First Hope, Now It's Time to Get to Work

[Martin Kelley]

It was beyond crazy beautiful to see legendary musician Pete Seeger up on stage the day at the pre-inauguration celebration, leading tens of thousands in Woody Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land" along with a Senator with a rendezvous with history.

I've been lucky enough to see Pete so many times, even right there on the Mall on Washington, but almost always he's been there in protest. Yesterday he was there at the invitation of in the incoming President of the United States.

It's too easy to make too much of the hope of Barack Hussein Obama's Presidency. He's made clear that he will escalate the war in Afghanistan. He's no pacifist. I supported his candidacy but know that with his ascension to the office I will take my place in the loyal opposition.

Those of us committed to pacifism will need to remind President Obama that war is never the only solution. Those of us committed to the message of Jesus' gospel will have to remind him of the Sermon on the Mount, that the Lamb of God does not report to Caesar.

But we can hope. We can hope that America will hope once more and that we will hold obedient to that spirit that demands that tanks to be beaten into tractors.

[Steve Woodall]

I share that hope. I think the question is more about what is the most likely strategy for getting there. I guess I think nudging power-based systems in the direction you want them to move in works better than expecting wholesale, overnight change. I'm not challenging your wishes or intent, just hoping for a discussion about ways to move us..the world..in a peaceful direction. I get a little more excited, for example, about ideas for institutional change (a Dept. of Peace, more support for UN initiatives, insuring that we abide by Geneva Conventions forevermore....). Seems like it might be more productive to find ways to work with the new administration on the initiatives they're already taking to move us in the right direction.

[Martin Kelley]

Well of course the U.S. isn't about to elect a pacifist for President. Does that mean the world wouldn't be better off if our leaders were pacifists? It's idealism, to be sure, but there's nothing saying we have to agree with the best of the bad choices. Of all the "realistic" presidential choices Obama is surely the best, but he's pledged to escalate the war in Afghanistan and I will oppose him on that. We don't have to limit ourselves to the politics of 51% of the country. My hope is that Obama and his team is smart enough that they won't be planting the seeds of war 20, 50 and 100 years from now and that we will be closer to peace when he leaves office than we are now.

[Steve Woodall]

Thanks for posting this, Martin. I share your sympathies, but cannot in my wildest imagination believe that Obama would be President if he were pacifist. I've struggled most of my life between the idealism of my pacifist friends, and the pragmatism that Obama seems to have. Wise leaders don't usually start down a path they know their supporters won't walk. It is one thing to be a Seeger and sing the songs of peace. It is another to be a political leader of 300 million people with the history we have, especially now. Do you agree?