Here's a good argument against the proposed Department of Peace

Kucinich has proposed it, and while in concept I can agree with it, in reality the Department of Peace will be corrupted by an Admin as militant as Bush and a waste of money.

From today's Liberal Oasis column Abolish the US Institute of Peace

<SNIP>
one would have to believe that the U.S. Institute of Peace actually does anything of significant value.

It’s been almost 20 years since President Reagan (not a typo) signed the bill that created USIP.

And we haven’t exactly had a hot streak of peace since then.

That’s why liberals should exploit the appalling Pipes nomination to take a bold stand.

Abolish the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Railing against bureaucratic waste may be perceived as a conservative issue, but it shouldn’t be.

Liberals strongly support government spending that actually solves problems, stimulates the economy and creates jobs, but not spending that goes down a hole.

And the USIP is one big hole.
<SNIP>

To be fair, more of that money ($16.2M this year), goes to grants that research things like conflict resolution.

Nevertheless, none of USIP’s activities is having much positive impact on U.S. foreign policy.

USIP should be a reminder that it takes more that creating a building and spending money to achieve social progress.

It takes people that give a damn.
<SNIP>

thought that's what the sec of state is for.

this is what we need much more in this country. Manditory medication for political nuts that are a threat to our security and sanity. Time to send the guys out in the white jackets to round up those insane, unhappy PATRIOTs who can never have too much law enforcement...but can never stop complaining when they are the ones being searched without a warrent or arrested and questioned without due process.

Cause and effect...no such relationship exists in modern america. First a tax cut, then 9/11 terrorist attacks, and then we invade Afghanistan because we learned that they caused it! But then we find out that unless we occupy Iraq...another attack will occur. Now we are told that Iran and Syria may, in fact, really be the ones guilty of these murders.

What good does any form of government do us, let alone the State Department, if the voters cannot tell the difference between the truth and a lie or see the link between cause and effect?

And the Trojan Horse of destruction that the Rreagna department of Education was intended to be. No what Kucinich should argue is osmething more a la Carter. Have the State department employ new philosophies and methods within exisitng diplonacy and permeating the real foreign policy structure with more benign and creative strategies. The Repukes are doing just the opposite. Instead of setting up a straw agency for his opponents to ignore or knock down it could be a strong compare and contrast critique of the wrong headed old direction of the Bushites versus what Dems had started and more creative peace intiaitives could make in the future.

Unless State Dept. does it from the ground up, Kucinich would have a LONG way to go to make his good idea as innovative and productive as Carter's Helsinki.

have you gone to Kucinich's website and read his DOP proposal- which btw, was first presented in Congress two years ago- July 2001?

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_departmentpeace.htm

Have you ever heard him speak on the Dept of Peace...which is quite different than the US Inst of Peace?

I will provide more on this as time permits.

I don't see how anyone can think that not doing all we can towards peace & peaceful means to solve things is not in the best interest of the planet. You are buying into the fear & military mindset the war corporations want. keep us angry keep us fighting keep us struggling financially and we are much easier to control.

This is my biggest problem with so many of Dean's supporters...I see a lot of anger towards those who do not see Dean in the glowing light they do and the unwillingness to look at the possibility that others may have good ideas too.

Peace- there are a lot of us out there who will work for it....who want it...it really is our only option.
DR

It doesn't really matter what Kucinich is proposing the Dept. of Peace be, as soon as a war-mongering President gets a chance to appoint his or her own Secretary of Peace the Department's agenda will change and all those resources Kucinich naively designed to go towards promoting peace will go to building fences and walls in Palestine or cracking down on anti-corporate activity in India and Latin America.

war-mongering people to hold the office?

problem.

Only a war monger like Bush* would appoint someone like the loathsome Daniel Pipes to the U.S. Institute of Peace. Pipes is anti-Muslim and wants to censor academic thought and Muslim-Jewish relations in the Middle East. He wants all professors who specialize in Middle Eastern affairs to think the way he does ("Jews good, Muslims bad") and uses bullying and intimidation to advance his ideas.

Dennis Kucinich proposes a Cabinet-level Department of Peace, elevating Peace to equal standing with Defense. Comparing his proposal to the existing U.S. Institute of Peace is an apples and oranges comparison.

The phrase "not allow" is really troublesome. If the majority of the people want to vote for war-mongering candidates, then that is their right. Personally I'd rather live in a violent democracy than some kind of peaceful fascist state. As over 95% of voters cast their ballots for pro-war candidates in 2000, I don't foresee an election approaching where we can safely assume that whoever is elected will be resolutely pacifist. Until that day, the Dept. of Peace would only be more money and resources at the disposal of whoever the President is and whatever his or her goals are.

The key concept there was 'we'. :) As in 'we should take care not to vote for any more of them'.

It's all down to democracy, and voting for the outcome we really want rather than the outcome we're told we must settle for.

I'd rather live in a violent democracy than some kind of peaceful fascist state

Why does that have to be our only choice??Do you see DK as creating a fascist state or is that merely an example of options??

And those 95% who voted for pro war candidates...was there any other alternative??

We already live in a violent "democracy"...I think we can do better. I think if people have the CHOICE they will take it... If they have the truth....maybe with all the dems speaking the same truth it might make a difference in making people aware & awake......

Just because someone works fro peace, wants peace...sees peaceful means as the best possible way to resolve any situation...does not make them necessarily"resolutely pacifist".....

I agree with Mairead...if Dennis becomes president...what makes you think anyone would want to go back to a warmongering president once they see how it can be to live in a peaceful prosperous world?

we have to want more & better than what we already have...if we don't even try...we will surely fail...and it won't just affect us here & now...but our future as a planet...

The stakes re high and we must not settle...we have to find courage & go for it....for the first time, I can trust & believe in the integrity, truth & heart of Dennis Kucinich to take us out of this scary angry sad world we live in....

Peace...the only choice for life....
DR

I said that while I supported a Department of Peace in concept, it, like any government bureauocracy, can be corrupted by a strong militant Admin, like the one we have now.

If you object to LO's view, they have a Soapbox that you can post to now.

I've read it and I can't figure out just exactly what the DOP would do. Here is the statement:

"As we stand on the threshold of a new millennium, it is time to free ourselves, to jettison our illusions and fears and transform age-old challenges with new thinking. We can conceive of peace as not simply the absence of violence but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity. Of peace, wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions that impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward creating understanding, compassion, and love. We can bring forth new understandings where peace, not war, becomes inevitable. Can we move from wars to end all wars to peace to end all war?

Citizens across the United States are now uniting in a great cause to establish a Department of Peace, seeking nothing less than the transformation of our society, to make non-violence an organizing principle, to make war archaic through creating a paradigm shift in our culture for human development for economic and political justice and for violence control. Its work in violence control will be to support disarmament, treaties, peaceful coexistence and peaceful consensus building. Its focus on economic and political justice will examine and enhance resource distribution, human and economic rights and strengthen democratic values.

Domestically, the Department of Peace would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, police-community relations conflicts and work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as 'violence is inevitable' or 'war is inevitable'. Thus it will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus.

The Department of Peace will also address human development and the unique concerns of women and children. It will envision and seek to implement plans for peace education, not simply as a course of study, but as a template for all pursuits of knowledge within formal educational settings.

Violence is not inevitable. War is not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable. We can make of this world a gift of peace which will confirm the presence of universal spirit in our lives. We can send into the future the gift which will protect our children from fear, from harm, from destruction."

(that's the whole statement, but if you want to check up on me: http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_departmentpeace.htm)

OK, it would address this issue, that issue, etc. - How?
How would it address these issues?
What would actually be done?
It would create a paradigm shift - how?

That could corrupt the Department of Peace, or render it a glutton of federal funds. C'mon now, we had great non-war mongering, non-chickenhawk presidents and time and time again, people's moods change.

I don't know what the DoP would do, other than sound good. Could anybody educate me on what they'd do?