war

The United States Conference of Mayors met in Baltimore last week, and the topic? American cities are under continuous attack from our poor economy.

Providence and Hollywood, Fla., issued layoff notices to police officers this month that will cut jobs in the coming weeks unless the cities get more union concessions. Lansing, Mich., and New York are threatening to close fire stations. Teachers are getting pink slips in Philadelphia, and schools in Montgomery, Ala., are being closed. Libraries are open less. And potholes are staying unfilled longer in cities like Minneapolis.

Local governments shed 28,000 jobs last month, the Department of Labor reported, and have lost 446,000 jobs since employment peaked in September 2008.

Because of rampant foreclosures, many cities don't have the tax base to take care of the issues above. As cities continue to make cuts, the quality of life in the present--and most likely the future--deteriorates. Commitments to education, jobs, public safety, libraries, and basic infrastructure are all receding at a time they should be increasing.

As the Times story indicates, most of the mayors at the meeting targeted the Defense budget, specifically the money being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So when downturn-weary mayors from around the country gathered here on Friday for the annual meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors, they decided to make a statement: they introduced a resolution calling for the speedy end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and calling on Congress to use the $126 billion a year the wars cost for urgent domestic needs.

The resolution, which will be decided Monday, seems likely to pass. “There are so many better uses for the money,” said Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake of Baltimore. Mayor R. T. Rybak of Minneapolis lamented that cities across the nation were being forced to make “deeply painful cuts to the most core services while the defense budget continued to escape scrutiny.” And Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles said that the idea “that we would build bridges in Baghdad and Kandahar and not Baltimore and Kansas City absolutely boggles the mind.”

At what point do we start to view this as an attack on our generation? And at what point does this begin to spark more visible outrage?

Not to be a downer, but I caught a link this eventing to a couple photos that hit home. With all the political skirmishing around the upcoming elections — exciting and engaging, no doubt — it’s easy to lose sight of why this actually matters. For my part, 9/11 and the war drove my involvement in politics, drove me into the Dean movement, etc.

These days feel less acute, more diffuse. And then there’s this:

Before.

Marine Sergeant Ty Ziegel already had his life planned out, he would marry his girlfriend Renee Kline upon returning from his second tour of duty in Iraq.

After.

But one fateful day a suicide bomber hit his truck, tearing apart his body and making him among the 20,000 soldiers that have been wounded in Iraq. He was blind in one eye, had a shattered skull, and most of his skin was burned off. Renee lived with Ty at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas for a year and a half, sharing Ty’s every hope and fear. Their relationship became stronger than ever, and Ty and Renee moved back to their hometown in Illinois in July 2006, and got married in shortly thereafter.

There’s a whole human story here, as big as it gets, and I don’t want to minimize what’s going on for any of these individuals, but for me it’s a striking reminder. It’s human beings like me — and by that I mean the young, the un-powerful, the Millennials — who’s lives are on the line. By in large, we’re the ones being sent to kill, die, and suffer for the hubris of an elite clique of warmongers and the lackluster media/political establishment they were able to dupe.

Why are we putting up with this? Have we internalized the notion that nothing can be done? Are we really with the Joe Bidens of the world in thinking that we’re effectively powerless to end the war?

I’m well aware of the realpolitik dynamics, and lord knows I embrace the spirit of pragmatism, the long march through the institutions, all that jazz. Yet, at the same time I’m also aware that any kind of risk-taking drive for change isn’t going to come from my parents’ generation, or from the budding New Establishment. These people are, politically, not the sort to push the envelope. It’s up to us to break new ground and open up new territory.

I’m all for folks working for candidates X, Y and Z, but honestly it feels to me like doing that ties one (or both) hands behind our backs. And for what? I see the dynamics of this election as being very different from the last, very different from any in a while actually. It’s an open field, and for the first time since 1976 the Democratic Party has clear national momentum.

I agree with the blogosphere consensus that virtually any Democrat (sorry DK) is electable, and really it’s a question of “who do we want to send,” not “who do we turn to in our hour of need.” There’s no need to get on with a particular candidate unless you’re angling for a job (which is cool, by the way).

With that in mind, I’m going to devote my political blogging here to the bigger picture, to the issues and to the deeper, more radical/revolutionary kinds of changes I think we all want to see. I think the task of developing the meta-narrative for our generation is an important one which will pay dividends for many years to come. Hopefully you do too.