Last Tuesday the WSJ’s James Taranto in his Best of the Web feature referred to an interesting study by the University of Michigan concerning anti-war protests of the last few years. Here’s a quote from a university article about the study (same as Taranto’s quote with a little more at the beginning):
Since 2003, the antiwar movement in the United States has had much to protest with Americans fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya, but the movement—which has dropped off sharply the past two years—may be more anti-Republican than antiwar, says a University of Michigan researcher.
A new study by U-M’s Michael Heaney and colleague Fabio Rojas of Indiana University shows that the antiwar movement in the United States demobilized as Democrats, who had been motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments, withdrew from antiwar protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, first with Congress in 2006 and then with the presidency in 2008.
“As president, Obama has maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan,” said Heaney, U-M assistant professor of organizational studies and political science. “The antiwar movement should have been furious at Obama’s ‘betrayal’ and reinvigorated its protest activity.
“Instead, attendance at antiwar rallies declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement have dissipated. The election of Obama appeared to be a demobilizing force on the antiwar movement, even in the face of his pro-war decisions.”
I mention it because (1) it helps to demonstrate that what seems to have people riled up is not always what is truly riling them up, and (2) some have accused me of political bias on this blog before.
On the first matter, it is telling that even though our current President has chosen to have America involved in a third area of the Middle East, many of the anti-war protesters who were virtually frothing at the mouth during the previous President’s tenure are oddly silent. I smell me some hypocrisy (a leaven to be avoided, to be sure: Luke 12:1).
On the latter matter, some have questioned why I am not more vehemently “anti-war” on this blog and loudly decrying America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, I have been accused of being anti-military, as well — so, go figure.
Regardless of accusations — and regardless of who is President — I maintain the same position: The only solution to America’s ills is to seek national repentance. While I can understand and even sympathize with leaders who feel it necessary to risk the lives of our young men and women and can respect those who voluntarily place their own lives at risk in the service of their country, ultimately only God can truly protect America. And, as I have said before, until the United States, as a nation, repents and comes under the shed blood of Jesus Christ, it will continue to experience the shed blood of its sons and daughters. (You can read more thoughts along these lines in the link above and here.)
I pray that, unlike politically motivated “stances,” the message has been consistent.