
          The Freeze Down South
          By Roach, MargaretMargaret Roach and Tullos,  AllenAllen Tullos
          Vol. 5, No. 4, 1983, pp. 11-14
          
          In the fall of 1982, the Nuclear Freeze Campaign mobilized the
largest referendum drive in United States history. Over eleven million
Americans voted for the freeze. It won in nine of ten states and in
all but three of thirty-seven local referendums that were held in
towns, cities and counties across the country.
          Even if Southern state and city election laws made it easy to hold
popular initiatives--which they didn't--disarmament organizers would
still have the South's strong pro-military climate to contend
with. Congressional delegations from the South are among the
Pentagon's strongest supporters. Military employees and contractors
abound (see "Shaping the South's Pre-War Economy" in Southern
Changes, August September 1982). Nonetheless, citizens and
church groups in Dixie are fashioning a nuclear disarmament movement
tied to the large stirrings in the rest of the U.S. and in Europe. The
movement here, as elsewhere, continues to grow. Excitement and
expectation mingle with an awareness of the realities of the South's
web of military dependencies.
          Organizers for the Freeze Campaign (only one of several groups
active in the present peace movement) have much to report both inside
and around the South's border during the past several months. In
Miami-Dade County, one place where the resolution did get on the
ballot, voters approved the freeze by a fifty-eight percent margin. In
Atlanta, where a right wing group took legal action to block a Nuclear
Freeze/Jobs With Peace referendum, an exit poll conducted on election
day revealed that sixty-one percent of the voters supported the
freeze. In Austin, Texas, fourteen thousand of seventeen thousand
participants in a "people's election" voted approval. The West
Virginia house and senate have passed the freeze resolution. In North
Carolina, the resolution passed the house but was defeated in the
senate by a tie-breaking vote by Lieutenant Governor Jimmy Green.
          On March 7 and 8, some seven thousand citizens from around the
country (including more than six hundred Southerners) made the trip to
Washington to participate 

in the Citizens' Lobby for a U.S./Soviet
Nuclear Freeze. Among the Dixie delegations were 150 supporters from
Virginia, 120 from Kentucky, a hundred from Georgia, eighty from
Florida, sixty from North Carolina and fifty from Arkansas. These
activists were quite aware of the strong relationship between the
amount of military dollars a Southern state receives and the voting
habits of that state's members of congress.
          On the South's border, in Arkansas and West Virginia, where there
is an insignificant proportion of Pentagon money, congressional
delegations have outshown Deep South states in their votes for the
freeze and against building particular weapons systems.
          "We've been dumped on by the Pentagon. Arkansas is considered to be
expendable," says Bob Bland of Little Rock's SANE chapter, offering as
examples the Titan missile field where an explosion in 1980 killed one
airman and injured twenty-one others and the nerve gas production
facility at Pine Bluff. Neither represents much in terms of
employment. Dividing along party lines, Arkansas' two Democrats have
often voted on the side of nuclear disarmament while the state's two
Republicans have followed the Reagan lead. "We'll remove the
arch-hawks in '84," Bland says.
          Arkansas is the only Southern state whose senators are both
sponsors of the freeze resolution. Both David Pryor and Dale Bumpers
also oppose the MX missile. Pryor is presently waging a war with the
Pentagon as he seeks to prevent $130.6 million in chemical warfare
money from entering his state. "Nerve gas," he argues, "doesn't
kill-soldiers, it kills civilians."
          Like Arkansas, West Virginia receives few military contracting
dollars. There are no major military facilities in the state and only
two thousand Department of Defense employees, three-fourths of whom
are civilian. As in Arkansas, the only thing the Reagan-Weinberger
military build-up means for the people of West Virginia is a loss of
social programs and increased economic pressure for the unemployed
young to "be all you can be" in the armed forces. West Virginia sends
a greater per capita percentage of its young people to the military
than any other state.
          Both houses of the West Virginia legislature endorsed the freeze in
January: the senate by a vote of twenty-eight to five and the house by
voice vote. These victories contributed to other ones. "It was our
organizing around congressional districts and winning the endorsement
of the state legislature that made our influence felt in the
congressional delegation," explains coordinator Susan Walter of
Charleston.
          And felt it was. Only one out of its four representatives voted for
the freeze in 1982. In a skillful statewide campaign to "make peace an
issue in West Virginia's congressional races," West Virginians for a
Bilateral Nuclear Freeze (with chapters in twelve towns) worked hard
to replace their state's pro-military representatives. With three new
congressmen elected in November of 1982, the freeze stance moved to
one hundred percent.
          Certainly the issue of nuclear war was a key in the state's third
congressional district where incumbent Mick Staton said, "I believe
the earth would be destroyed when the good Lord in heaven decides it
should happen." Staton was replaced by freeze supporter Robert
Wise.
          West Virginia is also the home of Senator Jennings Randolph (D)
who, since 1945, has been proposing the establishment of either a
U.S. Department of Peace, or a U.S. Peace Academy to study the causes
of war and teach techniques for resolving conflicts. Although
Randolph's proposal has fifty-three cosponsors, it is currently
bottled up in a senate committee by its chief enemies, Alabama's
Jeremiah Denton (R) and New Hampshire's Gordon J. Humphrey (R). "I
have been gently told," says Randolph, "that even though my reasons
for establishing a peace academy are sincere and well-intended, I am
naive if I believe such an academy will serve as anything but a commie
front."
          As one moves toward the heart of Dixie, congressional supporters
for disarmament grow scarcer. In July of 1982, when the U.S. House of
Representatives considered the freeze and defeated it by a 204 to 202
vote, only twenty-two of 107 congressmen in the eleven states of the
old Confederacy voted in favor. The South remains the bastion for
die-hard militarists. Yet, even here, freeze activists have helped
engineer a few surprises. Consider North Carolina.
          In contrast with Arkansas and West Virginia, North Carolina ranks
fifth in the nation in the size of its military payroll and third in
the number of military personnel within the state. Fort Bragg and Camp
LeJune are two of the largest bases in the U.S. The state also has
Jesse Helms and John East.
          During the past year, several groups formed the North Carolinians
for a U.S./Soviet Nuclear Freeze. They mounted a statewide campaign,
gathering more than forty thousand signatures on the freeze
petition. Seven of the state's cities voted to approve the freeze
proposal. "We started with the cities and moved out to the rural areas
where we found terrific support," says Dale Everts, coordinator of the
campaign. Before losing by a twenty-five to twenty-four vote in the NC
senate, the freeze resolution passed the lower house by a sixty-five
to forty-eight tally in March.
          During the North Carolina house debate, J.P. Huskins, from
Statesville, a conservative on most issues, explained his opposition
to Reagan's military build-up: "It's like those cowboys who try to
outdraw themselves in front of a mirror. Those cowboys out on the
plains can't do 

it and the cowboy in the White House can't do it
either."
          By the time the freeze resolution appeared again in the
U.S. House of Representatives this year, newly elected members as well
as returned incumbents from the mid-term election were aware of the
freeze movement's strength among the American mainstream. Nonetheless,
thanks to the tolerance of proponents and the dogged persistence of
opponents in offering a succession of weakening amendments, nearly
forty-two hours of debate were required before a version of the
resolution passed. A final touch, facilitated by Georgia's Elliott
Levitas (D), made the proposition palatable to all but Reaganites and
irascible hawks.
          Levitas' modifications produced a resolution that requires the
suspension of any freeze agreement which is not followed by mutual
arms reductions within a specified period of time. Despite the
addition of the Levitas'-inspired convoluted language, the principle
of "freeze then reduce" remains intact and in contrast with the Reagan
Administration's attempts to build-up first-strike weapons. The freeze
resolution, however, remains both non-binding and largely
symbolic. The final House vote, taken on May 25, was 278 to 149 in
support of the amended resolution. Still, only forty-six of 116
Southern members of Congress voted favorably.
          The Southern delegation is doing more than opposing non-binding
resolutions; they are at the front of the Reagan-Weinberger
re-armament campaign with its proposed five year expenditure of $1.8
trillion. Certainly there are the old line war hawks--the likes of
Alabama's Edwards and Denton, Mississippi's Stennis, Texas' Tower and
North Carolina's two senators. These men make no apologies for their
militarism.
          Other Southerners, as illustrated by Levitas and by Georgia's
Senator Sam Nunn (D) and Tennessee Representative Albert Gore (D),
have begun to give the appearance of concern for eventual disarmament
while in fact encouraging the pursuit of nuclear weapons
modernization.
          Consider the current proposals of Nunn and Gore. Influential in
recent congressional voting and in the formation of legislative
consensus on military matters, these two men have become sophisticated
in their militarism--or, as folks used to say, wiser in their
wickedness. Nunn and Gore resort to the language of Orwellian newspeak in which lip service supportive of a
longed-for goal (the dismantling of nuclear weaponry) is accompanied
by actions which seek an opposite end (a "superiority" of arms). Under
Nunn's "build-down" proposal (which calls for the dismantling of two
older warheads for each new one produced) or Gore's suggestion (known
as "de-MIRVing") that the U.S. shift from multiple to single warhead
missiles, aging nuclear weapons will be replaced by more modern ones
and numerical reductions in nuclear warheads and missiles will result
in an actual increase in the speed, accuracy and destructive power of
the missiles which are deployed.
          Whether they are promoted as a compromise between the Reagan
Administration's approach to arms control ("Reagan does not like to
spend money on anything that does not explode," notes Arkansas Senator
Dale Bumpers) and a genuine nuclear freeze, or whether they are
promoted as bi-partisan agreements by Presidential panels such as the
Scroweroft Commission, the build-down and kindred schemes are
frauds. With a simple phrase, suggestive of disarmament, build-down
proponents seek to siphon off the broad and growing support that
exists for a serious movement to abolish nuclear weapons. "As in the
case with the nuclear freeze proposal," build-down co-sponsor Charles
Percy (R-IL) has admitted, "it benefits from an underlying concept
that can be readily grasped and embraced by the general public."
Unlike the freeze, which stops the arms race in its tracks, the
build-down offers an escalation in the production of weapons with
ever-greater first-strike potential. Ground, air and sea-launched
cruise missiles would be deployed. Trident II submarine-launched
missiles could replace Poseidon and Trident I missiles. New MX
missiles and the mobile Midgetman (favored by Gore) would replace
Minuteman. Comparable systems could be developed by the Soviets. There
would be fewer missiles, but these would be more dangerous--and move
us closer to a hair-trigger response during a national crisis or to
the contemplation of first strike: "Use them or lose them."
          "Remember that all political life is compromise," suggested Leslie
Dunbar of the Fund for Peace during a May gathering in Atlanta of
Southern disarmament activists. "But be clear what compromise is. When
Senator Nunn proposes a 'build-down' and Mr. Reagan shows an interest
in it, that's not our compromise. That's a
compromise between them and them. When men we have relied on in the past, like
Albert Gore, Jr., begin to allow how they'll support a few MXs in
order to get Midgetmen, don't even act interested. That's not a
compromise between them and us. The woods will be full in the next
months with so-called compromises like these."
          Thanks in large part to the compromises of Nunn and Gore, the
U.S. Senate and House, within a month of the successful freeze vote in
the House, approved $625 million in start-up costs for flight testing
and for development of basing plans for the MX missile. On the horizon
lay the shape of tens of billions to come. Ninety-eight of 116
Southern representatives gave their approval as did all but three
Southern senators (Bumpers and Pryor from 

Arkansas and Sasser of
Tennessee were the exceptions). "No strategic weapons system that has
ever passed this stage of funding."-warned Representative Les
AuCoin(DOR), "has been permanently canceled."
          In July both Nunn and Gore were still promising "to hold Reagan's
feet to the fire" and insist that he show some flexibility in his arms
control positions in exchange for their willingness to support the MX
as a bargaining chip with the Russians. "Those of us from the
prairies," counters Representative Byron Dorgan (D-ND), "know the
difference between a bargaining chip and a cow chip. Those who spend
twenty billion dollars for this kind of chip ought not to be trusted
with the taxpayer's money."
          As the $200 billion military authorization bill for 1984 steamed
its way through this summer's Congress, freeze activists pondered the
prospects and tactics for the coming months. The national Freeze
Campaign deems organizing in the South so important that it has
designated its field organizing project for this region. Training
workshops have already been held in Fort Worth and Atlanta. The
American Friends Service Committee's regional disarmament project is
looking at Southern congressional districts to determine where
pro-military representatives may be vulnerable for challenge by
pro-freeze candidates.
          At the June strategy session in Fort Worth, organizers debated the
question of whether to shift the focus from the freeze to specific
nuclear weapons systems. The Campaign re-affirmed its position that no
additional nuclear weapons "can be justified on grounds of morality,
economics or national security." The decision to oppose specific
weapons has been left up to local activists with the offer of national
assistance. The National Campaign has issued a call to participate in
local demonstrations on October 21-24 to oppose the deployment of
Pershing and Cruise missiles in Europe in December.
          The Freeze Campaign is also setting up a national political action
committee for the 1984 elections. The Campaign will target a
half-dozen senatorial races, fifty to seventy-five congressional races
as well as presidential candidate selection. With its seven primaries
and caucuses during one week in March, the South is considered a key
area.
          Some activists feel that the freeze strategy doesn't go far enough
and are calling for a "no freeze, no funds') approach: the targeting
of every new nuclear weapons system for opposition until a freeze is
achieved. In considering this position, Randy Kehler of the National
Freeze Campaign cautions, "even if we approach specific weapons
systems in a bilateral way--and we have formulated some proposals for
doing that--we will begin to lose the focus on the comprehensive
freeze on all weapons systems in a way that will lose us the popular
appeal the freeze has had." Kehler notes that efforts to combat
specific weapons systems have existed in the U.S. for years: "Even
when they are temporarily successful, as with the B-1 bomber, the
weapon comes back at us or it is replaced by another more dangerous
one. The proponents of these weapons systems know that even if we win
one battle, eventually they can tire us out on the weapon-by-weapon
approach."
          William Reynolds, southeastern representative at the Fort Worth
session, suggested that in the South, with organizers facing
congressional delegations who are still overwhelmingly in the
Pentagon's camp, "we still need to establish the freeze position with
its clear bilateral language. Southern senators and representatives
have spent decades working to bring military money into the
South. It's going to take a lot of work and time to reverse that."
          
            Margaret Roach is on the staff of the Atlanta Nuclear
Freeze/Jobs With Peace Campaign. Allen Tullos is the editor of
Southern Changes.
          
        