On Tuesday, Ann Coulter wannabe Michelle Malkin made a feeble effort to play the antiradicalism card against those protesting the shipment of Stryker equipment through the Port of Tacoma.  --  Mark Jensen of United for Peace of Pierce County (WA) responds by putting this rhetorical ploy in the broader context of American history.[1]  --  Malkin's column, which has been widely circulated on right-wing web sites, is reproduced below.[2]  --  Her feeble piece, which has appeared in a few mainstream newspapers as well (New York Post, Salem (OR) Statesman Journal), is so weak that one senses she's just going through the motions....

1.

Comment

THE LAST REFUGE OF A SCOUNDREL
By Mark Jensen

United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)
March 8, 2007

On Tuesday, Ann Coulter wannabe Michelle Malkin played the antiradicalism card in a column (see #2 below) about the Stryker protest in the Port of Tacoma organized by Tacoma Port Militarization Resistance. Malkin is a syndicated columnist, and her piece has been published by a few mainstream papers and posted on about a dozen "conservative" web sites.[2]

You have to put "conservative" in quotation marks, because the term has come to mean the opposite of what it once meant. If you hang out with the people Michelle Malkin labels as "extremists," you hear a lot of talk about the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, liberty and justice for all, due process, Martin Luther King Jr., nonviolence, and democracy. I've been in a lot of the Tacoma Port Militarization Resistance meetings, and to tell the truth, I haven't heard an extremist idea yet.

That Michelle Malkin can call what's happening in Tacoma "extremism" tells you a lot about life in these United States in the opening decade of the 21st century, I suppose.

Let's go back in time. "Conservatism" in the United States once meant protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States, and defending the notion of democratic constitutional republicanism -- "government of the people, by the people, for the people," as Abraham Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg Address in 1863.

"Conservatism" used to include a desire to keep the U.S. military at home and opposition to militarism and the "garrison state." These terms disappeared from the American political vocabulary as the military-industrial complex grew and flourished, but they used to be heard regularly from the lips of conservative leaders of the Republican Party, who saw these trennds as inimical to the fundamental values of the Republic.

In the 20th century, of course, the "patriotic" label has been claimed by nationalists and corporate élites intent on identifying "patriotism" with the projection of American power in the world and the defense of American wealth, power, and access to global resources. Ronald Reagan was a past master of this rhetoric.

The neoconservatives who hijacked American foreign policy in the Bush administration have attempted to make use of this reflexive, jingoistic nationalism for what historian Chalmers Johnson calls a "democratic empire." They hoped September 11 would prove to be the "new Pearl Harbor" that permanently swung the United States in this direction.

But the catastrophe of the Iraq war -- "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States," in the words of Lt. Gen. William Odom -- has thrown a spanner into the works, and as a nation the United States is now poised on a historical cusp.

Some elements in the Bush administration are certainly tempted to ramp up the war machine, "double down" their adventuristic bet in the Middle East by attacking Iran, and also unleash repression in the United States. But most of them know by now that they can't get away with it.

Strong public opposition to the Bush regime has developed in U.S. civil society. Backed by broad public disaffection from and skepticism about the un-American values of elitists pursuing a vision of the U.S. as a corporatocracy rather than a democracy, this opposition is so strong that an attempt to carry out this project would probably lead to civil strife in the United States.

The American people -- and this includes the vast majority of the men and women in the U.S. military -- do not desire a police state. The election results of Nov. 7, 2006, demonstrate that Americans have seen through the politics of fear that Karl Rove for several years used to support the faux patriotism of the Bush administration. And despite what Michelle Malkin says, most of those serving in the military know that protesters are working for, not against, the interests of U.S. soldiers.

In such circumstances, it is entirely predictable that the flag-waving fanatical nationalists who dress themselves up as "conservatives" and the cynical neoconservatives who goad them on should invoke antiradicalism. Antiradicalism is a deep current in American history that goes back to the 1790s. It has been studied in depth by historian John Higham (1920-2003) in his classic study of American attitudes toward immigration, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 (Rutgers University Press, 1955; 2nd ed. Athenaeum, 1963), where Higham shows how the reactionary turn of U.S. society began in earnest in the 1870s. (Please skip ahead seven paragraphs if you're one of the "that was then, this is now" crowd.)

Revolution came to be something to fear rather than to applaud following the Paris Commune, the formation of the first socialist party in the United States, labor conflicts in Pennsylvania's coal country, and the violence of the railroad strikes of 1877. "Henceforth [revolution] would mean, for the most part, not the replacement of monarchy by liberal democracy, but the uprising of the working classes against capitalism" (Strangers in the Land, p. 30). The anarchist bombing in Haymarket Square in Chicago in 1886 in the context of the 1883-1886 depression activated a xenophobia of historic proportions, as did Czolgosz's assassination of President McKinley fifteen years later. Racialist thinking was also invoked.

Shortly after the triumph of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, in 1917, a virulent anti-Semitism envenomed American anti-radicalism. It was at this moment that the fraudulent "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" reached American shores, where they were circulated in influential circles in Washington, D.C., in 1918-1920. In the pessimistic post-WWI climate the confidence of American progressivism proved to be inadequate to counter these forces.

All of the xenophobias rampant in post-WWI America benefited from this failure of democratic morale, for it meant that the chief ideological check on the nativist traditions in the Progressive era was now relaxed. Anti-radicalism was a major factor in the passage in 1921 of a bill restricting, for the first time, immigration from Europe (earlier action had interfered with immigration from China and Japan).

The American state, however, had yet to commit itself to the reactionary defense of wealth and power. Indeed, despite the rejection of the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations in 1920, American foreign policy continued to pursue the goals of peace and justice.

The U.S. withdrew from a few Latin American countries (the Dominican Republic in1924, Nicaragua in 1931-1933), and President Harding pledged non-intervention toward Caribbean republics. "The U.S. in the 1920s largely abandoned isolation and American leaders sought to strengthen and protect the peace structure of the world" (Arthur Link and William Catton, American Epoch: A History of the U.S. since 1900, vol. 2: 1921-1945, 4th ed. [New York: Knopf, 1973], p. 82). It's been erased from public memory, but the fact is that most public leaders agitated for membership "in the World Court, cooperation with the League of Nations, treaties outlawing war, and the like" (ibid., p. 93).

It was only under the pressure of the rise of fascism, a new world war, and the nuclear age that the full power of the American state, embodied in the newly created agencies of the national security state (Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Council, National Security Agency, etc.) came to be committed to the cause of antiradicalism around the world.

Given this historical context, it must be said that Michelle Malkin's effort to challenge the patriotism of antiwar demonstrators is feeble stuff. As an immigrant, she must recognize that some of the visceral xenophobic sources of the antiradical juices she's trying to stir up are unavailable to her.

So she tries evoking "freedom," though the neo-Orwellianism of celebrating riot police who bash peaceful nonviolent protesters in the name of the "free world" is pretty easy to see through. And she resorts to outright lying when she dredges up the red-meat image of spitting at the troops (invented by the right for this very purpose -- see Jerry Lembcke's Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam [NYU Press, 2000]) by calling protesters "spittle-spewers." That doesn't give us confidence that the unnamed "mother of one of the Tacoma soldiers" she quotes really exists.

Really, this is pathetic stuff.

Malkin impugns the intelligence of the protesters, but it can't be denied that the thinness of her column doesn't do much credit to her own intelligence. Her article suggests, for example, that she does not even know what a "Stryker brigade" is, since she absurdly represents this high-tech combat unit as a medical intervention team needed in Iraq on the grounds that it contains within it "medical intervention equipment." Every combat brigade has medical intervention equipment, Michelle. You don't take 4,000 soldiers into combat without medical intervention equipment.

It's important in this context to note that U.S. soldiers in Iraq don't need the equipment in the Port of Tacoma. The soldiers it's designed for are sitting over in Fort Lewis. Let's keep them there. Let's keep them alive. More U.S. troops in Iraq will make things worse over there, not better.

Malkin ridiculously portrays nonviolent protesters as "bullies," and has not a word to say about the excessive force used by Tacoma riot police. You can see this excessive force in the very video she cites being used against American citizens, including many veterans, who are only exercising their constitutional rights. (A lawsuit against the Tacoma Police Department is in the works -- how's that for an extremist notion, Michelle?)

The American public, fortunately, has demonstrated that it has seen through this brand of "conservatism." Michelle Malkin may fancy herself a patriot, but her brand of authoritarianism and militarism is out of the American mainstream.

Sorry, Michelle. I won't stoop to your level and impugn your patriotism. But please -- as a descendent of Filipinos, read a little more deeply in American history. And remember the immortal words of Samuel Johnson, a true conservative: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

See you down at the port, where we'll be standing up for real American values.

***

—Mark Jensen is a member of United for Peace of Pierce County (WA) and of the faculty of Pacific Lutheran University.

2.

Commentary

THE 'PEACE' BRIGADE VERSUS THE STRYKER BRIGADE
By Michelle Malkin

Creators Syndicate
March 6, 2007

http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070308/OPINION/70306050/1049
or
Source: New York Post
or
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23307.html
or
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2007/mm_03071.shtml
or
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmQ2ZjU4MDA1ODNhNjFlMDkwN2E4MzNmZmRiMjkyMGI=
or
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19701
or
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611980.shtml
or
http://www.townhall.com/
or
http://vdare.com/malkin/070306_stryker.htm
or
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20070307/cm_uc_crmmax/op_191897
or
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200703/COM20070307a.html
or
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54580

Last week, I wrote about the Gathering of Eagles -- veterans, active-duty troops, bikers, activists and ordinary citizens coming to Washington, D.C., on March 17 to hold a counter-protest against tens of thousands of anti-war extremists demanding immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Washington state this week, the peace brigade held a dress rehearsal at the Port of Tacoma -- where they showed support for our troops by taunting the Stryker Brigade and local police guarding against obstruction of the convoys headed to Iraq. More than 300 Stryker vehicles and other equipment are being moved from Fort Lewis to Iraq in support of the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division's upcoming deployment as part of the ongoing "surge" and counterinsurgency efforts. The Strykers are equipped with slat armor to protect the troops from rocket-propelled grenades.

Yes, the same ilk that purport to care so much about the troops not having enough armor and protection stood and jeered at those deploying to bring more protection to their fellow soldiers in Iraq.

Such patriots, aren't they?

Members of the anti-military mob shouted condescendingly at our volunteer soldiers rolling past them: "Free the troops!" "No justice, no peace!" "You don't have to go!" One lunatic with a bullhorn urged Stryker Brigade members to disobey their commanding officers and sneered: "Your sergeant is a douchebag!"

Such patriots, aren't they?

These same bullies staged obstructionist protests at the Port of Olympia in Washington last year -- blocking gates to prevent convoys from passing and attempting to tear down fencing following the arrival of a large military ship bound for Iraq. In April 2003, "peace" protesters waged similar attacks in Oakland, Calif., where they attempted to shut down a port involved in shipping military supplies to soldiers. The Bay Area anti-war brigade set out deliberately and specifically to prevent private businesses from fulfilling their federal contracts with the Department of Defense and U.S. Agency for International Development related to the war and post-war reconstruction in Iraq.

Such patriots, aren't they?

A mother of one of the Tacoma soldiers who rode silently past the spittle-spewers wrote to me earlier this week after seeing anti-war video of the mob scene uploaded on YouTube:

"My son was one of the Stryker soldiers who was moving the equipment to the port that night.

"These people are protesting the shipment of Strykers. Strykers are what keep our infantrymen alive in Iraq. They are agile, strong, and the newest ones have very accurate firepower. Once again, the moonbats say they support our troops, but not the war. They show it by insulting the troops' intelligence, calling their NCOs names, and telling them that they will die for nothing. Nice. I personally like to tell my son that he will come home alive and we will be reunited. These protesters sounded more like spoiled, self-centered, obnoxious brats to me. Yet, at the end of the line, there stand our troops. They are carrying the weight of the free world on their shoulders and they get to hear this mindless drivel before they deploy."

"The last big protest was at the Port of Olympia last year. The moonbats did damage to a fence around a yard that protects military equipment. The Strykers they were protesting that day were Strykers that were equipped with medical intervention equipment. The protesters were marching against medical supplies that our soldiers need desperately, and once again the very equipment that keeps our soldiers alive. It seems that there are two populations of people who hate Strykers: moonbats and insurgents."

Question their patriotism?  You bet I do.

--Michelle Malkin writes for Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045. Send e-mail to writemalkin@gmail.com.