I Have A Dream [UPDATED]

Thanks to C-SPAN, I watched at least some of this weekend’s anti-war demonstrations with a great measure of ambivalence and even wonderment. To be honest, I watched for about 20 minutes until I began to overdose on the shrill rhetoric from a bunch of shouting nobodies on the rostrum. Like it or not, they were the voice given to the sea of people who actually turned out.

Perhaps as many as 200,000 people or more participated in rallies from coast-to-coast with the largest gathering taking place in Washington.

No question that there is a growing frustration and even dread about where the war in Iraq is leading – if anywhere. Or if it has been worth the bloodshed until now. And the demonstrations were a good opportunity to manifest that mounting discomfort.

That said, there are only two ways the anti-war movement can achieve its goals. Either through what the Europeans calls “extra-parliamentary” methods i.e. the disruption of business-as-usual and rendering the country ungovernable. Or through a political strategy by which there is a strategic shift in The Establishment.

Yes, yes, I’ve heard all the facile rhetoric many times before about an “inside/outside” – "suites and the streets” strategy that would combine both approaches. But in the end, it’s really one or the other. Either you overthrow the government, or you force it to change its policies.

Going way out on a limb, I would say the former option– the collapse of the American government via street demonstrations—is rather a long-shot. Which means that the peace movement will achieve its goals primarily and only by building a political coalition broad enough and forceful enough and credible enough to provoke a sea-change in policy.

That, in turn, means that at least a significant, if not a majority, slice of the Democratic Party has to be on board. Unfortunate, but true. That means including not only those who sign on to the 'Out Now' mantra of the current movement, but also those who have a less drastic view -- but still oppose the current course. The war issue could be “nationalized” in next November’s congressional election if that movement were broadened sufficiently. A Democratic upset in the mid-terms could force the Bush administration to change course and/or could lead to a Democratic victory and a change in war policy in ’08.

Yet, not a single top Democratic official publicly associated him or herself with Saturday’s street protests (sorry, Reps. Conyers and McKinney don't qualify as "top" officials). Not just Mister Kerry and Madame Clinton were missing. But equally AWOL were outspoken critics of the war like Howard Dean and Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy – just to mention the better-known.

This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation, but only a bit. Much can be said about the timidity of the Democrats when it comes to staking out a position – any position—on the war. And I have not flinched from saying so, rather repeatedly.

Indeed, one of the reasons that the peace movement’s organizational logistics remain in the hands of fringe groups like ANSWER, is because they eagerly fill a gaping void left by more moderate forces. Democrats and liberals have not stepped forward – so they get trampled by the few dozen fervent comrades from the glorious Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Fundamentalist-Leninist grouplet that runs ANSWER.

There is another coalition that helps organize the peace rallies – United For Peace and Justice. Somewhat more moderate than ANSWER, UFPJ nevertheless has few and only tenuous links with mainstream political forces. At various times over the last few years UFPJ has threatened to resist getting bullied by the cultish members of ANSWER, but in the end it always capitulates in the name of “unity.” Such was the case with this past weekend activities in which ANSWER once again set the themes and the tone of the protests.

There's an odd and defeating dynamic that pervades these activist groups -- a dynamic that often leads young critical thinkers to abandon them after a short infatuation. The inner circle, the feverish full-timer activists are often members of tiny, Marxist groups, "vanguard parties" or their "mass organizations." These devoted militants dedicate all of their time, all of their energy and all of their lives to "building" these miniscule sects. Some of the more entrepreneurial among them even figure out a way to make a living out of their politics.

Their relentless, round-the-clock energy allows them to easily dominate the tedious, mind-numbing meetings and planning sessions that go into organizing large-scale protests. Who else but a humourless party-builder could survive those marathon "consensus" sessions. But God Forbid anyone should actually criticize any of them or the 'line' they impose on the demos. Anyone who dares to challenge them is immediately called out as a McCarthyite -- as if joining one of these sects offers some implied warranty of immunity from criticism. When confronted with this cheap blackmail of being branded as "red-baiters," the more reasonable liberals and "progressives" almost inevitably fold  and the cycle repeats itself. And then people actually wonder why the peace movement can't attract more mainstream political support?

Who could imagine a nationally-known Democrat pol showing up to one of Saturday's rallies unless motivated by some sort of electoral death-wish?  Show up to be joined on the stage by George Galloway wearing a Palestinian kefiyah? Or by the kefiyah-draped leaders of ANSWER shouting out how they stand for the Cuban Revolution? Indeed, the kefiyah was the de rigueur accessory worn by countless speakers – speakers from little-known and tiny solidarity groups loudly condemning U.S. policy not only in Iraq and Cuba, but also in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Haiti etc. etc. And a plethora of speakers condemning Israel (without finding a way to equaly condemn the suicide-bombers).

I’m not even going to deal with the justice or legitimacy of each of the above causes. But you don’t need as much as an abacus to figure out that with each of the above-named planks you shrink, not widen the anti-war platform.  There ought to be one single issue that admits someone to this movement: you simply oppose Bush policy in Iraq. Period.

Instead, the organizers of the protests imposed a political litmus test that narrows down possible supporters to the smallest, rather than the largest, common denominator. Given that its leadership comes from the political margin, the peace movement needs to be built from the sidelines inward, not the reverse. This works wonderfully for the marginal. Their political isolation only reconfirms their self-righteous purity. Hell, if a Democrat actually showed up on the dais, the organizers would no doubt claim they were being "co-opted." But it sucks for everyone else.

I have no idea if under different circumstances, with a different crew onstage, a few Senators might have been lured into the mix. I do know that the current configuration makes that impossible-- for now and for the immediate, crucial future.

This is a failure not only of the Democrats themselves, but also of the clearer-thinking folks inside the peace movement who ought to know better. I have said it before, so why not again? These more moderate voices need to resist the political blackmail of true-believers of the ANSWER variety and simply push them out of the leadership of the movement. At least they must if they want that movement to be something beyond an impotent theater of self-expression.

I can anticipate some of the reaction to this notion. “Oh, Marc,” I will be told, “Who cares what the idiots on the stage said? You don’t really think that the scores of thousands who came to Washington actually listened to the speeches from the stage, do you?"

My answer: Of course not. There aren’t five hundred people in America, let alone a hundred thousand, who could sit or stand through more than five minutes of that drivel.

But wouldn’t it be nice if there were antiwar speakers on that platform – just two or three instead of 45 or 50—whose words could inspire not only the protestors, but also move other millions into some deeper sort of reflection and action?

Wasn’t that the case in the great 1963 civil rights march on Washington? Have you ever in your life met a single person stupid enough to say that the only important thing that day 42 years ago was merely showing up in D.C. because it really didn’t matter what Martin Luther King actually said? That no one was really listening?

Why do we accept such a miserably lower standard for the anti-war movement?

A related post By Nathan Newman here.

Update: Steve Gilliard has a wonderful post on why A.N.S.W.E.R. is not the answer. He says, among other things:

"I watched an hour or so of the rally and I wanted to smash my screen.

Why can't they have adults who can speak in words, not slogans.

Here's a hint, Palestine is really unpopular in the US, even among liberals. You do not gain support for the Palestinians by having some campus clown talk about the injustices of the Palestinian people. You know, why not have a real Palestinian from Palestine who doesn't speak in slogans. You know, but a human face on it. And leave the support of terrorists like FARC at home, after all, you can't call Israelis terrorists when you're praising drug dealing terrorists."

"...Let's face facts. ANSWER are parasites who use our good intentions to push their agenda. So instead of rejoycing about the massive turnout, a hint that Bush's war is extremely unpopular, we're debating the speaker list and their abuse of their audience.

The reason ANSWER does this shit is because no one stands up to them...People can pretend that the CSPAN coverage didn't matter, but it did. It mattered to millions of liberals who saw that circus and said they would pass on the next protest. It mattered to people who financially support such protests. It mattered to polticians and their staffs. It matters. How you conduct yourself matters and what you represent matters..."

Gilliard also publishes the list of speakers from the protest podium. I reprint it without comment. None is necessary:

* Jessica Lange, actor
* George Galloway, British Member of Parliament
    * Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general
    * Cindy Sheehan*
    * Dolores Huerta, Co-Founder, United Farm Workers of America
    * Malik Rahim, New Orleans community activist who survived Hurricane Katrina
    * Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
    * Ralph Nader
    * Mahdi Bray, Exec. Dir., Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
    * Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, attorney/co-founder, Partnership for Civil Justice, National Lawyers Guild
    * Elias Rashmawi, National Council of Arab Americans
    * Brian Becker, National Coordinator, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
    * Lynne Stewart, human rights attorney
    * Rev. Al Sharpton*
    * Anita Dennis, mother of Iraq War veteran / resister
    * Clayola Brown, President of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, Vice President of UNITE HERE*
    * Ben Dupuy, Former Ambassador At Large for the government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide
    * Jos Williams, President, President of the Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO
    * Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg
    * Christine Araquel, Alliance for a Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines
    * Andy Thayer, Equality Campaign
    * Curtis Muhammed, Community Labor Union of New Orleans
    * Margaret Prescod, Global Women's Strike
    * Hadi Jawad, founder of Crawford Peace House
    * Chris Silvera, Teamsters Black Caucus
    * Musa Al-Hindi, Al-Awda National
    * Michel Shehadeh, L.A-8 defendant, a Palestinian activist framed COINTELPRO-style
    * Nancy Wolforth, Executive Vice President, AFL-CIO
    * Manuel Santos, Socialist Front of Puerto Rico
    * Brenda Stokely, Million Worker March, New York City Labor Against the War
    * Peta Lindsay, Youth and Student A.N.S.W.E.R. Student, Howard University student
    * Mounzer Sleiman, National Council of Arab Americans
    * Macrina Cardenas, Mexicanos Sin Fronteras
    * Jeanette Caceres, Spoken word artist from New York University
    * Gloria La Riva, National Committee to Free the Five
    * Riya Ortiz, Network in Solidarity with the People of the Philippines, Campaign for Justice Not War
    * Larry Holmes, Troops Out Now Coalition
    * Chuck Kaufman, Nicaragua Network
    * Women's Anti-Imperialist League
    * Representative of Bayan USA
    * Eugene Puryear, Youth and Student A.N.S.W.E.R. Student, Howard University student" link

 

Comments

[steve]

I'd be the first to admit the speakers were not much to write home about. It's remarkable Jessica Lange can't memorise her speech, she's an actress after all. But Marc seems bent on a black-white view again, I mean there was not eve *1* person on the platform who spoke eloquently? I find it doubtful that Jesse Jackson was not his usually eloquent self. I'd guess there were others, I only listened to Lange. Cindy Sheehan seemed to do a good job with the crowd from what I heard though.
The one comment I hear on the LBO list is that the people who showed up were a very diverse crowd. So something is going right in terms of the development of an antiwar movement in that regard.
I suspect as US deaths go over 2,000 in about a month to two months, the numbers opposed to the wasteful and deadly war will only grow [yes, yes, i know, that means I can't wait for those deaths to come, ok, that's a fair reading of what i've said in that sentence]. That fact alone, more than having the right slogans is what will push a Ted Kennedy to break down and walk at an antiwar rally.
Howard Dean will never join, he has no solution to the war aside from more troops, which few in America support.

[Marc Cooper]

Thanks steve for unwiitngly helping to make and re-inforce nearly all of my points! Did I pay you to do this, or was it an involuntary impulse on ur part? Is a bill coming in the mail? Or is this part of your ongoing political work on behalf of the American Working Class?

I particularly like ur gibberish about the diversity of the crowd. Well, shiver me' timbers! Im sure the warmakers tremble to read that proper racial quotas were achieved on the ellipse!! How strategic! LOL! This is the little, teeny world the activist left lives in!

You, of course, didnt really hear any good speakers but you know anyway there simply must have been some great ones. Certainly, Jesse Jackson -- who was last seen pleading for Teri Schiavo's life. Talk about a spent, uninspiring political force! That's Our Rev!

And yes, indeed, let us wish for mounting American troop deaths. That will certainly get Mr. Kennedy to join up!
Any day now. Let's hope they increase with sufficent exponential acceleration so their lives are not lost in vain. And let us correct Ms. Sheehan's chant of "Not one More!" of today. Cindy, steve recommends you alter that to "Just a Few Thousand More Dead for Good Old Senator Ted!"

It must be wonderful to live in such a manichean world in which all of ur advsersaries are so damn evil and so powerful that you completely surrender any and all practical agency. How delightful to have no greater responsibilities other than to denounce and hope for the worst.

[richard lo cicero]

I too found my boredom threashold (or was that pain?) exceeded in less than twenty minutes when I tuned into CSPAN to see the great event. But I never held much hope for it anyway. As someone who attended the Student Mobilization marches in DC when HALF A MILLION showed up on the Mall I can't remember a single speech from the podium or even who spoke that day. The memorable words came from a young former Naval Person who asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who wanted to ask the last man to die for a mistake. Nice speech, wonder what happened to that guy? Nixon was getting the message anyway as he was withdrawing troops as fast as he could and would announce a "peace with Honor" was at hand in time for the 1972 Elections. Throw in a trip to China and an end to the Draft - well he listened when it came to his own fortunes.

Problem is of course the damn fool in the White House is termed out and he confuses stubborness with steadfastness. And his coreligionists in the GOP seem paralyzed over what to do. Sen. Lugar is no Bill Fulbright. No, I suspect that Iraq will be a national issue next year as the costs begin to sink in. As Katrina and Rita break the bank. Cindy Sheehan did her job at Camp Casey - the DC event was irrelevant.

The anti-war movement has one and only one place to go and that is to the polls in Nov 2006, And that means the Democrats, imperfect as a vehicle. Let Mr Kerry and Ms Clinton "nuance" to their heart's content. If one or both houses go "Blue" that will be the signal.

[Lefty Grizzell]

What would Marc Cooper's slogan for a commie-free antiwar movement be? "Bring them home after the insurgency has been defeated!", or "Stop the war in Iraq but not until a democratic regime has been consolidated!"? In Dante's Inferno, the moderates and the angels who didn't take takes sides in Satan's assault against God ran around in circles in front of hell being stung by bees. That's where Cooper belongs.

[seb]

You're either with us or against us, eh Grizzel?

I think, unless I'm misunderstanding Mr. Cooper's post, that what he wants is a policy that has a realistic chance of achieving its goal, which unless I'm misunderstanding that too, is a withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq.

He also, based on my memory of the writings on this site, can imagine scenarios that are actually worse than the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq and would like to avoid those if possible. I could be wrong.

[steve]

"I particularly like ur gibberish about the diversity of the crowd. Well, shiver me' timbers! Im sure the warmakers tremble to read that proper racial quotas were achieved on the ellipse!! How strategic! LOL! This is the little, teeny world the activist left lives in!"

Rubbish, the 'gibberish' you refer to was from people whose blogs you have great respect for. You shouldn't talk about people like Max Sawicky the way you do in this comments board.
Proper racial quotas had nothing to do with what made people like Max and others on the LBO list remark about the diversity of the crowd [diversity is not a word that the PC crowd monopolizes btw, Horowitz and you are wrong to read that word with such trepdiation]. And a Max Sawicky lives in a teeny little activist world? I doubt it.

"You, of course, didnt really hear any good speakers but you know anyway there simply must have been some great ones. "

Nope, I'd just guess that consistent with past ones, there were some awful ones, probably even a lot of awful ones, and a few inspirational and eloquent ones. I think that is better than your view that there were 0 speakers who were eloquent or intelligent.

"It must be wonderful to live in such a manichean world in which all of ur advsersaries are so damn evil and so powerful that you completely surrender any and all practical agency."

Not at all, you're the one who believes with one hundred percent deterministic certainty that if the US left now Iraqis would have no ability to prevent foreign jihadists from taking over their country--especially if the US paid war reparations for the damage they've caused through unnecessary and illegal war.

[Steve]

BTW Marc, aren't you contradicting yourself, attacking me for noting the diversity, but praising Josh Laguerre to no end, the same person who endlessly and [as anyone who watches C-span films of the demos against war or the Cindy vigils recently knows] baselessly attacks the demos for only or largely attracting freaks, the 'same ol' crowds, etc. Interesting, so your response to Laguerre is 'who cares who shows up at the protests, middle America or working class or hippies--who cares who America sees at these protests!".

Also, of course, the point about diversity is important because it reflects the growing numbers opposed to the war so much that they'll come out for the first time ever to an antiwar protest--and that's not something that Bush can be pleased about and it's something that a Ted Kennedy will sit up and notice and will push him to maybe break down and give a speech next time. If Jessica Lange or Jesse can give speeches, I suspect Ted woulda been allowed on that platform btw, your ANSWER conspiracy theory notwithstanding.

BTW, check out my recent column in Monthly Review's webzine, ya can attack me for being pro-CCP and praising the Party Leadership.

[Jim Russell]

If you generally favor a continued presence of US forces in Iraq in order to support Iraq's struggle away from dictatorship and toward a gov't by the people, then you had to be encouraged by Cspan's coverage of this anti-war movement and hope those who organized it do not read, and certainly not take, Marc's advice.

I could hardly believe the looong list of the politically disenfranchised, anti-America, anti-Israel, anti-democracy, anti-this, anti-that, angry young and old speakers acting as if they were having difficulty getting through puberty(or got through it with permanent scars) that were allowed to put a distinctly radical out-out-of-the-mainstream face on the anti-war movement.

Jesse Jackson and Ramsey Clark were the only two who spoke as if they had a lick of sense, but were clearly out-numbered by the revolutionaries. You could just picture many of these mad-with-anger speakers just a firing-cap away from blowing something up.

Long live the control by these organizers of their anti-democracy.... or was that supposed to have been 'war' movement

[resistor]

Marc Cooper and David Corn have been attacking the anti-war movement for some time, but have they done anything about it? Have they tried to set up an alternative? Of course not. that's not their intention - besides it'd involve a lot work than tapping away at a keyboard.

So what does Marc Cooper do for the cause?

Scroll down to see how he refuses to withdraw allegations against George Galloway even when they are proven to be false. There are more than a few names for people who do that sort of thing.

I think the anti-war movement can do without Mr Cooper's advice - however well (actually ill) intended.

[steve]

"If you generally favor a continued presence of US forces in Iraq in order to support Iraq's struggle away from dictatorship and toward a gov't by the people, then you had to be encouraged by Cspan's coverage of this anti-war movement and hope those who organized it do not read, and certainly not take, Marc's advice."

Most people get their impression of the march, if they are spending time following it at all aside from accidentally catching a soundbite, from CNN or the national news stations. It'll be ok Jim, that the speakers didn't have the correct Trotskyist-Zionist speech will not have as great an impact on the antiwar sentiment in the country as you suspect.
Sheehan did a fine job in her speech also *and* that was the one that received most of CNN etc's coverage.

"Long live the control by these organizers of their anti-democracy.... or was that supposed to have been 'war' movement"

Largest antiwar protest since the official invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 with lots of newcomers. Ya can poopoo it, but don't worry the pols in DC know there is an antiwar mov't now and it ain't going away. that does matter.

[richard lo cicero]

Interesting to see all the lefties who still think a demo will have any effect on this administration rather than the hard work of building an electoral coalition that will sweep these incompetents out of office. Look, the speeches were awful but the crowds were far more "mainstream" than the ones we remember from the 60's. The WaPo actually had a fairly supportive piece on page one.

Marc has his usual bee in bonnet about ANSWER but he isn't alone in questioning the thrust of the rally. Steve Gilliard writes on his NEWSBLOG that the force of all those peoples in the mall was vitiated by so many speeches on so many topics. Or, what the hell does Mumia or Palestinian rights have to do with getting out of Iraq? Here's a simple message that would resonate: Get the troops out of Iraq and into New Orleans! Why throw good money after bad? And poll after poll shows majorities favoring paying for Gulf reconstruction by ending our little Arabian Nights Fantasy. Its clear, its simple, it connects. Gilliard notes that United for Peace and Justice actually holds the permits so it could tell ANSWER where to get off.

By the way the speech you didn't hear but should have was printed in yesterday's INFORMED COMMENT by Prof. Juan Cole. He gives a compelling reason for getting US troops out now. I guess he has given up on his plan so widely discussed here and elsewhere. He obviously came to the conclusion that so many of us have reached. With a murderously incompetent regime running things any rational plan is doomed and our options become worse and worse. I think that is correct and in the absense of contrary evidence that will be the basis of anything I can say on this mess.

[steve]

"Look, the speeches were awful but the crowds were far more "mainstream" than the ones we remember from the 60's."

Actually, myths about the antiwar rallies in the 60's aside, the biggest rallies were attended by largely middle class americans who wanted an end to the US policy of aggression in Vietnam. Also, of course, a lot of veterans were involved in the protests and quite visible. But, that having been said, yes, this time around they're even more 'mainstream' given the even more ludicrous reasons given for the official invasion and the current US occupation. Of course the almost 2,000 US deaths has a lot to do with it too, unfortunately the far greater number of Iraqi deaths and injuries is still not really a topic that generates much debate in the US antiwar movement.

[steve]

An interesting response to Nathan Newman from Doug Henwood on his LBO list:

"Networking, man. Isn't it important for sympathetic people to meet
each other, make friends, share strategies, and generally feel less
lonely? I agree with you on the importance of institution-building,
but the affective side counts too. Besides, your aggregate math (the
demo costs $12m plus two million hours) make it sound like a big
deal, but $60 and a few hours of travel aren't all that much for many
individuals. Besides, the demos make it easier to build institutions,
by bringing people together and making them feel like they're not
solitaries. And it's easier to organize people when they're in one
place."
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050919/020989.html

[steve]

"Interesting to see all the lefties who still think a demo will have any effect on this administration rather than the hard work of building an electoral coalition that will sweep these incompetents out of office."

Or perhaps both strategies?

[Marc Cooper]

Steve.. I think 8 posts in a row from u are enough. Take a break, willya?

Resistor, you continue to be a petulant fool.

[Nathan Newman]

And my response to Doug on LBO:

I'm not against all marches and such. I'm just against the single-minded focus on them among too many activists, abetted by the ANSWER folks who are
incapable of any other organizing.

And it's a reasonable debate on resources to ask whether the networking on a national basis is worth $12 million? A lot of folks are allergic to leadership but it's cheaper to elect delegates to a national meeting do that networking, while other folks do other tasks.

Part of what bothers me is that marches are more fun than other political work and we basically have the national leadership spending their time telling people that the best use of their money and time is to eat dessert.

So they spend $12 million and 2 million volunteer hours on dessert, while leaving most day-to-day organizing on antiwar work chronically underfunded and with with few volunteer hours on boring outreach work.

My criticism is of the antiwar leadership. If they were spending most of their time promoting institution-building and the more prosaic mobilization work, I'd be far more friendly to the occasional march to raise morale.

But it's the disproportion between priorities that gets my ire.

[Abbas-Ali Abadani]

I'll give the ANSWER people credit for doing a pretty good job of organizing all of these protests.

But the net effect of their efforts is not, I think, going to benefit the antiwar movement.

While I didn't attend this one, I have been to several of the larger rallies since 2002. At each one of them the vast majority of folks present have obviously either never been to a march/rally ever, or at least not in decades.

By the end of the day many of them will probably not consider coming back to such an event again.

Speaker after speaker in the most shrill, screechy tone demanding, uh, let's see:

"Freedom for Puerto Rico"

"Freedom for Palestine"

"Free Mumia"

"Solidarity with Cuba"

"Hands off Social Security"

"jobs"

"Equal Rights for Transgendered Unitarian Lesbian Vegans"

And that last one really isn't much of a stretch.

Every pet issue, every sexual, racial, national grievance screamed at the mostly normal folks who've showed up to protest this war and this administration **and nothing else.**

(sigh) usually after attending one of these shindigs I can read sh*t like this by Robert Stacy McCain of the Washington Times and actually sympathize with what he has to say.

http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/coeds.html

And believe me, I'm *for* Puerto Rican independence, I'm *for* freeing Mumia, I'm *for* Palestinian independence, I'm *for* abolishing the death penalty... what I'm trying to say is that I'm in agreement with a lot of what these people have to say.

But it's just selfish and foolish of them to run through their entire worldview or stick to their pet grievance that has nothing to do with the ostensible reason for this march.

And they really *really* need to broaden their pool of speakers. Right now the range on the ideological spectrum is from far left to farthest left. I would give the world to see libertarians like Doug Bandow, Harry Browne, Ted Galen Carpenter or Ivan Eland up on that podium, or for that matter paleocons like Paul Craig Roberts, Thomas Fleming or Paul Gottfried.

Kudos to Ralph Nader for a) not screaming at the crowd and b) sticking to the issue at hand.

[Josh Legere]

"Jesse Jackson and Ramsey Clark were the only two who spoke as if they had a lick of sense."

Wow. Ramsey Clark and Jesse Jackson! Must have been an awful event.

Steve, you are really a non issue. You simply do not count. Your indoctrination of community college students will not inspire social change.

The protest will have 0 effect on the policies of the current administration. The center leftward will continue to have NO net effect on the status quo. Even with Katrina and the failures in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan (I love to see her made into a leader, or demigod). None of them.

These protests are led by a bunch of nuts and attended by a large number of nuts that regular people find even more sickening than Bush. So Steve, that does not shed favorably on you or your fanatical ilk. In case you have not noticed, and you cannot explain away, the Right has been winning for 30+ years. Even during the glorious protests of 1968. Including the last election where almost the majority of people opposed the war in Iraq. Being a loser is hard to face, but it might help unlock the mind of yours. I notice you had to drop in Doug Henwood. Dude, get some theripy.

Marc forgot to mention Mumia. That cause was alive and well.

I will check out Steve’s column on the Monthly Review Online. Me and about 300 other people.

[steve]

"These protests are led by a bunch of nuts and attended by a large number of nuts that regular people find even more sickening than Bush."

From Max Sawicky on LBO list:

"Of course the usual sectarian-cum-freak show was in evidence, but I was
impressed the by soccer-mom/elderly share of the crowd. From an objective
journalistic standpoint, this was the real news element of the event, and
the Posties ran with it pretty well, IMO."

Difference between Max and Laguerre? Max was at the protest and knows something about organizing social justice movements/protests.
My apologies Marc, but Josh just makes stuff up with his slander of the majority of the protestors as 'freaks'.

[Marc Davidson]

The bigger point, of course, is that this rally was simply a part of a very much larger recognition of the abysmal failure of the Bush presidency. Excessive analysis and criticism of this single event is irrelevant.
The last train is moving out of the station, and folks (including Democratic leaders) can either stay on the platform or get on board, the comfort of the seats not withstanding.
Pardon the trite metaphor.

[Marc Cooper]

Wow, Josh.. thankfully I missed the paeans to Mumia. But I did catch several speakers celebrating the case of the Cuban Five-- these are 5 Cuban state security agents arrested and tried in the U.S. For complicated reasons their trial may have been unjust but that's one helluva a rallying cry isnt it? Support Cuban Spies!

AAA.. a very good idea you have. It hadnt occurred to me, but yes, why NOT invite the libertarian anti-war people like Ted Carpenter?

Resistor: Let me make something clear to you. Neither I nor David Corn are attacking the anti-war movement, you idiotic twit. It's ANSWER that attacks the good faith of hundreds f thousands of well-meaning anti war protestors who come into the demos never having heard or caring about ANSWER-- only to find their genuine sentiments twisted and exploited by a small group who believes Kim Il Sung is a great guy.

Would u like to see my arrest record from the anti-war moevement of the 60's, kid? Do you thik getting expelled from all California colleges and universities for five years meets your standard of "doing something." I know YOU are busy resisting.. must be running short of vaseline by now. Grow up.

[David Cohen]

I think that David Horowitz was arrested more times than Marc Cooper in the 1960s. Who gives a crap. What they are doing today is attacking the movement. At least Horowitz has the courage of his convictions to state that he is for capitalism. You'd think with all the fat paychecks that Cooper gets from the capitalist press, he'd have the honestly that he too has crossed over to the other sides of the barricades.

[steve]

"I know YOU are busy resisting.. must be running short of vaseline by now. Grow up."

And never a critical word at people like Josh Laguerre who slander the majority of protestors as 'freaks'. Interesting standards here.

[steve]

Here's Max Sawicky's response to Nathan on LBO where some pretty intelligent debate goes on over issues of organizational priorities:

"The presumption that the fabled $12 million is available for other purposes
is groundless. It isn't. If people are willing to buy a million dollars
worth of pizza, it does not follow that they would forego pizza and spend
instead on Brussels sprouts.

I also find it amusing that Nathan is aggrieved that more people gravitate
towards fun than towards work. ANSWER is the McDonald's of today's protest
politics. They know what people want. Nathan doesn't realize, life is
short, so we eat dessert first. If we lived in Newman Nation, we wouldn't
be having this conversation. We would be in earnest three-hour meetings on
urban planning.

For the maximization of fun,"

mbs

[steve]

and it should be noted that Max is no fan of ANSWER...