ANSWER's role in today's rallies -- How things work in the real world.

[ConsAreLiars]

Before setting out for the local rally today, I noticed the usual attacks on A.N.S.W.E.R. and/or the DC event as a whole "because of" A.N.S.W.E.R.'s role. Struck me as odd to watch the beginning of the DC event while seeing it attacked on DU by folks hunched over their keyboards and complaining about those actually doing something. Some of the attacks are expectable, since some here may support the war in the Kerry/Clinton fashion and others have sharp disagreements with some A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition member's views.

Apart from the specific criticisms, however, a lot of the comments seemed to be based on some sort of ivory tower misconception about what it takes to organize such an event and the nature of the coalition required to make it happen. I had the impression that all they had seen was the view of the speaker's platform provided by the CSpan camera. But even so, it should have been apparent that A.N.S.W.E.R. was only one part of the whole, and that characterizing it as wholly an A.N.S.W.E.R. event would be misleading.

First, don't forget that any movement for change is fought on many fronts throughout society. The 9/24/05 demonstrations today were just one arm of the movement. Using one's time in the effort to disable or weaken any part of this broad movement serves no cause but that of the war machine (even IF the main sponsors are impure or somehow tainted in your view). And maybe whatever form of self-gratification it is that gets achieved through holier-than-thou posturing.

But the problem with most of these accusations and this divisiveness is that it is fatally unrealistic. A.N.S.W.E.R.'s role is being both exaggerated and underestimated.

It is exaggerated because the demonstration numbered hundreds of thousands of people who participated simply because they thought is was the right thing to do, not because of their affiliation with or endorsement A.N.S.W.E.R., and most probably without much particular interest in the A.N.S.W.E.R. member groups' particular views on anything. TV watchers may have noticed that the crowd around the speakers'platform was rather less than 'hundreds of thousands,' and those who've looked at pictures of the march will be able to confirm that the "politics" of the marchers were as richly varied and diverse as those here on DU, including just about anybody who wants to see the war end for any reason. A fair review of the speakers heard on CSpan would show the same thing even though A.N.S.W.E.R. groups were heavily represented.

It is exaggerated because participation in the march was largely organized by other groups, most notably United for Peace and Justice on the national level, but also by purely grassroots peace and justice organizations around the country, and simply through individual responses to information on talk shows or net or other loose affiliations with the broader progressive and peace movement. Virtually everyone to the left of the DLC endorsed the march, and reducing it to an A.N.S.W.E.R. event is an insult to all of us who chose to participate in DC or locally.

And it is exaggerated because, simply stated, the whole is not only greater than the sum of the parts, it is certainly greater that any one of the larger parts.

But A.N.S.W.E.R.'s role is also being underestimated.

Simply put, without A.N.S.W.E.R. and United for Peace and Justice it just would not have happened. Think I'm wrong? Then tell me what other organizations have both the will and the means to manage the logistics.

If you want A.N.S.W.E.R. to play a smaller role, then find/create/motivate some other network that will step in and do the work. Make them strong enough to negotiate permits, do outreach, set up transportation, organize the workforce, set up the on-site infrastructure, and use their memberships and contacts to build the kinds of broad alliances needed to make it happen. And then you/they will have earned a place, maybe several, on the speaker's platform. Until then, the complaining is just meaningless blather, or worse.

Another way it is being underestimated is revealed in the complaining about the speakers - the gripe that they addressed all sorts of topics like racism and imperialism and corporate globalism, etc.

The fact is that the simple ideas expressed in slogans like "one world, one fight," "no justice, no peace," "workers of the world unite," and so on, must be understood if the war machine is ever to be defeated.

Unless we "the people" understand that we are all in this together and that these are not "separate" issues, victory is impossible. Those who would treat these as "separate" from the anti-Iraq-War fight underestimate what unites us all and effectively work to diminish that unity.

The range of concerns highlighted from the speakers platform reflects not only the fact that these vaious groupings did their share of the work (unlike their TV watching keyboard artist critics), but more importantly, that it is in fact "one struggle, one fight," and that "the people united will never be defeated." Again, by trying to divide the anti-Iraq-War part of this movement from these other parts, the critics weaken us all, and by bringing them all together on the speakers' platform, A.N.S.W.E.R. strengthens us all.

Finally (finally!), there is the red-baiting side of the criticism, which uses the centrality of a Marxist organization within A.N.S.W.E.R. to demonize the whole event and urge others to stay away. Apart from the issue of who (what) is being best served by that kind of "advice," it fosters the delusion that such an event can happen without a competent, widely dispersed and well-organized core of activists.

Whether by sheer chance or due to their hard work and wisdom, it so happens that one of the key players in the formation of A.N.S.W.E.R. was a Trotskyist splinter group called the Workers World Party (split again (surprise?) in 2004 with those who formed the Socialism and Liberation Party now being at the A.N.S.W.E.R. core). Regardless of their internal squabbles and the idiosyncrasies of their ideology, they had the organizational structure, the will, and the capacity to build the much broader alliances needed to put together the framework for these events, and did so. Without such an organized core, nothing much will happen.

What now happens with that movement depends more on the nature of the broad alliance that is being created than on the specifics of that core group's unique dogma. Like it or not, they had what it takes, and whatever the ideological grouping you "critics" might have preferred to see at the center, your favored organizations, whatever their merits on other fronts, failed or never even tried.

In short, rather than posturing and attacking one part of the real anti-war movement that has played a central role in organizing these marches and rallies, you "critics" (assuming you actually oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the rest of the PNAC agenda) might want to put rather more time and effort into convincing/helping "your" comrades to get involved and to become effective. Although I doubt that "your" groups really want to oppose this war if they haven't shown up yet, and your efforts might be better devoted toward supporting any of the great many groups which actually oppose the war, rather than trying to destroy or discredit some of them

Actually working to build a better world is far more worthy than sowing discord and attacking those who do the real work (and even more gratifying - try it).


For reference:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
http://www.internationalanswer.org/

Regarding A.N.S.W.E.R. and its core groups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.N.S.W.E.R.
http://www.workersworld.net/wwp/
http://www.socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?s=about&PHPSESSID=eeaa76299c952339efdc9e987ca6c2c0

[rman]

1. ANSWER could do all the right things without diluting the message

People didn't go to DC to protest the occupation of Palestine. The ANSWER groups knew that in advance.
Apparently forming a united front against the Bush administration was less important to them then to take the opportunity to push their pet-issues.

That's why many people stopped listening to the ANSWER speakers and went on to do what they had come to DC for.
That speaks for itself, but i doubt ANSWER will heed the lesson - yet again, and will keep on playing right into the RW's hands.

[Syrinx]

you are one hundred percent correct

The events of today were probably less than worthless.

[symbolman]

5. Yeah, you're right

and I'm going to start talking to some rich folks and kick ANSWERS ass out of the way..

ANSWER is bullshit and I've been to many marches/events held by them - they create embarrassment with their fractured pet agendas..

I stood with them in front of the CNN Building in LA with thousands of protesters and my site is called Takebackthemedia.com, at that time we were hauling in 100 million hits a month due to our work, three of us, making flash animations, boycotting Limbaugh, getting sued by Savage for a half a million bucks, etc..

Would ANSWER give ME two minutes to say something? About TAKING BACK THE MEDIA in front of the CNN building? Nope, I asked the person in charge many times (and I've been on cable shows, OReilly, Scarborough,etc) and know how to speak -- NOPE.

Instead we got an never ending load of drivel, piercing drivel at times, exremely unatractive people (and you know what, that does make a difference on TV, this is a PR war as well) whining, as a matter of fact and this doesn't sound very PC, but PC ain't working..

We have joke with our friends, it's about Liberal meetings where you simply must have "Stumpy, the one legged black lesbian married to one of the Cuban Five or six or whatever, who knows" speak.. or sing, or mumble some stupid self serving poem..

It really DESTROYS credibility. We have to MARKET our selves and USE the media to get what we want - I know how it works and I'm so fucking SICK of ANSWER I could spit..

I'm going to get a TAKEBACKTHEMEDIA.COM scene happening in the future, and I want to tap into bands like Green Day singing "American Idiot" instead of a unisexed unit making one guy clap for cspan.. I want FOCUS, razor sharp FOCUS on the correct issues, which ANSWER doesn't seem to understand, you get movement on ONE THING and THEN you get movement on other items..

All they offer seem to be a "chinese menu", unorganized (despite your claim, well, they can build a stage, big whoop), screwy - and here's another non PC thing, sorry for saying it, but MOST OF AMERICA has NO IDEA what is going on in Palestine.. I still don't get it and I am politically astute, I want to end suffering everywhere..

But even Jesus said, "I can't heal you all" and so ANSWER blows cold.. they remind me of a guy I know who can kill a party DEAD and clear a room just by saying three sentences..

sorry to anyone who doesn't agree with me, I don't mean harm.. but someone needs to take this shit away from them, they in my opinion are abusing their "stewardship" of the Progressive causes..

I'll never attend another ANSWER function for one simple fact, I don't have to tell Scarborough that I'm NOT A COMMUNIST which wastes my time.. they have the right to be Communists if they want but that translates into UNAMERICAN in most middle class minds in the least..

Like I said, this is a PR war against these guys, you have to use PSYOPS FOR the people and that means bringing out the Pretty and Talented to save the POOR..

Anyone else want to organize with us? I want a SHOW, I want HENDRIX in front of the white house, or at lease AMERICAN IDIOT where he can hear it, and some booties shakin'..

ANSWER doesn't work and no one will convince me otherwise. But thanks to the MANY that showed up for the fight, THAT is what counts in the end.

Now getting the media to admit a half a million people were there instead of 100,000 that's the reason we need to TAKEBACKTHEMEDIA :)

[fasttense]

9. You may have a point there Symbolman

Now, I appreciate what ANSWER did do. And those of us who couldn't go don't know that there was a whole lot more to the march than what C-Span was showing. But it seems to me ANSWER is a bit old fashion (this from a forty-something DU.)

But watching C-Span I got this feeling that ANSWER was in the wrong decade. Where was the spin? Where was the creativity that DU shows on an hourly bases (though the Raging Grannies was great)? There was no punch, no flair. This would have worked in the 70's but now it is just old fashion. Maybe ANSWER is great at organizing. Let's face it a quarter of a million people is nothing to sneeze at. But how the message was delivered from the podium needs to be updated because that seems to be what the media covered.

Don't give up on ANSWER because they are great at organization. But the message needs to reflect it is 2005 and not 1970.

[MADem]

21. Actually, you can hire a company to put up that stage!!!

It ain't rocket science!!

I like your ideas much better--more like the CONCERT they had in the afternoon, where acts were interdispersed with really good, PREPARED speakers, who all spoke on some aspect of the SAME ISSUE--getting the troops home and getting the monkey out of the WH. Everyone dance, listen to a speech, everyone dance!!! Works for me!

That's more how it was done back in the day, and everyone showed up, associated with the cause, and some even met their future spouses....and we did finally get out of Vietnam.

[Tigress DEM]

30. Hey! MADem - Tigress here in DC! CSpan est 1/2 Million to 600,000

From the arial pics, but Washington Post - which I normally like - said only 10's of thoudands with additional mention of as much as 300,000 by orgnisers - and since there were two groups if they both pulled 100-200 thou, then the 600,000 is probably about right, so I say we quote that and pull back to 300,000 as the conservative, conservative estimate.

If NY Freedom Train had been allowed to roll, there would have been many more... and there were those of us stranded at the Reagan airport going in circles on the Metro which was supposedly having "scheduled maintainence" that none of the locals had heard about. Now if this was the administration's first fauxpaux, I could say it was possiby mere incompetence, but I've ridden public transportation a lot in my day and they put these flyers up all over the buses and trains when there is going to be ANY schedule disruption because people will call them up screaming if they miss the bus and don't get to work on time.

Even so, only the most moronic of dumbasses schedules the plumber during the holiday get togethers or even during their daughter's slumber party, so if you're expecting 100,000 - 200,000 for the weekend it doesn't make a lick of sense even so.

[MADem]

40. Well, it gives us a sense of how pissed people are, that, despite efforts

to keep people away, the crowds were HUGE nonetheless!

[bear425]

46. I agree with you and the OP, too.

Answer is good at organizing, just not organizing an event that will not turn off the maintstream.

I watched the entire thing and there was one thing that stuck out like a sore thumb. There was a point when the cameraman walked up to the the fenced area that said "media only". He was completely alone. It was a large fenced off area that was completely empty. Why is that? Because there really was no real hook for them to be there.

I'm grateful that the event occurred and was larger that last year. But, your ideas working in tandem with the organizational skills of ANSWER would be so much more effective.

[Ken Burch]

54. You want HENDRIX in front of the White House?

Uh, dude, isn't it about 35 years too late to book Jimi for anything?

[symbolman]

81. How old are you Ken?

Were you around during Nam? I was drafted and Protested and the ENERGY of people Like Hendrix, the love, the looseness, the feeling of universality was tremedous..

Are you a very Literal person or something?

[Ken Burch]

95. I was joking there, symbolman. Lighten up, willya?

and actually, in those "fabulous Sixties"(which I didn't actually participate in but am quite familiar with as a student of history)there were a lot of people who were just like A.N.S.W.E.R. What made the Sixties work was that the demonstration organizers WEREN'T obsessed with excluding people and controlling every word out of everyone's mouth.

The Sixties were many things, but they weren't "on message." They were far too anarchistic and spontaneous for that.

[symbolman]

108. Ken, there's a big difference between being a

student of History and BEING THERE.

DO you know about Abbie Hoffman? Do you think Abbie handed his bullhorn to everyone in the crowd? Nope, but the crowd would take over the administration building and get results, why? They had a leader.

The main problem with ANSWER as I see it is poor leadership - they want to put out so many fires that they run out of water, TOO Liberal if you can catch that..

The Liberals need to gird their loins and do battle, this is war, and the 60's are starting to look like a picnic compared to what Bush is doing to our country.

and I believe OUR country comes first, we can lead but WE have to fix our country first - the the "CAN DO" attitude we are famous for will return, and the pride..

Our "CAN DO" attitude is apparent in all the people that FEMA turned BACK from NO - WE responded and BUSH kept us from physically saving our OWN countrymen..

SO I do NOT care about Mummia, I care about america, once WE are fixed we can look into that scene. You don't water your flowers while your house is on fire :)

[Ken Burch]

113. Abbie Hoffman never banned North Vietnamese flags from his rallies

and those were a hell of a lot more divisive in that period than anything that happened yesterday.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Thehy also told Rabi Lerner nope, you won't be allowed on the

stage, why? you are a Jew... never mind he has done far more to create reporacment between Jews and Palestinians than any of their people ever have.

never mind he has been for peace far longer than they have

And their rethoric keeps people away

Hence why I have a theory, they were formed for other ends, read the now locked thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4881553&mesg_id=4881553

[Ken Burch]

97. Lerner wasn't turned away for being Jewish.

(and for the record, I think A.N.S.W.E.R. was wrong to turn him away)
Lerner was turned away because A.N.S.W.E.R. had a policy of turning away anybody who publicly criticized them. They should never have had such a policy.

But It wasn't about Lerner's being Jewish.

As far as that goes, there are Jews who are active in that group. Some of them spoke at the rally.

Don't try to drag antisemitism into this one. There are enough other reasons to criticize A.N.S.W.E.R. without accusing them of something they are innocent of.

What is needed is a constructive dialogue with that group, and, from what I heard, they would be willing to engage in one.

All I'm saying is, we're doomed to fail if we go back to liberal "anticommunism". All that ever created was liberal antiliberalism.

[symbolman]

110. It doesn't make sense to say that they are open to

criticism and that they refuse to let anyone speak that criticizes them in the same sentence.

I can't believe them or you on this one Ken.. don't make no sense friend.

[Ken Burch]

111. Well, Lerner's banning was at a rally in 2001.

As far as I know, they didn't ban him this year(but I'm not sure he tried to speak at their rally this year, to be honest.

I'm just trying to avoid having us get into all this bullshit redbaiting and paranoia. It helps nothing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. And according to Corn's article on the Nation

it also had to do with their confusing of Jew and Zionist since believing in the right of Israel to exist is verbotten.

Now Lerner is far more of a Mentch than they are... but I will not go to any rally sponsored by ANSWER... sorry will not do it... Progroms and the Holocaust come to mind... and for my family that is family history.

So nope will not do it. I will go to any rally against this war as long as ANSWER has NADA to do with it... they do, I go home.

May seem crazy to you, but that is my line on the sand...

Oh and we can discuss rationally all the ills of the State of Israel (and Palestine) and how much preachment needs to happen between those two... and I will criticize Israel, but I am a fan of the two state solution, for I will not turn the clock back 60 years.

[gristy]

116. Put me on your mailing list, symbolman!

I'm going to get a TAKEBACKTHEMEDIA.COM scene happening in the future

I felt I already knew you well when I met you for the first time and gave you a :hug: (and I never do that with guys!) in Boston at a bar during the dem convention (I think). I'll help in any way I can, including $$!

[derby378]

126. You have my full attention at this point

I'm anxious to see what develops, if you're able to pull something off. Good luck!

[Ignoramus]

138. That's mighty white of you

The ANSWER organized demonstrations are already too alienating to people who aren't white, or I've read comments to that effect from Hispanics and Blacks. You seem to want to push it even further in that direction.

If you want to organize a demonstration, please do. The more the better. If you intend to attack the movement by trying to divert people from demonstrations, that is bad.

I hope others will not follow your anti-democratic notions and continue to unite with their fellow activists in demonstrations. I invite people not to hate "commies" more than they love the people who are under attack from the fascists.

The fascists get their support from people who use your same wording, your same jar headed machismo and contemptuous generalities in order to encourage hatred of a superficial slur: "liberals" more than they love their own welfare, their family and their country.

[MADem]

20. Yep, they are as bad as these religious organizations

...where, if you are on the street, you show up because they tell you that they will give you a sandwich and a change of clothes, but they MAKE YOU LISTEN TO THE SERMON before you can get the stuff.

Quite frankly, I found most of the speeches after the headliners (McKinney, Jackson, Sheehan, e.g.) TEDIOUS, BORING, UNPROFESSIONAL, and HORRIBLE. And what a shame that CSPAN stuck with that, instead of putting cameras on street corners like they have done in the past, so that we might have seen the actual protesters, the majority of whom were there TO PROTEST THE WAR. And I did want to grab the mike from that woman with the horrific voice from the PI, griping about Arroyo, and beat her with it so that she would STFU--she frightened my animals.

I'm with you--when 99 and nine tenths percent of the people are there to bitch about the war, let's bitch about the damn war. Dilution is NOT helpful--we have to hone the message to a sharp point and slam it home. I don't believe in that "all in this together" shit, because the truth is, there are people who oppose the war who simply do not give one tinker's damn about those other issues.

People may not like that this is so, but that is the truth of it.

[electropop]

23. I actually thought ANSWER must have asked their speakers to

make sure to relate the war to their individual causes, to show how it all connects. I was pleasantly surprised.

[librechik]

26. Bottom line: We need our own bully organization

so we don't have to ride the coattails of the black bloc and its international friends.

I want liberation for Palestine too. But we needed focus this time, and our precious time on the stage got pissed away.

We needed our own organization and our own microphone.

Too bad. We used to be able to count on the Democrats for this sort of thing. WE have to get it together, folks.

[npincus]

77. right on! My sentiments exactly.

[leftchick]

98. I was talking to a first time protester in DC today

he was so puzzled by the pre-march speeches. He asked why were they talking about Haiti and Palestine, etc.? I explained they do it every time and agreed it distracts from the primary message of Anti-Iraq war. He was in the front closer to the stage and confirmed the crowd got very restless with the change in direction of the speeches and wanted to march. So they did!

I agree, ANSWER won't change and man do the wingers love to torment them. :eyes:

[punpirate]

2. Looky, looky...

... the Stalinist Workers are behind it all.

That's the message that gets to the right wing, and sometimes to the MSM.

ANSWER didn't make this march happen all by its lonesome--in large part due to the internet, it would have happened without ANSWER's help. That much can be deduced. Most people went to DC because they knew about it from places like DU and weren't influenced by ANSWER one whit.

But, when analyzing who said what, when and why, if ANSWER or IAC or the SWWP is involved, that's bad advertising as far as mainstream America is concerned. You can argue that all day long, but the raw fact is that involvement of groups with mixed motives dilutes the impact of such assemblies.

Such enables the right wing noise machine, rather than inhibits it.

PR does count. It's not about political purity, or purity of intent--it's about what can be done by the right to discredit legitimate protest.

I read one far-right site today that asserted that Code Pink was "communist" and had given $600K to Cindy Sheehan. Don't know the facts for sure, but I'm pretty sure that Code Pink isn't Stalinist. :) And even more than pretty sure that Code Pink doesn't have $600K to give anyone. But, if the SWWP is involved, and contributing dollars to anyone or any effort, behind any front, it's a sure way to have any good effort compromised when it comes to how those efforts are viewed by the general populace who have irrationally feared communism for six decades now.

Sometimes, it is necessary to tell the problem children of the left to fuck off for a while. :)

[WolverineDG]

3. I was there

and quite frankly, the march should have started after Cindy Sheehan & Jesse Jackson spoke. The crowd was revved up & ready to move at that point. Instead, we got approx. another NINETY MINUTES of speakers & even poets. :wtf:

The DU gang collectively said "F this, let's march" at that point and went out to the street. It was still another 45 minutes before we actually moved. A friend of mine watching the "coverage" on CSPAN said the crowd was groaning & then moving off when they kept announcing speakers.

So, quite frankly, ANSWER fucked up on this. I didn't come to stand around & listen to someone yell about Palestine, the Phillippines, Puerto Rico, etc. I CAME TO MARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dg

[Ken Burch]

4. Why Didn't they just start the march earlier?

(although, for myself, I'd have said start it right after George Galloway spoke, because for my money he gave the best speech of the day)

Was it coalition politics that every group had to be given some chance to have a member speak?
(I actually felt kind of sorry for the last speakers, such as the Filipino and Puerto Rican revolutionary groups, who had a crowd of only a few dozen to speak to, but then again maybe the organizers thought those speakers' messages might be particularly divisive and thought it better to have them speak after most of the crowd had left.)

While it was good to have the C-SPAN podium coverage, it would have been better if they had put a second camera in a helicopter so that the crowds in the streets could be seen. The size of the group in front of the podium was misleadingly small because, as the organizers kept annoucing from the podium, many others hadn't been able to reach the Ellipse yet.

[WolverineDG]

6. the march

was supposed to start at 12:30. but speaker after speaker after speaker....geezUS. we didn't start moving until 2-ish. one DUer went up to the stage & asked when we were going to march & was told 1:30, but that came& went & we were still standing around.

i didn't even know Galloway was speaking until my friend called me & told me about the coverage. there was a helicopter that kept circling the crowd. we thought it was a media one, but since no one's seen aerial footage of the crowd, who knows where it came from.

dg

[Lars39]

38. According to the UFPJ website, their part in that rally ended at 12:30

and the march was supposed to step off then, so anybody tuning in to C-Span after 12:30 saw 100% ANSWER, and not the march.

[MADem]

22. Did you go to the concert after???

Now THAT is what should have been happening in the morning, with a march, and then more music and speakers afterwards!!!

[mcg]

72. I didn't make it to the concert because of ANSWER's delaying tactics.

As far as I can tell, ANSWER delayed the march, so I didn't make it in time for the concert.

[bklyncowgirl]

74. Yeah me too. My husband cut it short, his leg was hurting

He called me to tell me i was missing Joan Baez, Damn.

[WolverineDG]

121. no, i didn't stay for the concert

we did go back to the mall & sat for a short time, but it was getting late (5 pm by the time we got there), we were tired of walking & standing & the meet up at RFD's was set for 7ish. we (sharonrb, tokenlib, liv & someone else who i've forgotten their du id) decided to head to rfd's early & grab a table. good thing we did because we snagged the front room. :evilgrin:

so, i'm not inclined to participate in another march sponsored by answer & my friend who was watching the cspan coverage said she'd never do that either.

dg

[MADem]

129. I watched the concert via web on the CH 9/WUSA feed

It was really, really good. The DEMOCRACY NOW host interspersed the musical numbers and short speeches with interviews of the participants one-on-one. I was shocked that a GANNETT outfit would cover it, but then, they know how folks vote in DC...it is all about the money, at the end of the day.

What would have been superb is if they had gone with a format of focused speakers against the war, followed by a march, and then the concert at the same venue. But you won't get that when ANSWER does the legwork, unfortunately.

[Ken Burch]

7. While there are many valid critiques of A.N.S.W.E.R.,

I found there rhetoric to be offering encouraging signs. They clearly seemed to be moving beyond their Stalinist past with their speakers' emphasis on democracy and their less-sectarian tone.

We're not going to be able to get A.N.S.W.E.R. to just go away, so we need to start a constructive dialogue with them. I think this is becoming possible.

Does anybody know if they've moved beyond their old position of barring speakers who'd publicly criticized them, as they did to Michael Lerner at a SF peace rally a few years ago?

[symbolman]

8. I think it's time to Moveon from ANSWER

and not absorb or be connected with like "communists", etc..

It doesn't work, I agree with punpirate that some of the "problem children" need to be put off to the side..

I have no problems with COde Pink, love em, and United for Peace I'm sure would like to hitch themselves to another wagon..

take the parts that work and the rest can do whatever they want, it's a free country..

and Yes there are some people that shouldn't be allowed to speak, you don't go into a Mexican restaurant and order French food, etc..

Someone has to make BRUTAL changes in the Progressive side, and Not RADICAL.. I'd be willing to help implement and brainstorm and contact people I know who are closer to the mark in my opinion..

[Ken Burch]

12. "BRUTAL changes in the Progressive side, and Not RADICAL"?

Jesus, symbolman, who are you going to have lined up and shot?

And who, in the end, can you really say are the legitimate and illegitimate people within the "Progressive side."

For that matter, would we still BE the "Progressive side" if we got rigid and uptight about who was and wasn't involved? Seems to me that gets us back into the worst of the Cold War redbaiting bullshit, where liberal groups felt obsessed and paranoid about proving they weren't "Red" and usually resolved this by ceasing to be liberal. Martin Luther King had to kick good people out of the Civil Rights movement over this.

We don't need to bring Sidney Hook's mentality back and start turning in folksingers again.

[symbolman]

35. I don't know if you know me Ken

I'm a reasonable person, what you are describing is pretty out there, nice view of history - no I wouldn't be bucking for Reagan's job Blackballing liberal writers.

My point is that tho everyone has the right to speak it doesn't mean that people want to hear them drone on and bore people.. if it's an event then you don't bring in 2nd rate acts when you want results..

Go to Takebackthemedia.com and have a look at our work if you can, we fight hard for everyone.

But if they are going to send people fleeing while chanting Palenstine over and over then they are actually damaging the movement, there's a time and a place, it can't be christmas every day either - tough choices can be made with a group, but when I say Brutal I mean, anyone that most people would find boring, doesn't mean they lose their constitutionally guaranteed right to speak..

There's also nothing in the Constitution that says we all get 600 radio stations bleating out hate, but it's something we have to deal with..

I'm a nice guy actually.

[bread_and_roses]

39. 100,000 ++++ people are not results? When another Organization

spends the thousands of hours over months and months to do the organizing that is required to get that many people to one place at one time, people will go to that March too.

It's all about the numbers.

[Walt Starr]

41. All ANSWER did was get the permits and rent the stage

Other organizations got the numbers.

But since ANSWER controlled the microphones, ANSWER controlled the message.

Hey, were you at the Free Mumia/Palestine protest yesteray?

[bread_and_roses]

44. Local Organizations would not have acted without a National Coordinating

effort. They (I speak from experience, since I spend anywhere from five to twenty-five hours a week volunteering at a local Issue organization and for Local Politics) are VERY busy with what they do all year.

I don't know to what exact degree A.N.S.W.E.R. organized, but I do know that our Organization had a call back in - April? - somewhere around then - about buses for the March.

I was not at the March - my health no longer permits me to march all day. I am, however, being involved at the State and Local level with organizing both Issue and Political events, familiar with the scale of effort and organization required to get that many people to an event. Thousands of hours. Local participation - including our Local effort here, which sent buses - are absolutely essential, but that ball had to start rolling months ago.

The March is not being reported as "Free Mumia/Palastine" event. I didn't watch CSPAN yesterday, or any Network news, and I sympathize with your ire over the CSPAN coverage that I've read about. But I don't think Joe Average watches much CSPAN. Joe Average will, however, probably see the front page of the largest Metropolitan Paper near him. The headlines refer to the March as against the War.

I do not quarell with your objections to A.N.S.W.E.R., you're entitled, and I am not associated with them in any way and have no dog in this fight EXCEPT the point that the only real impact of Marches is in the numbers.

When another Organization steps up and does the months of organizing required, people will go to that March too.

[Podface]

82. Numbers are dirt

if the messages are only heard by the attenders.

[Ken Burch]

52. Glad to hear that.

When anybody starts talking about "Brutal" changes, I'm always gonna be kind of worried.

[Ken Burch]

53. Also remember, in any coalition, it will be difficult if not impossible

to impose rigid control on the "message." And if you go too far in that direction, you end up with an event as bland and meaningless as Kerry's nominating convention.

Better some real passion than an obsession with keeping everyone "On message". "On message" usually ends up meaning "no message at all".

[symbolman]

85. Real passion?

I watched people RUN away from the stage on TV, RUN - it was like watching grass grow while it screamed..

You seem to know nothing about how the media works, or perception management..

If you want to have a pissing contest with me feel free, but some of your statements are just silly.. controlling the message loses the passion?

You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, so If I get a ball rolling on this please make sure you introduce yourself to me at the event so you can tell me all about how "passionless" AMERICAN IDIOT is by Green Day.

ON Message? That is exactly WHY the democrats get NOWHERE, they are all over the place, but I'm not going to bother talking to you because you just want to ridicule my statements and there's no use sending if there is no "receiving" device.

[Podface]

87. Totally!

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. I've gone back and forth about message control and all

this over the course of the morning. So have some others... it seems some peoole are very naive as to the importance of zeroing in on A MESSAGE a single message, and free mumia does not belong in a rally asking why honorable cause did Casey Sheehan died for?

[Ken Burch]

94. Kerry's campaign proved that "on message" as you define it

means defeat. All "on message" efforts would have to be exactly like that.

[symbolman]

100. Man Ken

you further amaze me.. "ALL 'on message' efforts would have to be exactly like that."

That's pretty solid statement, so solid that it shows you to be intractable, which would mean to me as I said before that it's a waste of time having a conversation with you.

or do you want me to respond with, "How can you possibly say that?!" so you can fill me in with more RIGID thinking?

I've heard enough, to be honest that is one of the most ridiculous statements you've made so far.

I travelled with the folks running for office that year, I know Kerry's bodyguard personally (Marvelous Marvin) and Kerry's wife invited us to go with THEM to a Karol King concert that night, we declined because we were all sick as dogs (came from hawaii to the coldest winter in history on the east coast) but later when he'd won the primary his wife came through a crowd just to say hi to me..

They lost because the MEDIA destroyed their message, and his character, not to mention the fix being in with Diebold, Ohio paper weight counts, not enough voting machines for blacks and poor in many areas, the list goes on..

I don't think he DID lose, any more than Gore did..

A song is ON MESSAGE Ken, if in the middle of a concert you heard mexican music, then french, then italian when listening to Beethoven then you would or at least most people would LEAVE the situation - it's either boring or it doesn't make any sense. Being reality based beings we need something stable as a basis for perception and are willing to get more "out there" once we feel safe in a situation but when something starts to just get wierd or you feel screwed you LEAVE..

and that's what ANSWER did to folks yesterday, it's undeniable, you can watch the steady DRAIN of audience - who decided they were there to MARCH, not listen to 4 billion causes they can't identify with..

On message doesn't mean you only have ONE message, it means you don't have DOZENS that no one has ever heard of..

Enough from me to you. GOod luck with the mind.

[Ken Burch]

102. The crowd was thinning because that was the START OF THE MARCH

the crowd at the Ellipse was MEANT to thin out as people headed into the streets.

And, look I'm a musician, I believe that the power of song can be greater than the power of a speech.

It's just that I always get nervous when anybody starts talking about controls. It's a little too close to censorship for my taste.

I hope you do get your group built on a national basis, but you won't do it by bashing other left groups.

[WolverineDG]

122. dream on ken

the crowd thinned because we were BORED SHITLESS. We came to march & for three fucking hours all we heard (after Cindy, Rev. Jackson & Galloway) was blah blah blah from people no one knew. We got all revved up by the Anti-war speeches & then had to stand there while ANSWER droned on & on & on and even BROUGHT OUT POETS!! My god, there was a whole freaking Mall OPEN for those groups to have tents or booths for their message. They could have EASILY used that space instead of wasting our time & energy shouting stuff at us that we weren't paying attention to anyways. And yes, those speeches DID turn people off. My friend who was watching CSPAN called me several times in disgust with what she was seeing at the rally (there's a pic of me in the DU line on the phone & that's just ONE of her calls to me that day).

dg

[Ken Burch]

101. This isn't a debate about Green Day.

I wasn't saying "boy I'm glad those Green Day losers weren't at the podium."

There was only one musical act at the podium, Evelyn Harris, a woman who was a member of Sweet Honey in the Rock, a great acapella group from D.C. that was founded by Bernice Johnson Reagon(one of the original Freedom. Her performance actually brought the crowd to life.

What should have happened was for someone to get C-SPAN to cover more of the concert.

And yes, obsessively controlled messages do tend to constrict and diminish the power of a lot of rallies. The Live 8 concert, where Bob Geldhof forbade anyone from making antiwar and anti-Bush comments, was a great example of a "controlled" message rally. Basically, it was a nice middle-of-the-road concert which changed nothing.

The kind of rally you'd have organized would probably have had nobody but a few middle-aged white men in three-piece suits, which already would have made it dead and soulless.

[symbolman]

112. You're a musician?

Me too..

I have a problem with this statement by you..

"The kind of rally you'd have organized would probably have had nobody but a few middle-aged white men in three-piece suits, which already would have made it dead and soulless."

SO THESE are the guys that would come to see Green Day (who you also mentioned in this post) sing AMERICAN IDIOT in FRONT Of the WHite House?

Okly dokly, bye bye now, got coke bottles to take back to the store - thanks ever so much for wasting my time... sheesh, I and used to work in a nut house..

[Ken Burch]

114. You seem to think that Green Day's presence

would've singlehandedly brought down the regime.

I don't know why Green Day wasn't there. Wasn't my decision. But no one group could possibly have had that kind of an impact.

You need to relax here a bit. Green Day dedicated that song to Bush on national TV. Last I checked, Bush is still in power.

[Ken Burch]

137. For that matter, is there any evidence

that Green Day wanted to participate in the rally or concert and was rejected?

They may not have even been available that day, as far as we know.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. So I was not the only one who noticed

that they would not let Lerner speak... when I raised this today I was challenged as to my veracity (and that of Bernie Ward)

Now the effect this has had is think of the thousands of Jews who now believe the whole movement is antisemitic and will stay away from marches or from organizing

[Podface]

84. no shit

you nailed it.

my jewish friends were disgusted. American Jews who have nothing to do with the Israeli Palestine issue. I told them to tune in. I thought this was about Iraq.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. That is one reason I believe this is a counter Intel operation

raised the issue here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4881553&mesg_id=4881553

But the mods locked it, never mind it asked the right questions... aka who is funding these clowns?

[Sgent]

10. There were five things

that UPJ called this rally for -- and not a damn one of them had to do with palestien.

ANSWER advertised one thing and did another -- their modus operandi. I don't think anyone here has a problem supporting pulling out of Iraq. That being said, there are numerous problems (IMHO) with ANSWER's agenda.

Just because Specter supports abortion doesn't mean that DUers support him. And for the same reason, just because ANSWER supports pulling out of Iraq doesn't make them worth our support.

[malaise]

11. You are 100% correct

I suggest the critics go and watch Clooney's film.

The rest of the world understand the issue of alliances. The anti-apartheid movement in South Africa needed ANC, the communists, socialists, greens and all other factions. The anti-fascist movement in Europe also included all factions. Check the make up of resistance movements everywhere and stop looking over your shoulders to see how the right view you. The only focus is removing the fascists from power. Numbers count.

[nonconformist]

13. The problem was mainly with the C-Span coverage.

They were covering the fringe, obscure off-topic speeches being delivered to a handful of unenthusiastic spectators instead of covering the march of hundreds of thousands that was on-topic.

[tlsmith1963]

14. Trotskyist, Huh?

That confirms my suspicions. The neocons are former Trotskyists. ANSWER was founded by Trotskyists. So ANSWER is a neocon front organization. We've been had. I don't want them in the antiwar movement anymore. Sorry, but that's how I feel. They're a joke anyway, a cartoon.

Tammy

[Ken Burch]

68. A.N.S.W.E.R wasn't actually founded by Trotskyists.

It was founded by people who had at one point been Trotskyists and then broken from the American branch of Trotskyism, the Socialist Workers Party, to form the Workers World Party, which had actually returned to rhetorical Stalinism.

But that party no longer exists, and the A.N.S.W.E.R. people I heard yesterday were not talking like Stalinists, they were sounding progressive and democratic, they sounded like they'd learned the lesson of history and abandoned the dictatorial form of leftism known as vanguard politics.

In any case, they could hardly create a Stalinist state by holding antiwar rallies.

[theHandpuppet]

15. Excellent Post!

Thank you and nominated.

[demnan]

16. Personally I think the march went well

There will always be people there with pet issues, just like there are a million and one people there with their own websites, etc. Just clap when you agree and stay quiet when you don't. There will always be postponing, waiting, inconvenience, nutty fringe issues and Communist papers being distributed by college kids. The diversity is what makes it kind of fun, you know.

Yeah I actually went down and found the DU'ers and that was fun. I really can't blame ANSWER. After all, they did have the coolest protest signs (I loved the Malcom X ones) I'm holding on to mine. My thanks to their efforts.

The most powerful things there were done by the Veterans of Peace. It was beautiful how they brought the memories of the soldiers with us through the march. And with Cindy Sheehan being the most popular speaker, how could you lose.

You guys who didn't go missed a great march.

[Walt Starr]

17. I have no respect for A.N.S.W.E.R.

I will NOT associate myself with Communists. Sorry, but that crosses the line. I'll stay home when they are involved in a demonstration.

[stepnw1f]

25. They Are Communists? (nt)

[Walt Starr]

27. Yes n/t

[stepnw1f]

29. Mao Socialists

That's creepy man.

[rman]

34. Devils, as Reagan said.

Even creepier.

[Ken Burch]

55. You'd accept an accusation of being "devils" from the guy

who armed the fucking CONTRAS?

Switch to decaf, bro.

[symbolman]

89. What is this crap about taking what someone means

metaphorically and buttonholing them on it literally?

It's amazing and you sound intelligent enough NOT to be that specious.

Do YOU belong to ANSWER?

Are YOU related to them?

"Rhetorical Stalinists"? WHat the hell does that mean?

[rman]

135. i was being sarcastic

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Nothing like a little red-baiting to make the moderates feel good.

Eek! Commies under the bed!

[Walt Starr]

31. How is the truth about the organization "red baiting"?

The founders of ANSWER include communists. That is an undeniable fact.

If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Oh, dear me. Real live COMMUNISTS!

How very dreadful.

Do you include among the "dogs" that give fleas:

Bayard Rustin
Pablo Picasso
Joe Slovo
John Reed
Jean Paul Sartre
Dalton Trumbo
Diego Rivera
Che Guevarra
The International Brigades in Spain
The French Resistance
The Italian Resistance
The Greek Resistance
Salvador Allende
Hugo Chavez

To name a few Communist "dogs".

[Walt Starr]

58. Some of the groups you named are not Communistic

but the ones that are Communistic have little in teh way of respect from me. Hugo Chavez should not be idolized. Che Guevarra as well. I cannot respect them. I seperate art from the artists, thus I can respect the work of Picasso and the work of Mel Gibson equally while abhorring their political stances.

[Ken Burch]

64. So that would leave no one in Latin America that you could support at all.

They don't have pure, safe bland little social democrats there. Never have, never will. You've just written off two whole continents.

[Walt Starr]

67. I cannot and will not support communists

If that's what's required for me to be a Democrat, then I guess it's time for me to leave this small tent.

I can't support a Communist any more than I can support a Nazi.

[Ken Burch]

69. Were you ever actually IN this tent?

Sounds like a troll has just outed himself here.

In any case, why should it matter if a group had "communist" roots now that "international communism" no longer exists and will never exist again?

[Walt Starr]

70. Ahhhh ad hominems, the demonstration of a lack of an argument

Calling me a troll on DU is pretty out of line. I've been here since January of 2001.

[Ken Burch]

73. And from what I've read

you've spent most of that time bashing everyone. You don't have a positive, progressive message, which is what DU is supposed to be about. All you seem to do is exhume McCarthy. There's no reason to whine about "communism" now. Communism NO LONGER EXISTS. And it's not coming back no matter what.

All "anticommunism" was ever about was silencing people who support peace, social justice and worker's rights. It was never about ending Stalinism, which it didn't actually succeed in ending. Stalinism died of its own dead weight.

[Walt Starr]

75. Hmmm, so you've been here for four and a half years

and read more than 25,000 posts made by me.

:eyes:

And yes, communism exists. It exists in Cuba, China, and Vietnam. All three are regimes supported by the Socialism and Liberation Party. A party which advocates revolutionary Marxism.

That is the very definition of Communism, naivete on DU notwithstanding.

[mcg]

91. Yes, and Castro is a tyrant.

You don't see people fleeing Florida, risking their lives to escape to Cuba, you do? No, it's the other way around. Hmmmmm.

The extreme left and the extreme right, what's the difference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro
Wikipedia - Fidel Castro

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/
CUBA'S REPRESSIVE MACHINERY

[Ken Burch]

103. So you want us to put the reactionaries in Miami back in the saddle?

Those are the people whose arrogance and corruption CAUSED the Cuban Revolution in the first place, and we can assume that they'll be exactly as bad if they get power again. Right-wing exiles are always a dead loss.

For myself, I think Cuba needs democratic socialism(genuine democracy combined with genuine worker-controlled socialism)but we can assume that neither the Republicans nor the DLC Democrats will ever allow that.

[mcg]

107. Did I say that? No, I don't want that, it's not one or the other.

I'm not for the U.S. supporting corrupt regimes, which has screwed things up in Cuba, Vietnam, and other countries like Iran. But that's no reason to support Castro and the like.

I don't think all the people who fled Cuba are reactionaries.

I'm all for worker-owned companies and strong unions, but I think capitalism that is regulated works well. There is nothing evil about capitalism per se, it's the abuse of it that's a problem. The fact is, socialism is also easily abused.

[Ken Burch]

109. agreed that both capitalism AND socialism are easily abused.

The point to remember here is, if the Miami people go back, they will just do everything exactly like in the old days. Everything the Cuban people gained(and, with the abuses, they did gain a lot)will be lost. Mere bourgeois democracy and a free-in-name press won't make up for that.

[mcg]

115. The Cubans would be better off with democracy and freedom of the press,

which they don't have now.

What do they have now? A dictatorship.

Again, this is not an either-or situation.

[Ken Burch]

117. Fine. I'd like them to have those things

The Miami exiles wouldn't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

132. So would Americans.

We have "freedom of the press" - owned, operated, and controlled by capitalists.

We have "democracy" - bought and paid for by capitalists. AKA - an Oligarchy.

[mcg]

76. Good, as a Democrat, me neither.

Communists are NOT Democrats.

Communism sucks big time.

[stickdog]

127. You can't be serious, Walt.

Yes, ANSWER's stridency and lack of political acumen fucks things up about as much as much as its organizational skills, perseverance and energy help.

But your suggestion that communists can't be respected is absurd. I mean, early Christians were fucking commies. Native Americans were commies. Wonderful functioning cooperative societies have existed thoughout history and still exist to this day. Communism is merely an economic system of social organization. It's no closer to totalitarianism than capitalism is. Sure, there are reasons to prefer capitalism to communism, but are you really saying that you find it impossible to politically respect ANYONE who values greed and personal property rights less than you do?

[Ken Burch]

66. He's right. If there'd been no Communists, Hitler would've taken over

the entire world with no real resistance.

Of course, if there hadn't been Stalin, the anti-fascist forces would have been united.

[mcg]

83. Why do you claim that?

I'm not sure what you're saying, you statements seem to be contradictory.

Do you really think that if Russia wasn't Communist that they wouldn't have fought the Germans? The Russians fought mainly for Russia, their homeland. They fought Napoleon didn't they? It's hard to say what would have happened. I think the Russians would have fought just as hard. I give the credit to the Russian people, not Stalin. Stalin was a mass murderer would killed millions of his own people. Lenin was also a mass murderer.

I worked with someone from Hong Kong. He told me he saw bodies floating down the river regularly.

Communism is evil. As one Russian woman said, "Stalin destroyed socialism." The idea of a worker's paradise is a lure, a con, used by Communists. Socialism and socialism are two very different things.

[Ken Burch]

93. My point is, if progressives allow themselves to be forced

into being obsessively "anticommunist" in an age when communism is extinct, it will inevitably result in progressives ceasing to be progressive.

What those who are ranting about A.N.S.W.E.R. are calling for us to do is to become paranoid and ludicrously restrictive about who can and can't be involved in contemporary politics.

And don't get me wrong, I despise Stalinism as much as anyone. "Anti-Communist" socialism, as opposed to "non-Stalinist" or "independent" socialism" always stops BEING socialism.

We don't need to revive the Congress for Cultural Freedom.

[mcg]

105. ANSWER has a pro-Castro group in its ranks.

No, Communism is not extinct. There is still Communism in Cuba, China, and Vietnam (although it is waning in China and Vietnam).

Why doesn't ANSWER come out against the lack of human rights in Cuba?
The fact is, some of their organizations are Communist.

I'm not 'obsessively' anti-Communist, I don't think about it all the time, I'm just against Communism. I'm not for dog-eat-dog Capitalism run amok either, but I am for capitalism.

I am also for higher taxes, social programs, and strong unions. But all that is quite different than the state owning industry and it's quite different than the Socialism and Communism the far leftists are advocating.

I'm not saying ANSWER can't be involved in politics, I just don't want to be allied with them, and I don't appreciate their bait-and-switch tactics.

I'm also beginning to wonder about UFPJ.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

131. The Democratic Party has pro-war politicians in it.

Do you attend their rallies? Donate to them? Vote for their candidates?

[Beelzebud]

133. Was this set up as a Pro-Communism rally?

If it was you wouldn't have gotten a fraction of the people to turn out.

A Pro-Communist rally would get fewer people that a pro-George Bush rally.

[Ken Burch]

56. I hold with the old song that says

"You ain't done nothin' if you ain't been called a RED".

Groups that no one has ever accused of communism are generally groups that have never done anything progressive at all.


Enough "Exhuming McCarthy" already!

[Walt Starr]

57. Like it or not, a founding organization of ANSWEr is a COMMUNIST group

It's a fact. Don;t like it, I'm sorry, but it remains a fact.

[Ken Burch]

59. Does it matter as much who founded them as where they're going now?

Clearly, in their speeches, they weren't a Stalinist group any longer.

As progressives, we are supposed to believe that people can change and transcend their past limitations.

If we get back into blacklisting and proscribed groups, all we end up doing is weakening ourselves.

Besides, it was mainly due to A.N.S.W.E.R. that the march wasn't lily white. There were few "anticommunist" rainbow groupings out there.

Get out of the Fifties already.

[Walt Starr]

60. Sorry, if ANSWER is for it

I must oppose it.

I do not support the war, but I cannot support a rally put on by ANSWER.

[Ken Burch]

62. Than you aren't really interested in stopping the war.

And finally, the other main sponsor of the march, United for Peace and Justice, has roots in the CPUSA. So if we follow the "no Reds no matter what" strategy here, we wouldn't have had a march at all.
Which would have to have been worse.

[Ken Burch]

63. Why not try a positive approach here?

start a dialogue with A.N.S.W.E.R. about what you think is good and bad in their approach and try to reach out to them. They aren't going to go away just because some of us get finicky, so we need to find some way of dealing with them.

[Walt Starr]

65. Then I cannot support these marches

Sorry, I will have no shrift with Communism. None. Nothing ends my participation faster.

[HamdenRice]

19. Excellent OP -- some thoughts on leadership

I confess I am one of those tv watching, armchair, keyboard critics, at least this weekend.

I was horrified at the little bit of the ANSWER speeches I saw and followed some of the DU debates yesterday intermittently.

Yet I also believe Consarliars has it exactly right: namely that Answer and UPJ are pretty much the only organizations with the experience and infrastructure at this time to organize a massive demonstration. You can criticize them for their off-message message all you like but frankly, if it were not for them, there would not have been the demo in DC nor for that matter many other demos in the last 5 years, while the rest of society basically rolled over for this criminal administration.

Here's why. I think there are a surpising number of parallels to what happened in the 1930s-1960s occurring right now. Answer and UPJ are a lot like the old communist party. In the 1920s, really no one was opposing rampant capitalism, imperialism, and segregation, except for the most radical elements of society, namely the communists and socialists. During the big sleep of the complacent 401K Clinton era, very few people were interested in radical analysis of society, except groups like Answer and UPJ.

As in the past, suddenly there is this massive influx of ordinary liberal people with no infrastructure for "extra-Parliamentary politics" (as they used to call in in South Africa) -- ie politics of demonstrations, outside of government -- except for the pre-existing radical networks. The big question is whether the massive influx of people can infuse the movement, while gently absorbing the radical core.

Moreover, the core is indeed Trotskyite/Communist. They are obviously not linked to the neocons as one poster suggested, but they share a tactic which is very effective. Communists and former communists believe in very strong organizational discipline. They agree before hand to vote in blocks and once they are in a position near the center of control of an organization, they can pretty much do what they want -- whether its the communists in the ANC, the trotskyites now in control of the Pentagon or the core of Answer. It's not ideological; it's just a tactic. Anyone can use it. But that same disclipline causes the core group to splinter over major votes. It's the very fact that they put such a high premium on discipline that any time people vote their conscience over genuine disagreement, the core group tends to split.

Now on leadership. Yesterday made me think of two movements in the 1960s -- the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement. The civil rights movement had better leadership, in the form of MLK, Rev. Abernathy, and even conservatives like Roy Wilkins.

Before the 1950s, much of the radical core that actually believed protesting segregation was feasible was labor/socialist. The NAACP, however, quietly built a massive, middle and working class membership organization, built on existing AFrican American community structures, like churches, fraternal organizations, etc. One of the untold stories of the movement's leadership in that transformation was when people like MLK were able to continue to use a "known homosexual" and socialist organizer like Bayard Rustin -- one of the greatest organizers of all time -- and gently pursuade him to move behind the scenes, because middle class black dentists from Atlanta and Baptist ministers from Tulsa, were not going to join a movement led by a black gay communist, no matter how great that person was. MLK was relentlessly "on-message" -- namely desgregation, voting rights, and an end to white mob violence.

By contrast, in the 1960s, the anti-war movement was largely a youth movement because young people were threatened with the draft or had experienced the horror of the war in Vietnam. It was happening at the same time as a cultural youth movement, so its leaders looked nothing like the average American. In 1968 the anti-war movement was at its peak and a majority of Americans turned against the war, but the radical core could not absorb housewives from Buffalo or accountants from Phoenix as long as it was led by hippies preaching, in addition, to the end of the war, free love, drugs, levitating the Pentagon, etc.

Yesterday, I saw a lot of kids, acting out their fantasies of the hippie era, without much concern about how the imnages they created played in suburban Philadelphia.

The civil rights movement led to passage of the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, desegregation, etc. The Vietnam War continued after 1968 for another 4 years, ending solely through elite action at the level of Nixon and Kissinger.

That's the challenge the anti-war and anti-bush movement faces now. I have followed Answer and UPJ in NYC for some time. Their infrastructure isn't just their organizing ability, but also Pacifica Radio network (and I hope all of you occasionally turn off AAR and listen Pacifica, for insight into this movement, which has been building through five or so radio stations across the country, for decades, without Al Franken's dead air).

I do think that the anti-war movement has thrown up a natural leader: Cindy Sheehan. She looks like anyone's suburban Mom, just as MLK looked like your friendly neighborhood black preacher. What could be more harmless or more morally centered in either case?

And Cindy is relentlessly on message: What is this war for? Because the honest answer to that question is so horrible and so profound, that no government could survive it being given and understood to the American people.

In South Africa, in the 1980s, while many of the leaders of the ANC were in prison or in exile, the movement gave some of its greatest deference to two women, who were universally called "mother of the nation." Neither, incidentally, was Winnie Mandela.

Albertina "Ma" Sisulu was a nurse who lived a modest life in Soweto, while her husband Walter was in prison. Going about on foot, she delivered babies as a midwife, and carried out public health projects. She was repeatedly banned, forbidden from attending meetings and from time to time imprisoned herself. She could barele afford to feed her family. But younger leaders from all over the country would come to her for advice and guidance, and she was elected to leadership positions of the ANC when it finally was unbanned in the 1990s.

The other was Helen Joseph, a modest middle class white woman. She had helped organize the women's anti-pass movement of the 1950s, after which she was banned (not allowed to hold or attend meetings) until the late 1980s. With her husband, labor organizer Solly Sachs, she raised the children of several of the imprisoned or exiled leaders, including two of Nelson Mandela's children and one of Bram Fischer's children. She continued to write and meet with the younger generation of activists despite her banning, including the tactic of meeting with them single file at the door to her suburban home, to which she was banned.

What they had in common is one of Cindy Sheehan's qualities -- the ability to relentlessly focus on the one or two issues that can bring whole governments down. And they did so in the most harmless and conventional of personas -- ordinary Mom -- which dramatized that it was the truth of their message rather than the unconventionality or radicalness of their character, that was at issue.

I think we have a leader. Now if we can only get her into position in the infrastructre.

[The Magistrate]

24. An Excellent Piece, Mr. Rice

My hat is off to you, Sir!

[electropop]

28. I agree! Cindy is not a pro, but she makes a direct connection.

She speaks plainly and looks like the people we need to bring in. She has obviously attracted a lot of attention to the movement, more than even the mass protest yesterday.

[Jose Diablo]

36. Yep, Cindy is perfect 'June Cleaver'

A perfect anchor/centerpiece for the anti-war movement. Make no mistake, when June says the war is over, it will be over.

As for ANSWER, the OP is right on the money, somebody has to make sure the porta potties are in place. To make large demonstrations happen requires a lot of organizational ability and it seems to me nobody else jumped in and did the legwork. They may be 'dirty pinko commies', but so what? In the end they should be given a hats off for their efforts. If their political views are not palatable for the evolving center of the movement, then someone else will step-in and inherit the organizational ability of ANSWER.

[BrklynLiberal]

43. Thank you for a wonderful post.

[1932]

48. That is an excellent historical and tactical argument.

[barbtries]

32. beautifully put

i was in LA yesterday and could see that not every sentiment expressed in every sign sat easy within myself. but there was no where else for me to go and protest the war, and clamor for the end of the bush administration sooner rather than later. i could and would and with my good friend glory at some time probably will argue that some of the speechifying was not directed to the cause of peace and was not expressed in loving language. my politics lean further and further to the left and i could see that to some of the people demonstrating yesterday i'm a right leaning moderate. but i'll tell you something else. there was a chant, i can't recall the exact words, but the responding line was "the occupation has to go," and the people, not the person leading the chant, changed that to "george bush has got to go," and the enthusiasm grew. one does not need to be a socialist to see how wrong this administration is on just about every level imaginable.

[Podface]

33. Hey symbolman - I Agree - They lose there turn

Thanks for saying what needed to be said. I am embarrassed by this shit, but the bigger problem is no one seems able to step up to the plate and get something that is unified, on message, and will appeal to young people.

I believe the reason this event was a failure media wise, with little coverage on the Tee Vee, and with major newspapers is the pathetic, unfocused, blather that came from the stage. The reporters new it was going to happen and they backed off.

The politicians that would have backed this event stayed clear because of it's unfocused nature. It was a wasted fucking event that belittled the efforts of all that want to hold Bush to task.

I'm not saying the 150,000+ were all wasting their time. I'm saying if you want to make change you can't preach to the converted. A clear message is needed. I for one was under the illusion that was going to happen.

The fucking idiots that blew this opportunity should be relegated to protesting fur use in front of Macy's. YOU SELFISH PRICKS!

This was an amazing opportunity to ride the increased feeling of disgust that Americans have for bush's domestic neglect and disgusting war.

[symbolman]

37. Thanks!

You're right, time to upgrade to Protest V.2006, hit the fast forward button as it were.. I want to see something like Paul McCartney in Red Square, now THAT was some CHANGE..

If we want to beat the new Nixon, we're gonna need some new Beatles, heck, we could even get a DU Band together and do a set, hell I know EarlG plays bass and I can have rocked a few folks out before (actually had people dancing on bars myself one night but I didn't really know where I was and it was a borrowed guitar so I think I could have done better :) )

I agree with all those here that agree with me, so be it.. as for you Pod, we're gonna need you when the HUMANS take over :)

I get some of my work off my plate I'm going to see if I can get some kick show going and promote a "Kick Bush in the Balls while He's Down (for Peace) Protest" - charge the white house with Whiffle Bats, and then complain of Police Brutality later :) "Honestly Judge, WHO were we going to hurt with Whiffle Bats?"

We need ideas, too many stale ones floating around..

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Wel also need new music

and new presentation... we need to show a certain image that will not be threatening to Joe and jane six pack... and we need to speak the truth, with simgle laser beamed focused way

[Podface]

90. I'm in.

I can contribute to a focused message.

Let me know.

[BrklynLiberal]

42. Isn't it the Repuke strategy to step on all opinions that don't follow

EXACTLY the accepted party line? I thought we were different from them? I thought we were supposed to be the inclusive party..the party that allowed freedom and tolerance of all beliefs? I thought we were the people who were supposed to make alliances and negotiate to find common ground for all who wanted to achieve common goals.

I thought it was the Neocons and PNAC who were the ones who said "STICK TO THE PARTY LINE OR GET OUT!!" Wasn't Arlen Spector handed his balls in a purse for daring to step out of line?

Since when are we the ones who don't allow a broad spectrum of beliefs on our side.
I always thought a phrase like "diluting the message" belonged the THEM, not US.

I thought we were supposed to stand up and speak out for freedom and liberty for ALL, not just the expedient kind that plays well to the media.

[KittyWampus]

45. It's A "Repuke" Strategy To Get Racists & Fundies To Vote For A Party

that doesn't really give a shit about them.

ANSWER doesn't give a shit about any of the laudry list of issues they give the mike over to.

They only give a crap about their own agenda which is establishing an elite, one party system which would be replete with similar cronyism to what we have now.

[tlsmith1963]

119. Agreed! :)

The neocons & ANSWER are two sides of the same coin. Don't need 'em.

Tammy

[Cookie wookie]

49. Fighting for the right of all Americans to free speech

and equal justice is a far cry from "accepting" the ties that are made between the mainstream anti-Iraq war movement and the leftist, fringe anti-American organization, International ANSWER. That group is the stereotype for everything the Iraq war supporters accuse the antiwar movement of. Rove couldn't have created anything so perfectly designed to discredit and demoralize the mainstream antiwar movement, an effort with as much destructive force..

And why is it that this little radical fringe group, that has been surveiled by the government, is able to come up with all the funding and the permits to be front and center, the literal face (thanks to CSPAN's continued coverage), of every single anti-Iraq war march/rally? The setup yesterday cost big money. Where did it come from? And why, with all the "free speech zones" etc, is a group that has a slogan "by any means possible" given such a green light by authorities?

[mcg]

99. It's quite a setup, isn't it?

And of course, at the freeper counter-rally they had a huge banner about the bogeyman, ANSWER, pointing out the founder (or one of the founder?) was a Commie. Which, unfortunately, is apparently true. It plays right into the hands of the right-wing. Then they can claim the false generalization that all protesters are a bunch of Commies.

The fact was, though, that the vast majority of the protester were simply there to protest against the war and Bush and are not at all Communists.

We need to kick the Commies out. I am not their ally anymore than I'm an ally of Bush.

[Baconfoot]

61. Who put the Free Mumia into my bag of M&Ms?

It's not "stepping" on "Free Mumia" to gather together for something else

Can you imagine a conversation about whether it is "stepping" on miniM&Ms toes to air commercials advertising the new giant M&Ms without mentioning miniM&Ms in every ad. Nope.

Before we ask the question of whether A.N.S.W.E.R'S. complete agenda is something we want to endorse, we need to ask how can we advance this one piece of its agenda we certainly endorse - being against the war? You don't sell giant M&Ms by advertising miniM&Ms. You will sell LESS giant M&Ms if you are always bundling your giant M&M message along with messages about other M&Ms. Always keep in mind that the goal is to sell M&Ms! A.N.S.W.E.R.'s method is horribly horribly flawed.

But then we DO have to ask... is A.N.S.W.E.R. really selling M&Ms at all? There are two parts to this question - one is are they a counter M&M group in disguise? Let's table that for the moment. The second is, perhaps they are selling something else which some of the customers don't think should people should buy - something people don't SEE as an M&M product. And there the answer is yes. When you open A.N.S.W.E.R.'s bag of M&Ms along with big M&Ms you see "Free Mumia" along with dozens of other little M&Ms.


What I want to know is who put the Free Mumia into my M&Ms?

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. When answer does not take the mike away

from people then we might be able to talk

[omega minimo]

47. Thank you

:patriot:

[Emit]

51. Thank you. I was more concerned with CSPAN's lack of

coverage of the entire event than of ANSWER in particular. I had hoped that after CSPAN covered the ANSWER rally, they would then take to the streets and cover the rest of the huge crowd, like they did at the RNC last year in NYC. Instead, they cut straight to Bush's Sat am radio address and ignored the hundreds of thousands of Americans in the streets of DC.

[symbolman]

92. And that happens EVERY time

Like Clockwork.. I asked my wife yesterday, "Which ANSWER anti-war CSPAN event are we watching? Cos this looks just like every single one I've ever seen.."

NOTHING HAS CHANGED, and CSPAN will DO that every time..

I want some PIZZAZZ, FOCUS on OUSTING BUSH -- if you went to a concert and expected to see Led Zepplin and instead they Played a Led Zepplin movie and then brought out a bunch of folk dancers from all over the planet would you STAY?

Woudn't you demand your money back? Sure the auditorium would be packed but that wasn't because they came to see a bunch of folk dancers, and they sure as hell didn't see Led Zepplin..

ANSWER is associated with Commies, FOX is associated with Bullshit and that's just the way it is..

I know, maybe the Back Street Boys, or Justin Timberlake in front of the White House - THEN the crowd will come out..

Personally I'd like to see Dylan singing "Only a Pawn in their game" - always thought he was much more of a genius and musician than Joan B..

BUt I don't want to upset Ken by unearthing dead people so he can mock me, I can't take the anguish, his intelligence is too awesome for even me. His Powers are beyond my conprehension.

But I know how to have a good time, and in the end, that's what people want. That is what sells, it's why the media RULES us just as much as BushCO.

[tlsmith1963]

120. Yes, & You *Know* What O'Reilly Will Talk About Tomorrow

Since C-SPAN only wanted to air ANSWER's stupid rally, & not anything else, you know O'Reilly's going to show clips of them on his show tomorrow, saying "Look at those crazy liberals!" ANSWER doesn't represent me, & I resent the Right-wingers always trying to lump people like me in with them. Not all liberals have paranoid "revolutionary" fantasies.

Tammy

[loudsue]

96. It was NOT answer that got all those people there: It was the blogs.

The blogs and word of mouth and Cindy Sheehan's experience in Crawford is what has brought people together for the September 24th march. Hell! There were even REPUBLICANS there protesting the war and the GOP mess!!! You think ANSWER is what brought them there? Not a chance!!!

But could it be ANSWER who might have turned them OFF?? You betcha. Those folks prolly wouldn't bother attending in the future.

I think Symbolman is absolutely correct about wanting to make some "commercially appealing" protests together, with speakers who can absolutely kick some ass on a stage. We need speakers who will stir the souls of every person there, no matter what their past or present political leaning; speakers who will stir people with the irrefutable TRUTH, and a clarity that will send lazer specific messages right to the heart of the problems. Cindy is a prime example. In fact, there were some speakers there that did a great job, and meet this criteria, but their messages were, in effect, marginalized in their effectiveness, because of the boring/unfocused/radical ANSWER company they kept.

Great speakers exist on our side exist! And they can be presented in a way that will bring people together in their hope-building, consensus-building message. People need to be educated by dynamic and inspiring speakers, not be dronned to sleep by messages/poems they can't relate to easily.

:kick::kick::kick:

[ConsAreLiars]

104. You missed reading the part of my (too lengthy) post

where I criticized those who try to denounce the event and/or discourage participation because of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s role.

To repeat:

"It is being exaggerated because the demonstration numbered hundreds of thousands of people who participated simply because they thought it was the right thing to do, not because of their affiliation with or endorsement of A.N.S.W.E.R., and most probably without much particular interest in the A.N.S.W.E.R. member groups' particular views on anything.... It is exaggerated because participation in the march was largely organized by other groups, most notably United for Peace and Justice on the national level, but also by purely grassroots peace and justice organizations around the country, and simply through individual responses to information on talk shows or net or other loose affiliations with the broader progressive and peace movement. Virtually everyone to the left of the DLC endorsed the march, and reducing it to an A.N.S.W.E.R. event is an insult to all of us who chose to participate in DC or locally." (fixed a couple of typos)

You, and Symbolman and others make good points about how such rallies might be made more effective, but it is "all pie in the sky" speculation unless we are able to transform the "virtual" network that is forming via the net into one capable of actually handling the massive logistical and political work involved.

How that might happen is unclear to me. MoveOn had some success during the Kerry campaign by bringing people together by coordinating volunteers for Kerry, and the Dean campaign before that, but to my knowledge none of these efforts were able, or even intended, to build a real organization on the ground. Without a tightly organized network of activists (or a broader coalition of cooperating organizations like UPJ) able to spend a half-year working to make an event like 9/24 possible, rallies like this, or like any other mass event one might wish for, simply do not happen.

[izzybeans]

106. I still haven't seen a valid critique of ANSWER at least one that didn't

resort to RED Scare reactionary irrationalisms. Why don't we black list half of the anti-war movement or send them to the "reeducation" camp for capitalist progressives. "Oh now the Freepers are gonna think we're all commies. Boo fucking hoo." :sarcasm:

Diluted message smessage. It's about people united in the streets. I saw a whole lot of that. The message was clear. If someone thinks yesterday was a bad thing and wants to tear it apart you've got your head up your ass (or they are here for reasons not so honest, otherwise pull it out and clean off your pupils), with all sincerity. Divide the movement, defeat it.

[tlsmith1963]

118. I Think They are as Bad as the Neocons...

...so I am not siding with the neocons against them & doing "red" baiting. I'm sick of *all* the radicals these days, whether they are left or right. I think they are preventing us from getting Bush & the neocons out of power. They just waste my time.

Tammy

[izzybeans]

123. And how is that? nt

[mcg]

124. We don't need to ally with Communists.

We can organize our own protests, and we should.

Communists are not half of the anti-war movement, there are very few Communists in the U.S. We don't need their 'support', they do more harm than good.

This is an important issue, the freepers make a big deal of ANSWER's involvement, and ANSWER's involvement influences people who are not freepers. We need to influence people in the *middle* of the political spectrum, that's how we are going to win elections. We are not going to get the support of middle America by allying with Communists. But ANSWER doesn't seem to care about actually winning elections. Winning elections is the real deal.

This "RED Scare reactionary irrationalisms" wording is bullshit. McCarthyism went after people who weren't even Communists. All I'm saying is that I don't want to be allies with Communists or people who support Communists, and not just because of how it looks. One reason I'm against Bush is because he is against true democracy in the U.S., so why should I ally myself with people who are against democracy?

[izzybeans]

125. This paragraph tells me my bullshit was square on

This "RED Scare reactionary irrationalisms" wording is bullshit. McCarthyism went after people who weren't even Communists. All I'm saying is that I don't want to be allies with Communists or people who support Communists, and not just because of how it looks. One reason I'm against Bush is because he is against true democracy in the U.S., so why should I ally myself with people who are against democracy?

I'm utterly speechless.

[MADem]

130. Here, I will give you one

99 and 9/10ths percent of the people on that mall were there to protest the WAR. NOT to protest other issues.

The ANSWER people insisted on giving equal time to issues that, frankly, many people DO NOT GIVE ONE SHIT ABOUT. They slowed the pace of the day, prevented people from marching in a timely manner, and caused many to miss the concert, which was the high point after the march.

All politics is local, and the local issue that rules the day is the war...not getting a few hundred special ops troops out of the Phillipines, and what a dreadful witch Arroyo is (that speaker must have been too young to remember the massive numbers of troops stationed at SUBIC BAY, CUBI PT, Angeles, and elesewhere, to say nothing of the lovely environment under Ferdinand Marcos).

ANSWER tried to dilute the punch. The only reason they didn't is because people said fuck 'em, and started marching anyway.

And frankly, this gripe is the one I have heard most frequently, not the red scare nonsense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. Yep that is the gripe, they diluted the message

I coudl care less if they read Marx and Engels, hell I read Marx and Engels too and find them fascinating....



It is they diluted the march

[reprehensor]

128. Would the Dem pol capable of drawing 100,000's of people to an Antiwar...

...rally please step up?

Please take the lead.

People are literally dying to see it happen.

Meanwhile, congratulations to everyone who took part in the
BIGGEST ANTIWAR RALLY IN THE U.S. SINCE VIETNAM.

[Ignoramus]

139. "Commies"/Communism

Bigotry is reducing people to a label. Every post that I've read in this thread that expresses dislike of the communist element in the leadership of ANSWER, expresses bigotry, not an argument against communism.

Was the theme of the demonstration support for "communism"? No. There were people there who call themselves communists, and so people in this thread are expressing their bigotry, in saying they will not participate with people who they have labeled communists.

This is identical to the right-wing attacking "libruls". It is reactionary and distincly not liberal.

[Ignoramus]

140. Racism

This thread depresses me more. To all of the people posting about how people shouldn't talk about anti-arab racism because it's a distraction, how would you react to someone complaining that someone brought up racism toward blacks at a demonstration, because the american public doesn't really care about it?

I think many of ANSWERs slogans are tired, and the fact that they haven't changed suggests to me that it's not easy to change such things in ANSWER. The main problem though is the elitist white racist democrats who put their bigotry before the plight of the people who are suffering from fascism, and won't unite to create massive demonstrations.