Ten points for progress in the antiwar movement
The American Union has a new opportunity
America has a streak going—we’re on our second consecutive President without starting a new war. There’s no complacency in the peace movement, though. Between the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, antiwar activists are revitalized, opposing escalation and calling for negotiation. (However, the civil war in Sudan, with 8.6 million displaced and double that facing acute hunger, has failed to get the same attention.)
Martin Luther King Jr. identified militarism as one of America’s interconnected evils. In his lifetime, the war machine was concentrated in Vietnam. As a Nobel Peace Prize winner, he spoke vehemently against the conflict and humanized the Vietnamese people. “We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.”
Dr. King was best known for his role in the civil rights movement, and was criticized for linking it with the antiwar movement by those who didn’t see the connection. His own studies of Gandhi and principled nonviolence revealed their relationship, the “othering” which was a driver of both racism and militarism. Looking deeper, he found economic exploitation as a common root, which became poverty and the first of his triple evils:
Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit, and go out into a sometimes hostile world, declaring eternal opposition to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment, we shall boldly challenge the status quo…
These fraternal wrongs still plague us, and a new opportunity for progress exists this election year. The American Union of swing voters seeks to “recapture the revolutionary spirit” by reminding Americans of our constitutional duties to each other. With this shared goal, a 3.5% bloc of swing voters can control the outcome of the 2024 election, and use that leverage to bring the warring political parties to the negotiating table. The demands of the American Union take the form of a crowdsourced legislation package, named for the candidates who are simultaneously essential to deescalating the November election and extremely vulnerable to a small national bloc of swing votes.
As regular readers know, the Trump–Biden Peace Plan has three primary planks:
End poverty with unconditional basic income, paid family leave, and healthcare reform;
End mass incarceration with police, prison, and prosecutorial reforms; and
End the endless wars with military downsizing and improving our moral standing on the world stage.
(Read more: Vote with radical love in 2024)
Ending the endless wars
The peace vote has often been decisive in elections; I first won my seat in the state legislature in 2006, riding the wave of independents frustrated by the war in Iraq. Peace is popular: incumbent presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt both campaigned on having kept us out of the World Wars (although they reneged after winning reelection). Both Richard Nixon and Donald Trump won narrow victories in part due to their opposition to the ongoing wars.
Still, while specific conflicts may temporarily concentrate the antiwar question, there are systemic problems which need to be addressed. The American Union offers a way to push back against the growth of the military-industrial complex and modify some of our foreign policies that harm so many innocent civilians. This post details ten “end the endless wars” policies included in the Trump–Biden Peace Plan for 2024.
Reevaluating America’s global military footprint:
The United States has around 750 foreign military bases, more than ten times as many as the rest of the world combined. Rather than prescribe a list of bases to close or keep open, the Trump–Biden Peace Plan establishes a principle: the US should only maintain bases where our military presence is welcome. The Secretary of Defense would be directed to hold referenda around all foreign (not domestic) military bases, asking the local population if they want the US military to remain. If we are not welcome there, the base would be closed in 2026.
The military budget has been growing for many years, with Biden requesting $949 billion in 2024 (up 56% from Obama’s $608 billion request in 2016.) Most of this money goes to defense contractors, creating a financial incentive for them to fund hawkish think tanks to lobby Congress for more military interventions. The Trump–Biden Peace Plan would require a 10% budget cut in fiscal years 2026-2029, reducing spending by 1/3rd and about $1 trillion less than projections. Congress would need a 2/3rds super-majority to override this provision.
Reevaluating America’s global conflicts:
Military operations in the Middle East are generally justified by Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress passed decades ago. Three of these would be repealed by the Trump–Biden Peace plan. The 1991 and 2002 AUMFs, authorizing the Iraq war, would be repealed immediately, while the 2001 AUMF (passed after 9/11), would sunset in 240 days. This would give Congress time to pass another one if there is still a compelling need.
Another long-time conflict is the Korean War, which has functioned under an armistice for more than 70 years. The Trump–Biden Peace Plan would build on the work done by Donald Trump in 2018 (that Joe Biden could continue) and direct the Secretary of State to present Congress with a plan to formally end the Korean War. In addition, they would review the current restrictions on travel to North Korea.
Reevaluating America’s nuclear weapons:
The Doomsday Clock is set at 90 seconds to midnight, and the United States and Russia hold “90% of the world’s arsenal” of nuclear weapons (which are illegal under international law). The Trump–Biden Peace Plan would steer the global conversation toward deescalation. The US would follow China’s lead in adopting an unconditional “no first-use” policy for nuclear weapons—never as a preemptive attack or first strike, or in response to non-nuclear attack of any kind.
On January 3, 2022, the White House released a joint statement with other world leaders, seeking to “prevent an arms race” and make “progress on disarmament.” The Trump–Biden Peace Plan would accept that challenge. A planned $100 billion upgrade to old ICBMs would be scaled back and a 50% reduction in our nuclear stockpile by 2029 would also be required. This would leave the US in possession of more destructive force than any reasonable person should ever want to use.
Reevaluating the weapons of war:
The international Mine Ban Treaty prohibiting landmines went into effect more than a quarter century ago, but the United States has not ratified it. Presidents have varied policy over the years; the Trump–Biden Peace Plan would codify a prohibition of the development, production, or acquisition of landmines. Current policy allows an exception for use on the Korean peninsula; this would be eliminated after five years, so that we would be in compliance with the treaty.
There are no global treaties governing the development of lethal autonomous weapons, “killer robots” capable of engaging targets without human intervention. As AI becomes more prevalent, the risks of autonomous weapons are becoming more concerning, including the possibility of a new arms race. The Trump–Biden Peace Plan would prohibit the US from developing, producing, or acquiring lethal autonomous weapons.
Reevaluating our moral standing on the world stage:
Two decades of indefinitely detaining men in Guantanamo Bay Military Prison—some of whom were tortured—stands in stark violation to our goals of establishing justice. Many authoritarian countries have called out the United States for our hypocrisy; the Trump–Biden Peace Plan would close Gitmo in 2025. (The prison costs more than a half-billion dollars a year to operate.) Detainees who have been convicted or with pending charges would be transferred to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
Similarly, the United States’ use of economic sanctions has drawn international condemnation, including 31 years of votes by the United Nations calling for the US to end the embargo on Cuba. (The most recent vote had 187 nations in agreement, with only the US and Israel opposed.) The Trump–Biden Peace Plan would restrict the use of unilateral economic sanctions as coercive measures against civilian populations. (There are exceptions during military hostilities or as part of a broader coalition.) The US currently imposes sanctions on more than 30 countries.
A union can upgrade our social contract
These ten points are just a sliver of the Trump–Biden Peace Plan. Passionate peaceniks may read them and think they don’t go far enough; criminal justice reformers might feel the same way about the policies under ending mass incarceration. Similarly, other reformers might see these policies as going too far. But by uniting, everyone comes out ahead—all while deescalating the 2024 election.
Ending poverty with UBI is also an essential part of an antiwar program, because the military-industrial complex pushes money out into every Congressional district. Many rural areas depend on that economic stimulus, so UBI can replace it, freeing people up for work that better benefits society. (Read more: Everyone gets an American Union Job)
As many presidential candidates have learned, peace is popular in an election. The American Union offers a better way to channel that popularity into actual policy. End poverty, end mass incarceration, and end the endless wars—the three planks of the Trump–Biden Peace Plan can upgrade our social contract.
When the polls show 3.5% support for the American Union endorsements (which won’t be made in the 470 Federal races until the end of October), we’ll have the political leverage to demand action before the election, before we cast our votes. (Read more: Three ways to help win) If you’re willing to collectively bargain for these goals in November, membership in the American Union is only 25¢ a day.
Ready to “declare eternal opposition to poverty, racism, and militarism”? Together, we and our allies shall boldly challenge the status quo.