While Ben Cohen's and Jerry Greenfield's goal of getting Iowa voters to pick a candidate in the upcoming caucus that will pledge to shift money from the Pentagon's discretionary budget towards domestic initiatives appears, at first glance, to be a noble effort towards ending unnecessary spending on defense programs that are no longer useful, one has to question how serious Cohen and Greenfield are about making these cuts a reality. (See "Guns and Butter: Can the Ben & Jerry's Founders Change Federal Spending Priorities?", River Cities' Reader issue #655.)
Perhaps the easiest criticism of Caucus for Priorities is their goal of only seeking 10,000 voters to commit to the group's pledge. Assuming all participants get behind the same candidate, 10 percent of the Iowa caucus vote is certainly not going to deliver that candidate a victory.
But, as I see it, the group's bigger problem lies with Cohen's reluctance to answer whether or not they would endorse long-shot Democratic candidate Mike Gravel (who has pledged to cut defense spending by the desired 15 percent), and his statements regarding a candidate's "electability" as a "significant factor" in receiving the duo's support.
Full disclosure: I'm a die-hard Gravel supporter (probably the only one within a 100-mile radius), and I'm fully aware of the fact that Gravel has not been doing well in the polls and has not been able to bring in the type of money his Democratic opponents have been able to raise. So one could argue that it would make more sense to support one of the other non-front-runner candidates, particularly Bill Richardson (who's pledged to cut defense spending by $57.7 billion and has been fairly competitive in the Iowa polls).
But in my opinion, Cohen, Greenfield, and those who've taken Caucus for Priorities' pledge should take a closer look at Democratic candidate Mike Gravel.
For those of you unfamiliar, Gravel is a former U.S. Senator from Alaska who served two terms from 1969 to '81, has been on-board with Caucus for Priorities' goals since the beginning of the race, and seems like he'd be the ideal candidate for a couple of hippies that came of age during the late '60s/early '70s.
Some fun facts:
1) Gravel single-handedly fought to end the draft in this country and won. In 1971 he embarked on a one-man filibuster against legislation that would have renewed the military draft. Using this technique, Gravel was able to block the bill for five months before President Nixon and Senate Republicans agreed to allow the draft to expire in 1973.
2) Also in 1971, Gravel read 4,100 pages of the "Pentagon Papers" into congressional record. The "Pentagon Papers" was a 7,000-page, top-secret government report -- originally leaked to the New York Times -- detailing the history of the U.S.'s involvement in the conflict in Vietnam from 1945 to '67. When Nixon pursued aggressive legal action to stop the Times from further publishing any more excerpts of these documents, Gravel risked going to prison by volunteering to enter the remaining portions of the papers into congressional record. These documents exposed the numerous lies the American public was being told about the war and helped widen the credibility gap between the government and the American people.
3) Gravel also organized worldwide environmental opposition to the underground testing of nuclear weapons that took place at Amchitka Island, Alaska (also known as the "Cannikin Tests," which were halted after the second detonation). Gravel was also publicly opposed to the use of nuclear power as a commercial source of energy, worked to organize citizen opposition towards atomic energy (watch that HBO documentary on the Chernobyl babies and tell me it's still a good idea), and eventually got Ralph Nader to join in their efforts.
Throughout the debates and his campaign, Gravel has been nothing but a straight-shooter. During the first televised debate last April, he was the first candidate to address the issues that Caucus for Priorities is seeking action against, including reminding us that the United States is the greatest violator of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- at one point even asking Barack Obama: "Who the hell are we going to nuke?" -- and that our country is still beholden to the military industrial complex.
And Gravel has also been quick to remind those who insist that pulling out of Iraq will be a disaster that will spread throughout the region that the "dominoes didn't fall after we left Vietnam," as many feared they would.
Gravel has also been a fierce and relentless critic of the other candidates who have voted time and time again to support Bush and his war, and has warned voters to "follow the money" that the front-runners are receiving for their campaigns if you really want to see who is going to be taken care after this upcoming election.
When asked questions pertaining to each candidate and their religion, instead of going into some sappy speech about their impoverished upbringing and how "faith" helped pull them through it all (John Edwards) or describing some laughable plea to "the Lord" to help lose a couple of pounds (Hillary Clinton), Gravel has stated his personal belief that, spiritually, all a person needs in this world is "love" (much like another famous hippie, John Lennon).
And in a recent online presidential forum moderated by Bill Maher, Gravel had no problem admitting that Americans are getting fatter and dumber.
In exchange for his brutal honesty, Gravel has been portrayed by the media as crazy and old, and his political positions have been virtually ignored.
Some of these positions include his support for a Fair Tax (a national sales tax that would replace the Federal income tax) and establishing a "National Ballot Initiative" that would give Americans a system of direct democracy that would allow citizens to vote to enact laws on a federal level.
Gravel also opposes another unnecessary "war" that is costing this country billions of dollars a year: the "War on Drugs." Citing the criminal culture that has thrived due to prohibition, the damage inflicted on our inner cities, his belief that addiction should be treated as a public-health issue rather than a criminal problem, and the billions of dollars (an estimated $45.5 billion in 2005) we're wasting every year on a policy that has put millions of people in prison and shown little success, Gravel wants to legalize all drugs and believes marijuana should be able to be purchased in liquor stores (Gravel: "You'll do more damage to yourself with a fifth of booze than you will with a marijuana cigarette").
Between the defense spending cuts and ending the drug war, we're talking about a Democratic candidate who's committed to freeing up more than an estimated $100 billion a year for domestic programs (particularly education and health care).
So my question for Greenfield and Cohen: "Why not Mike Gravel?" Between his past achievements, strong anti-war record, and commitment towards ending drug prohibition, I'm baffled as to why Gravel's campaign hasn't seen more support from the "Baby Boomers."
While Cohen and Greenfield's generation was out smoking dope, protesting the war in Vietnam, burning their draft cards, and trying to levitate the Pentagon, Gravel was in Washington fighting by himself to end a federal policy(the draft) that sent many young men off to die in hostile regions while sparing those who were fortunate enough to have rich and influential parents.
Today we have a Democratic majority in Congress and presidential candidates who refuse to play hardball with the president and seem content to throw their hands up and give us the old "not enough votes to override the veto" line.
Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on Cohen and Greenfield, but it would be nice if they practiced what they preach. If these guys are going to pass up on endorsing a candidate seriously committed to their goals for someone more "electable," then the Caucus for Priorities campaign is going to amount to nothing more than a few newspaper articles, a bunch of faded bumper stickers, and further confirmation that the hippies sold out a long time ago.
Although Gravel's chances of winning the Democratic nomination may seem slim, voters need to remember that it's not too late. But Gravel's campaign needs more money and support (because of campaign-fund requirements, he was not invited to the two recent debates on MSNBC and CNN). I strongly urge those committed to Caucus for Priorities' goals to study up on Mike Gravel's past accomplishments and presidential goals before they settle on a candidate. Visit (http://www.gravel2008.us), look him up on Wikipedia.org, and check out his numerous videos, interviews, and debate clips on YouTube, as well as his blogs at (http://www.huffingtonpost.com). Just because Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer, and the rest of the mainstream media only want to talk about the front-runners doesn't mean that we have to settle for less.
