What National Referendum?

by Tony Palmeri

July 19, 2005

Without even having the decency to announce that an anti-war referendum organizational meeting will be taking place on Wednesday, July 20th, the Oshkosh Northwestern editorialized against the referendum movement today.

The entire editorial is abhorrent, but I would like to comment on two especially bad parts:

1. "There already has been a national referendum on the Iraq War issue, in the presidential elections last November." Really?!? And exactly how did this national referendum take place when both major party candidates took essentially the same position on Iraq? John Kerry was not a peace candidate. In fact, anti-war voices were squelched at the Democratic Party Convention last July.

Given that the electorate was faced with two pro-war candidates, the argument that the November elections somehow represented support for the Iraq war is absurd on its face. Yet the argument is made even more absurd when we look at polls that have been taken since then. In June the Gallup organization polled a representative sample of Americans on this question: "Which comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq: the U.S. should send more troops to Iraq, the U.S. should keep the number of troops as it is now, the U.S. should withdraw some troops from Iraq, (or) the U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq"? The answer:

• Send more: 10%;
• Keep the same number: 26%;
• Withdraw some: 31%;
• Withdraw all: 28%.

That means 6 in 10 Americans want to see some or a complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Those 60 percent did not have a major party candidate to vote for in November who shared their views.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll also released in June did not ask about withdrawal, but discovered high levels of dissatisfaction with the war that makes giving people an opportunity to vote on an anti-war referendum quite appropriate. The poll found significant majorities agreeing that:

• the war was not worth fighting (58%);
• the number of U.S. casualties is unacceptable (73%);
• the war has not contributed to the long-term security of the U.S. (52%);
• the U.S. is "bogged down" in Iraq (65%); and
• the Bush administration has no clear plan for withdrawing from Iraq (65%).

Even given this high level of dissatisfaction with the war, the United States Congress has displayed little interest even in asking the Bush Administration to set a timetable for withdrawal. Clearly, the Congress is not listening to the people.

2. "But we need to develop an awareness that the referendum question is a somewhat clunky way to persuade people of a point." This might be true IF the goal of the referendum drive were to persuade people of a point. That is not the goal. The poll numbers presented show that the people have already been persuaded. The goal is to get elected officials to listen to the voice of the people. A non-binding referendum question is one effective way of doing that.

Wisconsin has had to bear a heavy burden in this war. Our National Guard and Reserves are stressed and stretched to the limit. Their families have had to suffer while the President and Congress refuse even to fully fund veterans' benefits. Thus the referendum question the Winnebago Peace and Justice Center and the Lake Winnebago Green Party wish to have placed on the ballot says the following:

"Should the United States begin an immediate withdrawal of its troops from Iraq, beginning with the National Guard and Reserves?"

Our elected officials need to develop an awareness that the Iraq War is a somewhat clunky way to persuade people that the doctrine of preemption has a place in American foreign policy. A referendum question will help them to develop that awareness.