Column: The Contingency Plan

The latest demonstration by the University of Cincinnati College Democrats was tasteful, elegant and well-intentioned.

Too bad it was a waste of time.

The laying of flags, one for each American soldier that has lost his or her life (the countless innocent Iraqis went unmentioned, of course), is sweet, but it's politically bankrupt.

Now before you lose faith in The Contingency Plan and claim I don't care about our troops, think again. The soldiers that are fighting, and especially those who have lost their lives, deserve to be honored, remembered and revered. If you find someone who feels differently, give me a call - it'd make a great story.

The problem I have is not with the message. It's a fine message. It's just not the message we need from Democrats (who are sometimes against the war - when it's politically convenient at least) right now.

In fact, it's the same message I got when I talked with Erin Shearer, chairwoman of the UC College Republicans.

"It's an excellent example of 'freedom of speech,'" Shearer said of the ceremony. "[It] is a tasteful representation of the many lives lost in the war on terror."

During the actual laying of the flags, the Democrats were up in arms and full of fire while forwarding their controversial and pointed message of "supporting the troops."

"We wanted to do something to show we support the troops, not necessarily the war," Marie Blessinger, a fourth-year political science student told The News Record.

You can tell these Democrats put some time in on the John Kerry campaign in 2004 because they've learned the political art of moving their lips while not actually saying anything.

"If they can serve us by going to Iraq, we can survive a couple hours in the cold," Blessinger said. "It's the least that we can do."

Blessinger's right on that one. It is the very least the College Democrats can do. As Democrats have historically drifted toward the center of the political spectrum, they have learned to let the so-called "fringe groups" do all of the heavy lifting for them.

That attitude has rubbed off on our own university's Democrats. So while Democrats shoulder the heavy burden of "supporting our troops," other students have marched in Washington, shown anti-war movies and made real statements about the war.

Kerry and Al Gore had Ralph Nader to say what needed to be said, the college Democrats have the International Socialist Organization (and other similar groups) to do the politicking that they can't, or aren't willing, to do themselves.

Shane Johnson, member of the ISO and Socialist Worker Coordinator, said the ISO has often reached out to the College Democrats in an attempt to involve them in independent anti-war activities (Renee Kemper, president of the College Democrats, was unavailable for comment on the issue). But he said he feels the UC branch of the Democratic Party is lagging behind even their national counterparts.

"The term 'support the troops' is too vague," Johnson said. "It doesn't mean anything. They need to define what support is."

Johnson said, and I agree, the Democrats' efforts are misplaced. There's a better use for student body money (our Undergraduate Funding Board gave $715.48 for the event) and political energy.

"We don't have to spend money on American flags," Johnson said. "We spend money on mobilizing people to events and actually involving ourselves in the dialogue. We're actually involved in movement building, something they're not a part of."

True that.

E-mail Andrew Warner at andrewwarner2@gmail.com