The anti-war movement is growing in intensity and ferocity - and increasingly turning on Democrats who are perceived as having betrayed the cause. This bodes ill for Senator Hillary Clinton, who has steadfastly refused to take a firm stand on Iraq. She, along with other leading Democrats who have not delivered results since the 2006 election, are about to face the wrath of anti-war activists. 

Hillary and many leading Democrats have mistakenly calculated that if they signal enough of a willingness to end the Iraq war, they will nonetheless be rewarded by the votes of the anti-war left regardless of whether they produce results - if not for the sole reason that these activists have no other alternative. Hillary has even openly and brazenly defied the die-hard peaceniks. 

Exasperated by the persistent questions on her original vote in favor of the Iraq war, Hillary said in New Hampshire in February, 2007: “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from. But for me, the most important thing now is trying to end this war.” Her invocation to choose other candidates might come back to haunt her as individuals within the anti-war movement explore alternatives. 

The anti-war movement is currently the largest social movement in the United States; its influence will be a key factor in the 2008 election. The leaders are preparing to change tactics once again. In 2001, Bush’s military response to the attacks on America served to unite disparate left-wing constituencies so they could speak with one voice against war. From 2001 to 2003, mass protests in Washington D.C. and San Francisco failed to make a difference. In 2004, leaders of the movement next turned to lobbying members of Congress. The most notable successes of these efforts were the emergence of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus in 2005 and an electoral victory for the Democratic Party in the mid-term elections of 2006. Activists had high hopes that this triumph would produce anti-war legislation. Yet, the failure of a Democratic-led Congress to end funding for the war or even establish a firm withdrawal date has prompted many passionate and unflinching peace advocates to turn on their Democratic allies.  

The third phase of this movement is now focusing on attacking Democratic leaders who have failed to deliver results. The most blatant and alarming example of this is a massive rally which is planned for the Democratic Convention to be held in the summer of 2008. Democrats are worried that these protests will be embarrassing and will be used by opponents to paint the party as too divided to take over the reins of power.  

Thus, the anti-war movement which has been a thorn in the side of Republicans is increasingly just as threatening to Democrats. The most recent study,  produced by scholars at the University of Florida and the University of Indiana,  Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas, reveals that the anti-war movement is a disparate group: 40 percent are Democrats, 39 percent are independents and 20 percent support a third party. Hence, the allegiance of anti-war activists to the Democrat Party is by no means assured. These militants can sabotage Democratic electoral prospects in 2008 by running a third candidate or simply by staying home. 

The anti-war movement is currently split between those who favor working with the Democrats and those who are ready to abandon their fickle allies. The purist activists are openly turning on MoveOn.org and lambasting it as merely a wing of the Democratic Party rather than an effective advocacy group. United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of 1,300 advocacy groups, refuses to follow MoveOn.org’s lead in attacking only Republicans: they are assaulting all members of Congress, including Democrats, who do not fully support the movement’s goals. Members in other anti-war organizations, such as Voices for Creative Non-Violence and Code Pink, are increasingly dissatisfied with the tactics of MoveOn.org, which they perceive as kow-towing to a stagnant Democratic leadership. 

The growing tensions within the anti-war movement point to a polarization within the movement and the left at large. The purists do not want Democrats to seize power at the cost of their ideals. This is reminiscent of 1968, when the New Age liberals sabotaged the Democratic Convention and trounced the previous leadership. “A revolution is like a mother that devours its children,” goes the famous saying that gained currency during the French Revolution. How ironic - or fitting - that many of the same anti-establishment liberals who rejected authority and conventional power structures in their youth are now at the helm of the Democratic Party and facing fire from the next generation which regards them as power-hungry sell outs.

- Washington Watch is a regular column published in Insight.