Dennis's Department of Peace: good idea or bad?

[Mairead]

This is actually a social-psych quiz. There is absolutely no 'right' or 'preferred' answer, and I hope nobody will use it as a venue for doing pro- or anti-Dennis or pro- / anti-Peace-Dept posting.

[maha]

1. Function of a "Department of Peace"

What would a "Department of Peace" do that the State Department isn't supposed to be doing?

[Terwilliger]

7. The State Department does NOT promote peace

the SD has nothing to do with trying to find ways for the world's people to live together. The SD is a bullying arm of our government that goes to other nations and tells them what we want done.

It's like the difference between Amnesty International and a police department.

[maha]

22. (Sigh) let's try again.

What you say is true of the way BUSH handles the Department of State. But what the Department of State is SUPPOSED to do is handle statecraft, which in normal times means getting along with the other nations without shooting at them.

So, why doesn't DK just turn the Department of State to its original purpose instead of adding to the bureaucracy?

[MuseRider]

23. Maybe this will help

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_departmentpeace.htm
It is far more than the State Department can or should handle. I know you are not a DK supporter but if you have not read this you might like it. It makes a lot of sense and god knows we need to focus on non violence in this country as well as how we handle things internationally. I am by no means an expert in his policies or even the policies of the different departments of our government. I suppose it is possible to incorporate them, I just do not know enough to answer that part of your question. Perhaps if you read it you could respond again with your views. I would be interested.

[maha]

26. OK, so I read it.

It's a hallmark of really bad management when someone's "solution" is to plop more bureaucracy on top of existing bureaucracy.

Kucinich continues to impress me less and less. His goals are all commendable, but first he'll need to overhaul existing bureaucracies. Otherwise he'd just be putting a band-aid on a dirty wound.

It won't do a damn bit of good to create a "department of peace" when existing departments are working to cross-purposes. And I suspect, after a proper overhaul, you won't NEED a department of peace.

[MuseRider]

27. Thank you for reading

and responding. I now can look at it a bit differently and see how I feel after I give it a good think. I guess for now we may have to agree to disagree on this one but your points are valid and helped me as I try to wade through all of this. I remain a person who thinks it is a good idea but I will re read it and think about your points.

[maha]

29. Well, OK

I've worked for big corporations and have some appreciation for bureaucracy, good and bad. It never works to just drop a big new bureaucracy into an existing bureaucracy. It's like adding a new limb to an animal; legs are good, but you only need so many.

You have to look at the WHOLE beast and at who's doing what and who's reporting to whom and where responsibilities lie and who's effective and who isn't, and then if you still want a new department you have to work slowly and carefully to be sure you're not duplicating agencies that already exist or possibly even setting up agencies that will be working at cross-purposes with existing agencies.

And when you've got a bureaucracy as big as the federal government, the kind of reorganization needed would take three to five years, easy, possibly longer. It would make more sense to re-orient existing bureaucracy toward your desired goals.

Now, it may be that eventually a "department of peace" would be a good thing, or it may create a bigger mess than we already have. Lots of ifs. However, the whole "department of peace" thing sounds more like a gimmick to me than an actual solution to anything.

[MuseRider]

30. Point taken

the only point you made that I can actually dissagree with is the last one about this being a gimmick. Not at all. He is what he says, it is evident in everything he does. This department is part of the whole of Dennis Kucinich.

[maha]

57. It's either a gimmick or a bad idea.

Whichever.

[magnolia]

62. Something can be a good idea....

...for reasons that are different than the original intention. If the idea of a Department of Peace does nothing but get people thinking...then it's already a good idea. It makes you wonder...what exactly is my government doing actively toward peace...and are they doing, and spending as much for peace as they are for war. It doesn't even matter if there is specifically a "Department of Peace". Kucinich's goal is ultimately PEACE...period. I doubt if he cares whether a new department is developed or existing departments revamped or if this department would replace another one. I doubt anyone wants to create more bureacracy. Look at this idea as part of a bigger picture to create peace in the world. An idea is just a thought and can manifest in many different ways.

We are dealing with a public that has a very short attention span. Kucinich has put his ideas in a context, with a name, that can be easily understood and referred to. This makes it much easier for the public to grasp than if he listed off various departments and how each one can be revamped to serve this purpose.

[diamondsoul]

63. I'm going to take a stab at explaining this,

mostly because I'm a staunch supporter of the DoP.

"You have to look at the WHOLE beast and at who's doing what and who's reporting to whom and where responsibilities lie and who's effective and who isn't, and then if you still want a new department you have to work slowly and carefully to be sure you're not duplicating agencies that already exist or possibly even setting up agencies that will be working at cross-purposes with existing agencies."

This is absolutely accurate. Unfortunately when it comes to the issues being addressed by a DoP, a new department is the only way to coordinate the effort effectively. Not because Kucinich wants to create more beaurocracy, but because it can't be organized through existing agencies. The goals are too fractured and separate in existing agencies to be properly coordinated and carried out effectively, and that's because the changes have to take place on several fronts at the exact same time.

"And when you've got a bureaucracy as big as the federal government, the kind of reorganization needed would take three to five years, easy, possibly longer. It would make more sense to re-orient existing bureaucracy toward your desired goals."

I understand where you're coming from, but I contend that trying to re-orient existing agencies would be impossible to coordinate. Ok look at it this way, the DoP would be handling things overseen now by so many agencies there is no way to connect the dots between them. The State Department, the Department of Education, the Pentagon, Congress itself, the Peace Institute, Federal Law Enforcement agencies, and on and on. What possible way is there to consolidate these efforts among so many agencies without a new Department to oversee it all?

[Bucky]

64. Imagine a Dept of Peace under a GOP administration

OK, it's 2013. President elect Jeb Bush is reviewing his new policies for the Department of Peace. After 8 years of Kucinich, there is a large bureaucracy there and a dozen major international programs promoting peace and prosperity. Now Jeb Bush and his chief advisors begin to plan how to use these international programs and the contacts and good will that they've created to further the trade advantages that large corporations carry out while exporting US jobs.

What creative things could they think of to expand the agenda of the BFEE and its agenda?

[JohnKleeb]

2. A great idea and I am 20 and younger

Here's why.
I am only 16 years old yet I know of many wars fought in my young life. Dennis K wants to avoid making war a common thing and god bless his soul for that. If we keep on making war common place, people my age the guys and gals I grew up may be sent. I cant be sent because of a heart condition honest but I want peace, I dont want them to suffer. War doesnt discriminate the congressman said and aye he is right. We need to make war rare as possible. I say long live peace. Now allow me to quote from what I feel is a terrific book about the reality of war, Erich Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front.

"I am young, I am twenty years old; yet I know nothing of life but despair, death, fear, and fatuous superficiality cast over an abyss of sorrow. I see how peoples are set against one another, and in silence, unknowingly, foolishly, obediently, innocently slay one another."

"Do I walk? Have I feet still? I raise my eyes, I let them move round, and turn myself with them, one circle, one circle, and I stand in the midst. All is as usual. Only the Militiaman Stanislaus Katczinsky has died. Then I know nothing more."

"He fell in October 1918, on a day that was so quiet and still on the whole front, that the army report confined itself to the single sentence: All quiet on the Western Front. He had fallen forward and lay on the earth as though sleeping. Turning him over one saw that he could not have suffered long; his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come."

[wtmusic]

3. yes JK but...

a new department is not the answer. What's in a name? * could create the same department and continue with business as usual (and probably would, if he thought it would help his reelection chances).

This is an idea that DK should put forth once he is elected. In the meantime it smacks of gimmickry to us older folks.

[JohnKleeb]

4. What about those who are gonna have to fight the wars

It aint gonna be the older folks, its gonna be the young. I may not have to do it myself but I am not gonna feel so good when I hear a guy my age or anyone gets killed in a war that we could have prevented. They all have stories to tell and thats the truth. I like Kucinich because he like I saw that the war wasnt just legally wrong but morally wrong, the human side of war aint pretty, he doesnt know this directly but hes the son of a Marine and brother of two others. I can get the link from his site and explain what its all about. http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_departmentpeace.htm
Here you are.
He's been proposing this in congress for a while. You know this was Washington's idea originally, Tom Harkin likes it, I like it, I think it would be great.

[wtmusic]

12. Easy to change a name

Acting on it is the important part. Currently we have diplomats who are not offering diplomacy and a Department of Justice trying to push a less than judicious Patriot Act.

People get suspicious that it's just a sales job.

[LWolf]

32. You're right there:

Acting on it is the important part.

I would issue a challenge to you. Find another candidate...find another congressman/woman in general who spends more time acting on their vision, goals, promises, platform than Dennis Kucinich. If he says it, he's going to act on it.

As a matter of fact, here are some of the things in his platform he has already taken action on:

Dept of Peace: H.R. 2459, introduced by Kucinich in the 107th Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:h.r.2459:

Repealing parts of the patriot act: Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act: HR 3171 IH

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c108JcqJGr::

Universal, single-payer health care: HR 676

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

[diamondsoul]

15. A new Department is the ONLY answer.

And yes, I'm serious about that. There is no way to organize the goals of the Dept. of Peace with existing Departments and Agencies. It has to be done from a centralized Department in order to work effectively.

[ShaneGR]

5. Good idea, but terribly named

Just my opinion, it should be called something like the Department of International Communication.

[JohnKleeb]

6. Its not just international sgr

actually has a lot of domestic components to it too. There are many reasons why this guy has a Gandhi award, I am far from a pacifist believe me I got a rotten temper and fight back if I have to but nothing would please me more than peace.

[Skip Intro]

8. bushco would use the name to slaughter DK with, should he be the nom

Can't you hear the chorus of rw thugs now?

"We're at a time of war, we are in danger, DANGER!!!"
"We need a president willing to do what it takes to keep us secure. Someone to make the hard choices. cheney/bush has proven they will act!

Nobody wants war, but a dept. of peace at a time when our nation is under attack from shadowy people who have the most leathal weapons ever known to man is not a time to wave a white flag."

It hurt like hell to write that, but they would do far worse. They would bead DK over the head with that phrase - the actual plan it referres to would be irrelevent - a "dept of peace" would be a lethal weapon in the hands of rove.

Pacifist, at this point and time, is not a label we could survive.

I wish it were not so.

[JohnKleeb]

9. So if the idea of like say civil rights wasnt acceptable like say a

century ago we ought not try it. Of course many people desire peace but we gotta promote it. They are gonna nitpick at all the candiates and I think Kucinich could fight Bush back suprisingly better than most expect.

[Skip Intro]

11. I have no doubt DK could fight back

And if the program had been named something else, as others have suggested, there would not be that potential for that particular rove dirty trick.

But the other side is all about images and lies, not substance. Bush has convinced most Americans that we live in danger (and he's busy trying to make sure we do). I think you'd see and hear non-stop drilling-it-into-the-heads-of-the-sheeple that they can vote for a man who will fight, or a man who's a pacifist. An unbelievably unfair characterization, but that's right up rove's alley. It would be a soundbyte, and repeated enough, would become fact to flocks. DK would have a terrible time explaining to them the points of his plan because they have the attention span of a wallnut.

I an NOT even trying to say anything negative about DK - I wish the guy could make it to the WH, he would by far be the best president this nation has had in decades.

But this "department of peace" - sadly, yes, just the title, would be a powerful weapon for rove. Imho.

[diamondsoul]

17. No it wouldn't, and here's why-

Kucinich has been campaigning steadily by combatting this "Danger, Danger!" battle-cry from the Rove/Bushco machine. That's how he's drawn so much support thus far. He removes that mantle of fear from people's shoulders.

No, I don't buy that Rove could spin that title into anything other than what it is, and "the truth shall set you free". I'm sorry, maybe I just have more faith in my countrymen than others do, but I really don't believe when confronted with the truth, the majority would fight it.

[no name no slogan]

24. If Bush's "fearmongering" is working so well

Why is "Stupid White Men" still a bestseller, and why did a documentary like "Bowling for Columbine" do so well in the theatres this year?

Don't believe the media when they keep saying Americans are "scared". Most people, when you talk to them, are not nearly as scared as the White House wants us to believe. People know when they're being lied to, and they are refusing to believe the lies.

Buying into the scaremongering coming from the White House only gives the neoCons a club. When you confront their lies with TRUTH the fear goes away.

[MuseRider]

25. Another point

here. Some people are still scared and they are sick of it. Remember when Reagan ran? He ran on policy but I think the thing that got him elected and re elected was his ability to make Americans feel good about themselves. Now we do not want to feel good the way he made us feel good(accept yourself along with all your predjudice, you are good folks)but no fear is a good place to start. Also no constant threat of fear. Honesty, we will let you know if there is something to fear but for the most part we will try to heal the wounds that are causing the reasons Bush* has used for fear. Also healing the fear of the unknown job market, the economy. I actually think running on a no fear point is a good one for a lot of reasons, not just the threat of terrorism. Plus, Dennis has a way of making people feel good because he believes in people. All in all I think his platform should be unbeatable.

[DemBones DemBones]

45. People have fears, sure, but they know Bush* uses scare tactics.

People notice how the terror alerts come out when Bush* needs a boost in the polls. I'm always pleasantly surprised at how people I consider nonpolitical joke about the terror alerts and such.

[magnolia]

65. We've been hearing .....

....that "danger, danger" drum beat for two years now...and it's getting old and losing it's power to spread fear. We were attacked and may be attacked again, people know this. We also know that the attacking wouldn't have come from Saddam and that our government's "shock and awe" tactics aren't protecting us. Now that we've gotten revenge twenty times over, maybe we'll go back to the question "why do they hate us?" and start doing something about that. Another year...and the sound of PEACE will be music to our ears.

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. A Department of Peace will never sell in the current climate.

Or as Megadeth put it "Peace Sells, but Who's Buying"

And in the Bush Criminal Empire/corporate media culture of hatred and fear, the answer is "Not many"

[Terwilliger]

14. frankly, I think that's wrong-headed

Now that we're finding out that Bush is a complete moron who very likely used American's fear of 9/11 to promote an illegal attack on Iraq. If DK had a clear plan for a DoP and articulated what duties this department would have, he could sell it to a LOT of people in this country that know the MIC and corporate strategies lead us into more conflict, aggression, and death.

[diamondsoul]

18. He does have a clear plan-

it's all right here, along with a list of supporters.

http://www.dopcampaign.org/read_bill.htm

I'm still trying to write up a simplified explanation, but the bill is so comprehensive that's proving to be a difficult task.

[diamondsoul]

13. I have to post a thought for those who worry about cost-

I know none of them have posted to this thread yet, but a lot of them have posted to other threads.

That cost of implementing a new Department really sets my teeth on edge and makes me cringe, and here's why. You're essentially putting your tax money above human life in importance. If the proposed Department of Peace works as it's intended, how many wars will be avoided? How much radical change in the amount of violence in the United States will be achieved? How many kids will survive because they stop shooting each other of "yo'mama" comments? So the people who tell me it's too expensive, I just have to ask, how much is a lowered rate of violence in the world worth? I can't put a price tag on it, and I cannot understand how anyone else can either.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. I am for it because

I believe that the people at the top set the tone for any group. I've seen churches, colleges, and civic organizations change their whole focus because of a change in top leadership. It's even true on the governmental level. Look at how quickly "mean and dumb" people seemed to come out of the woodwork when Reagan came into office.

Our society is the most violence-ridden of the economically advanced industrialized countries, and the U.S. is more ready to use military force or economic threats against other countries than any other nation. This is nothing to be proud of.

I don't know if a Department of Peace is the answer, but it's refreshing to hear someone even talking about alternatives to war and violence.

[info being]

19. When peace talks break down...war is the alternative

So doesn't it make sense to lead with peace?

[JohnKleeb]

20. It makes perfect sense

[Mairead]

21. bump

c'mon folks, state your interest

[Mairead]

31. night bump

[Mairead]

56. yab

[MercutioATC]

28. Wonderful, ANOTHER federal Department....

Seems to me the Department of Homeland Security consolidated a bunch of smaller entities, cost a fortune to set up, and costs more per year then the total of its constituent separate budgets.

Change the focus of the government...that's great. We don't need another huge, bloated department to do it, though...

[Ani Yun Wiya]

41. Well, how about

Dumping the "Homeland Security" routine and using IT'S funding for the Department of Peace?
And if the Pentagon was required to find that couple of trillion they "lost track of" that could be used as well!!

[jsw_81]

33. Department of Peace? Give me a break

That has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. We're all in favor of peace, but another giant, bloated federal department is not the answer. I'm certain that any Democratic nominee who supported such a department would be toast on election day.

And you Kucinich supporters need to wake up and face reality for a change. Kucinich is not going to win a single primary or caucus (not even Ohio), and he will never be president. It will be shocking if he places higher than fifth in the primaries.

[deek]

34. poopyhead n/t

.

[Terwilliger]

38. jsw

Not all support is pragmatic

A Department of Peace is a better idea than a Department of Der Fatherland Sekurity

[JohnKleeb]

39. Yea

Also Terwill I think even if we lose this primary, he will be remembered in a postive light, to quote my dad Terwill, Ideals are always remembered but pragmatics come and go. My quote is that is the idealist who we remember and not the pragmatist.
PEACE, KUCINICH, and JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ani Yun Wiya]

42. So when was the last time...

The Pentagon had a good idea?

And if no leader ever makes peace the basis of their administration, how do we leave wars behind us?

Is it not the case that Kucinich "can't win", because pro-war people will not vote for him?

America really has an important choice to make next year between two paths.
Peace or war.

DK is the only candidate who is NOT on the war path.
The rest of the field would only somewhat modify the path that * is on.

[Zorra]

35. Gore News Channel, Dec. 7, 2006:

Department of Peace Secretary Russ Feingold announced today that Russia, China, the European Union, and the US have reached agreement on President Dennis Kucinich's proposal to eliminate all nuclear weapons from their arsenals by the year 2008. The three countries unanimously agreed that nuclear disarmament would begin immediately following the agreement. The announcement comes on the one year anniversary of the establishment of the Mid-East Peace Coalition, which has virtually eliminated terrorism worldwide.

"This is a huge step for the future of humankind", said United States Ambassador to the UN Carol Mosely Braun after her meeting with the Palestinian Ambassador at UN Headqurters in New York, "and soon the people of the world will be free from the fear of nuclear war forever."

Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Vladimir Putin both expressed their admiration for President Kucinich's tireless efforts in working toward world peace, and pledged their ongoing cooperation in helping Mr. Kucinich attain his goal of achieving a lasting peace worldwide.

"It is such a relief", said Hu Jintao, "to at last have an American President that does not pursue warlike imperialist policies. The whole world is now ready to give peace a chance."

President Kucinich was unavailable for comment, as he was preparing to sign the Universal Health Care Bill, which narrowly passed in the House on Friday.

House minority leader Tom Delay was also unavailable for comment.

In other news, Mr. Kucinich's nominees to the US Supreme Court were narrowly approved by the House. This will give the Court a 6-3 liberal majority.

[Terwilliger]

36. YEAH!

A good future B-)

[JohnKleeb]

37. to the future

:beer:

[Zorra]

40. Salud!

May we never have to think about:nuke:this again!

[jsw_81]

43. Yeah, I'm sure that'll happen

And by the way, Supreme Court justices are confirmed by the Senate, not the House. But since you support Kucinich I'm really not all that surprised that you fail to understand our political system.

[DemBones DemBones]

46. So your function in life is to throw the turd in the punchbowl?

Or do you have anything nice to say?

[charlie]

47. "But since you support Kucinich"

"I'm really not all that surprised that you fail to understand our political system."

Nice manners. Seems you don't have a clue about what primaries are about.

If an also-ran garners a decent sized bloc of support, the frontrunners will want to think about what it will take to woo his voters. It's a way to register support for issues, not just a candidate, and can affect the party's platform. Backing Kucinich is not a wasted effort, even if it does offend the living daylights out of you.

[Forkboy]

49. gee...you're a warm and fuzzy one aren't ya

:eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Dreamland

If you believe that will happen, keep on with the fantasies.

A Department of Peace is a naive waste of money, but that's why DK won't finish among the top challengers.

[Forkboy]

51. I'm not suprised in the least

that you find it a naive waste of money.

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. I'm not surprised that you support it

Fortunately, this is an academic argument. I'll be in Congress before DK gets voted into the White House.

[Forkboy]

55. "I'll be in Congress "

thanks for that frightening thought.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. You and I agree on that one

I couldn't stand the place.

[GOPBasher]

44. I said "no opinion" because

I haven't heard specifics about it. What exactly would it do? I heard that he wants it to make war "archaic," but how would it accomplish that? If I hear the specifics, I'd be likely to support it.

[Mairead]

52. I think of it as a sort of gigantic 'Harvard Negotiation Project'

Traditional negotiation involves demanding more than you really expect and then fighting for every inch of that even while expecting to eventually give much of it up in concession. The Harvard research (http://www.pon.harvard.edu/research/projects/hnp.php3) is changing that. They've made negotiation a much quicker, less stressful activity that yields more supportable results. It's fairly amazing. A woman I know was asked to mediate resolution of a longstanding social dispute between two bitterly opposed camps. Using the Harvard techniques, she got agreement in a little over an hour, prompting the leader of one of the factions, an older guy, to declare her 'the best negotiator he'd EVER met'. But she's not and never has been a professional negotiator.

Negotiation has been going on since time out of mind. How many people ever imagined it could be done in a fundamentally better way? The two people who started the Harvard project are the only ones I know of, but they were right and the world is being changed because of them.

I see the Peace Department in the same light: a source of funding to research innovative ways of achieving genuine, peaceful agreement on the micro and macro levels; a source of honest-broker mediation teams that can work across all barriers; a source of educational methodologies that can be applied from pre-school on up; and so on.

[MuseRider]

58. Just for you

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_departmentpeace.htm
Let us know what you think.

[KittyWampus]

50. Great Idea-WRONG NAME

First, Department of "Peace" sounds to "hippy"... sorry, I AM an ex-hippy!

Second, George Washington proposed such a Dept. and left money in his will for establishing such.

Third, A Dept. of Foreign Assistance (or whstever its called) would make the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) redundant. We could pull the plug on the NED which currently flys too often under the radar, having not enough Congressional oversight. The NED has done alot of great things but its too open to mischief.

Fourth, such a Dept. wouild be preventative and help mend relations with the rest of the world. We give a pittance in foreign aid right now, compared to other industrialized countries.

[rhite5]

54. Good Idea. Valid Goal. Open the Dialog.

I am in the elderly group, almost 70, and I think a Dept. of Peace is a very good idea.

I think of the proposal as a GOAL to reach for rather than another layer of bloated government. I would not expect it to be created immediately right out of the box. As others have said there is much cleanup work to be done first. Cutting Defense Budget, eliminating Dept. of Homeland Security, progress toward single payer Health Plan, and more, along with dialog about Peace, all need to come first.

In today's climate I agree that proposing the idea does not help Kucinich win the nomination. What it does is plant a seed which will grow and can influence party platforms.

The message is inspiring and gives HOPE. I, like others, have watched the enthusiastic crowd reponse to this message. There is a lot of support for it. I have been surprised.

btw - as mentioned above, it is not just international in scope. Domestic violence, education in non-violent resolution of differences in our schools, etc. are a part of it.

Others have provided the link above in this thread. Read what it is all about.

[hippywife]

60. Anyone who would be against such

an idea can't be thinking. We've never tried anything so bold and daring. Nothing else has worked so far. Not that anyone else has been trying very hard. Now is the moment...this is the time!!

[Selwynn]

61. It would be a better idea if he planned to make Dept. of State =

Dept. of Peace.

Adding a new piece of beuracracy is not as good of an idea as boldly planning to change the way existing beuracracy works. Still I think even talking about a Peace Department is a step in the right direction.