions for reporters

• The quantity and quality of dissent: The pre-war peace movement was called the largest and broadest since Vietnam, but when the war started, polls showed a sharp spike in support for war and for President Bush. Experts say some Americans grew more leery of expressing doubts or opposition to the war, while others may have felt compelled to support the troops. As a result, anti-war protests were often dominated by the most vocal and most extreme voices within the peace movement. Has the tenor of dissent hurt, rather than helped, the anti-war cause?
• Who's listening? A March 25 survey by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Americans said they had heard too much from war opponents, a jump from 24 percent the previous month. In February, 42 percent of Americans wanted to hear more about the views of anti-war Americans, but that soon dropped to just 17 percent. A March 23 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 20 percent of Americans said the anti-war protests made them more likely to support the war. And although 60 percent of Americans said protests were the sign of a healthy democracy, more than one-third said anti-war protests should not be held, and one in six said protests should not be permitted. Experts say these attitudes have quieted dissent. They also point to the speed with which NBC fired Peter Arnett after his controversial remarks to Iraqi television, and the public critique that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff leveled at retired generals who questioned the war plan and at many of his own field officers in Iraq who voiced reservations about the Pentagon's plans.
• Running for (political) cover: In contrast with the Vietnam era, political scientists say political leaders, especially in the Democratic Party, have kept an eye on the polls and remained on the sidelines in the war debate. When they don't, there are repercussions, such as the reaction to Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's remarks criticizing President Bush's diplomacy leading up to the war. (See a March 19 MSNBC story for more information.) Conservatives have also fought among themselves over the acceptable limits of criticism while troops are fighting abroad. The Washington Post detailed one skirmish in a March 2 story. The history of U.S. wartime dissent is chronicled in a March 23 story by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that includes a famous riposte from Teddy Roosevelt, who criticized Woodrow Wilson for cracking down on groups that protested U.S. involvement in World War I: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Has political dissent reached a watershed? What is its future?
• What would Jesus say? Religion is invoked by both sides in wartime debates, as Abraham Lincoln noted in his Second Inaugural Address near the end of the Civil War. But ethicists of religion fear that such invocations often do not reflect well on religion and can lead to the demonization of one's opponents. In the Iraq debate, anti-war protesters have used religion to hit at their opponents, carrying signs that say, "What Would Jesus Bomb?," while many conservative Christians have blasted anti-war sentiments as unworthy of people of faith: "For a group of interfaith leaders to criticize Bush is remarkable considering the overwhelming oppression of the Iraqi people," said Kenneth Hemphill, president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. Many religious leaders and ethicists like to make a distinction between political dissent and religiously based dissent. While there is inevitable overlap, political dissent is directed toward a political goal. Religious dissenters say they base their dissent on universal principles that will not change, even if their views are unpopular. Many religious ethicists also say it is dangerous to confuse nationalist aims with religious convictions. Most denominations condemned the war with Iraq, but few listened to them. What will that mean for the future of the "prophetic witness?"
• Campus crusaders: Colleges and universities are fertile territory for exploring the dynamics of dissent - in both directions. In fact, the definition of dissent varies from region to region: Students against the war can find themselves in the majority in some places and in the minority in others, leading to what experts say are important lessons about how the majority opinion often seeks to quash opposition, no matter whether the majority is liberal or conservative. At more conservative colleges and universities, dissenters are censured by their peers, but elsewhere pro-war students face strong social sanctions. The College Republican organization reports frequent instances of intolerance by anti-war students, and the chapters can be contacted through the organization's web site. Conservative Christian students, who tend to support the war, can be located through campus chapters of the Southern Baptist Convention or through Campus Crusade for Christ's web site. Another intriguing factor may be the generational divide: An April 3 New York Times story recounts how Vietnam-era professors are often more outraged at the Iraq war, and active in dissent, than their students. Is one camp really any more tolerant than the other? What does the graying of the activist generation mean for the future of dissent and protest?
• Celebrity quotient: Artists and celebrities, a group that inspired the Vietnam generation to protest, are now either seen as irrelevant to the current protests, or worse. Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore shocked even a liberal-leaning Hollywood audience with his anti-Bush speech at the Oscars - an example, experts say, of the kind of dissent that does more harm than good. Meanwhile, Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, apologized after she told a London audience that she was "ashamed" that Bush was from Texas and radio stations stopped playing the group's music. A Feb. 27 USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll showed that few Americans listen to celebrities, and many want them to keep quiet about Iraq. A Feb. 27 Fox News poll registered similar results. That has not kept all artists and stars quiet. Web sites such as Peace-not-War feature Billy Bragg's Price of Oil and Public Enemy's Son of a Bush. Does the celebrity's voice - which is so diligently listened to on so many other topics - have a role in the public square?