Election Section

Commentary: Opposed to a Department of Peace By Jonathan Wornick

Tuesday July 12, 2005

While some of our better lawmakers are working hard to improve our schools, keep fire stations open, fix our roads, and bring jobs to our beloved city of Berkeley, a chosen few are once again wasting their time, and our dollars, writing resolutions on na tional and international issues. 

In the most recent example, Councilmember Kriss Worthington wrote a resolution supporting a federal Department of Peace. On the surface a Department of Peace sounds like a lovely idea. What the heck, while we’re at it, le t’s call it the Department of Peace, Puppies, and Chocolate—those are good things that we can all get behind, right? 

Before I delve into the flawed logic for a Department of Peace, let’s first examine my reasons for voting against the resolution as a com missioner on Berkeley’s Peace and Justice Commission. The commission reviewed the legislation first in order to save our elected officials from wasting their time and our money. 

Our city government has jurisdiction and power only on a local level. We hav e a responsibility to provide the citizens of Berkeley with good schools, police and fire protection, functioning roads and so on. Nowhere in our job descriptions does it say that the Mayor or the city council is supposed to have a position on issues like Middle East politics, war, free trade, or the United Nations. Regardless of my personal opinions, the fact that Kriss Worthington hates President Bush or the Iraq war or all wars is of little concern to me and even less concern to the rest of the country. Why? He is a local politician with zero federal power. His job is to improve the small town of Berkeley. When our city council wastes its time and our dollars debating and voting on one ineffectual resolution after another just to make themselves feel g ood, I get incensed and so should the rest of Berkeley’s citizens.  

The city’s volunteer Peace and Justice Commission, appointed by the City Council and the School Board, reviewed the Department of Peace legislation and listened to public testimony and d ebate during two consecutive meetings. The resolution was not able to garner enough votes to pass a supporting resolution onto the council. Those in favor needed eight votes. They got six. Three people abstained, and I proudly voted against it. Five membe rs were absent. 

The three commissioners who abstained were not uninformed as Elliot Cohen, a fellow commissioner, erroneously told the City Council. These abstainers were squarely against the legislation but were frightened out of their shoes to publicly vote against something and risk being characterized by the progressives as—hold on to your hats—anti-peace!  

Unhappy with their loss at the commission, Cohen and others went crying to Worthington for relief, sidestepping the process and making the commission system virtually obsolete. Maybe we don’t need a Peace and Justice Commission after all. 

What’s wrong with a Department of Peace? First, I suggest reading what Dennis Kucinich, the author of the legislation, is calling for. I’m fairly certain most of the councilmembers who voted for the resolution didn’t bother to read it. But let’s assume they did. When you see them, thank them for spending your tax dollars to read about issues they have no jurisdiction over.  

The proposed Department of Peace cal ls for the creation of dozens and dozens of largely redundant programs dealing with spousal abuse, gangs, labor laws, drug abuse, ethnic intolerance and on and on – and oh yes, it also calls for the department to stop our government from getting into wars that progressives don’t approve of. The fact that there are federal, state, city, and non governmental organizations already working to solve these problems is lost on them. The fact that we already have a Department of State working for peace all over t he world is lost on them. The fact that we have a delegation to the United Nations, once again, is lost on them. 

Another key principal of Kucinich’s legislation is the establishment of a cabinet level Secretary of Peace. Let’s say the progressives got th eir Department of Peace. How would they feel about Donald Rumsfeld being appointed by the President to run the Department? It could happen. What would they do then, write a new resolution calling for the abolishment of the Department of Peace? 

To date, o nly a few members of the House have signed on as co-sponsors. In fact, the legislation has been languishing in the House for over two years. At Tuesday’s city council meeting, the local backers of this legislation waved around a letter from Sen. Feinstein misrepresenting her position entirely. She does not support this legislation. Her boiler plate response letter only said that she’d “examine” it.  

Councilmembers Worthington, Anderson, Maio, Moore, Spring, and Mayor Bates can feel good that their progre ssive credentials are intact. But let’s be honest. Was one new teacher hired? Will all our fire stations be open twenty-four hours a day this summer? Were any new jobs created? Has the life of one single person in this city been improved? This is their jo b.  

Councilmembers Capitelli, Olds, and Wozniak all abstained from the voting to support the Department of Peace. They need to be thanked and congratulated for doing the right thing.  

My vote against the resolution on the Peace and Justice commission wa s not a vote against peace. It was a message to the City Council: Do your job. We need to remind them of it every day, or they need to be voted out of office. 

 

Jonathan Wornick is a member of the Peace and Justice Commission. 

à