Curtain Call for Antiwar Celebrities
Jan 29, 2007 Filed in: Politics
Yesterday's Protesters Can Be Today's
Liability.
Jane Fonda, infamous to the Vietnam War protests,
wants back in the anti-war spotlight. But for many on
the left, the best way she can help is by staying
home.
Yesterday’s Protesters Can Be Today’s
Liability
Jane Fonda is not exactly the household name she once was. The 2005 hit movie Monster in Law offered a little bit of career CPR for both her and co-star Jennifer Lopez, but long gone are the halcyon days of the exercise-video queen’s dominance of the silver screen. Also gone, until Saturday’s Anti-War rally on the Mall in Washington DC, was her position as a symbol of antiwar sentiment. As far as many on the left are concerned, she should have stayed in retirement.
Even though the right-wing think tanks behind Bush-Cheney Inc. are provoking the same mistakes as were made in Vietnam, this is not your father’s war. And ending the war is going to take a very different anti-war movement than existed in the sixties and seventies. For starters, soldiers are much more highly thought of than they were 30 years ago, and rightly so. Assaulting those most in harm’s way is no way to make this country safer. Even those most aggressively against the war in Iraq treat returning soldiers with respect and praise. And while anti-war sentiment is high in congress, it is generally agreed even among those who have been against the war since its inception that attempts to cut off funding for the war would be political suicide, because it would hurt the troops.
Jane Fonda brought infamy upon herself in 1972 when she was photographed sitting in the gunner’s seat of a North Vietnamese Army anti-aircraft gun, laughing and wearing a NorthVietnamese soldier’s helmet. No additional explanation was needed at the time in order to arouse visceral hatred, but more recent historical accounts note that these were the soldiers and weapons being used to shoot down American planes. In 2000, she issued an apology: “I will go to my grave regretting the photo of me in an anti-aircraft carrier, which looks like I’m trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized so much hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have. It was just thoughtless.” Well spoken, but late in the offering. Not surprisingly, she has shied away from war protests since then. “I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam. I carry a lot of baggage from that,” she said at Saturday’s rally, then went on to say: “Silence is no longer an option.”
Actually, silence would have been a great option. To put it another way: Jane, you are not helping! While the anti-war movement will take all the help it can get, what is needed is political muscle, not lightning rods for abuse. Already two-thirds of the country is opposed to the escalation of the war and feel that congress is not being assertive enough in opposing Bush on the war. The last thing that we need is to have the remaining third spitting tobacco juice on the antiwar movement, as happened to Fonda in 2005. There’s some help that is no help at all. Ralph Nader may be progressive and want a lot of good things, but is there anybody left (besides Karl Rove) who thinks that his entry into the 2000 election was a good thing? Does he look at the news every day and realize that he could have single-handedly stopped the disaster that is Bush-Cheney Inc. by standing down? Hopefully, he does. Hopefully, he hangs his head in shame.
The lightning-rod effect is the same concern raised by many Democrats about Hillary Clinton. Yes, she can raise money, but after the nomination is when Whitewater, Vince Foster, and all of the rest of the “culture of corruption” accusations will come flooding back. If it will be enough to derail her presidential aspirations only time will tell, but the very thought of a President Romney is enough to send large sectors of the Democratic party toward newcomers like Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. The sentiment is simple: Enough already. Let’s move on.
The same sentiment is present in the anti-war movement. Let’s move forward. Let’s move past this war, past Bush-Cheney, past global hegemony, past corporate malfeasance exported worldwide, and past an extremist administration that views all foreign policy through a gun-site. But before we can move forward we have to avoid getting dragged back into the past. Whatever the parallels, Iraq is not Vietnam. This is the Age of the Internet, not the Age of Aquarius. Ending our involvement in Iraq is about correcting a huge mistake and making the world a safer place, not about promoting an aging celebrity’s latest tell-all book. Probably the best news about Fonda’s appearance at Saturday’s anti-war rally is that it was mostly greeted with a big yawn. Even the Radical Right is having a hard time raising any hackles; most of the people who like to have their hackles raised see Fonda as old news, something from a previous generation that doesn’t involve them.
So, thank you Jane for being against the war in Iraq, but the best thing you can do to help is to stay out of the limelight. If you really want to help, get involved behind the scenes, help raise money for vulnerable Democratic candidates for 2008, work all your connections to help fuel the next generation of change. But not being the center of attention is never something she’s been very good at, even when doing so works against her cause. We can only hope she sees the light.
Return to Home Page
Jane Fonda is not exactly the household name she once was. The 2005 hit movie Monster in Law offered a little bit of career CPR for both her and co-star Jennifer Lopez, but long gone are the halcyon days of the exercise-video queen’s dominance of the silver screen. Also gone, until Saturday’s Anti-War rally on the Mall in Washington DC, was her position as a symbol of antiwar sentiment. As far as many on the left are concerned, she should have stayed in retirement.
Even though the right-wing think tanks behind Bush-Cheney Inc. are provoking the same mistakes as were made in Vietnam, this is not your father’s war. And ending the war is going to take a very different anti-war movement than existed in the sixties and seventies. For starters, soldiers are much more highly thought of than they were 30 years ago, and rightly so. Assaulting those most in harm’s way is no way to make this country safer. Even those most aggressively against the war in Iraq treat returning soldiers with respect and praise. And while anti-war sentiment is high in congress, it is generally agreed even among those who have been against the war since its inception that attempts to cut off funding for the war would be political suicide, because it would hurt the troops.
Jane Fonda brought infamy upon herself in 1972 when she was photographed sitting in the gunner’s seat of a North Vietnamese Army anti-aircraft gun, laughing and wearing a NorthVietnamese soldier’s helmet. No additional explanation was needed at the time in order to arouse visceral hatred, but more recent historical accounts note that these were the soldiers and weapons being used to shoot down American planes. In 2000, she issued an apology: “I will go to my grave regretting the photo of me in an anti-aircraft carrier, which looks like I’m trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized so much hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have. It was just thoughtless.” Well spoken, but late in the offering. Not surprisingly, she has shied away from war protests since then. “I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam. I carry a lot of baggage from that,” she said at Saturday’s rally, then went on to say: “Silence is no longer an option.”
Actually, silence would have been a great option. To put it another way: Jane, you are not helping! While the anti-war movement will take all the help it can get, what is needed is political muscle, not lightning rods for abuse. Already two-thirds of the country is opposed to the escalation of the war and feel that congress is not being assertive enough in opposing Bush on the war. The last thing that we need is to have the remaining third spitting tobacco juice on the antiwar movement, as happened to Fonda in 2005. There’s some help that is no help at all. Ralph Nader may be progressive and want a lot of good things, but is there anybody left (besides Karl Rove) who thinks that his entry into the 2000 election was a good thing? Does he look at the news every day and realize that he could have single-handedly stopped the disaster that is Bush-Cheney Inc. by standing down? Hopefully, he does. Hopefully, he hangs his head in shame.
The lightning-rod effect is the same concern raised by many Democrats about Hillary Clinton. Yes, she can raise money, but after the nomination is when Whitewater, Vince Foster, and all of the rest of the “culture of corruption” accusations will come flooding back. If it will be enough to derail her presidential aspirations only time will tell, but the very thought of a President Romney is enough to send large sectors of the Democratic party toward newcomers like Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. The sentiment is simple: Enough already. Let’s move on.
The same sentiment is present in the anti-war movement. Let’s move forward. Let’s move past this war, past Bush-Cheney, past global hegemony, past corporate malfeasance exported worldwide, and past an extremist administration that views all foreign policy through a gun-site. But before we can move forward we have to avoid getting dragged back into the past. Whatever the parallels, Iraq is not Vietnam. This is the Age of the Internet, not the Age of Aquarius. Ending our involvement in Iraq is about correcting a huge mistake and making the world a safer place, not about promoting an aging celebrity’s latest tell-all book. Probably the best news about Fonda’s appearance at Saturday’s anti-war rally is that it was mostly greeted with a big yawn. Even the Radical Right is having a hard time raising any hackles; most of the people who like to have their hackles raised see Fonda as old news, something from a previous generation that doesn’t involve them.
So, thank you Jane for being against the war in Iraq, but the best thing you can do to help is to stay out of the limelight. If you really want to help, get involved behind the scenes, help raise money for vulnerable Democratic candidates for 2008, work all your connections to help fuel the next generation of change. But not being the center of attention is never something she’s been very good at, even when doing so works against her cause. We can only hope she sees the light.
Return to Home Page
|