Fine. But I don't think I was responsible for caricaturing your position. I was simply trying to understand it. You admit below that there were aspects of it that were not clear. So why the defensiveness?
> The organizers of the Boston event included Charles Derber, a professor and
> author of several books. Other organizers spanned a wide age range. I also
> approached Lori Wallach and was brushed off. A number of the people I spoke
> with knew that Spotlight was antisemitic.
>
As a jew, or at least someone who used to get beaten up for being one, I have problems with institutionalized anti-semitism of the sort that the Spotlight represents. I do not have problems, however, with attempting to enter into discussions with anti-semites. In fact, one could make the case (in fact, it has been my experience) that its easier to make converts of those who have bizarre opinions of a reactionary nature (e.g. anti-semitism) as opposed to those with "reasonable" reactionary ideas (e.g. Clintonite liberals.) As I said before, I have no problem with Nader trying to reach the constituency of the reform party. I do have a problem with Nader entering into alliances with the Buchananite wing of the party. Its not obvious from the information you have provided that Nader was attempting the latter rather than the former.
> > the real tactical question here is whether denouncing
> > these groups wholesale and avoiding any contact with them is the most
> > productive strategy if one's real objective is not to make alliances with
> > their leadership, but to reach and begin the slow process of educating
> > their rank and file membership. If progressives simply write off this
> > constituency as hopelessly tainted by "racism, homophobia, antisemitism
> > and sexism" as you seem to be doing, you need to provide some idea of
> > constituencies which progressives might succeed in reaching and
> > mobilizing.
> >
> > Do you, for example, also write off catholics because the church
> > leadership has a history of "racism, homophobia, antisemitism and sexism?"
> > Its not obvious to me that alliances with the catholic church are any less
> > tainted that those with the right wing groups you mention. Any movement
> > which, for whatever reason, writes off catholics, however, pretty much
> > guarantees its own marginalization. In short, what price are you willing
> > to pay for ideological purity?
>
> Where did this idea come from? I have NEVER suggested writing off
> constituencies on the basis of some ideological purity. What I said was
> that it was not appropriate to forge UNCRITICAL alliances that MASKED the
> oppressive tendencies of the coalition partners.
>
What idea? I wasn't presenting an idea, rather making an obvious point. Namely, it is trivial that one budges from a principled ideological stand, i.e. one departs from "ideological purity," only if compelling strategic goals are advanced by having done so. The question is which ones are you willing to budge on or at least not confront one's alliance partners with at that moment and which ones are so fundamental that no flexibility is possible on. This is not a topic which leftists feel comfortable addressing and you show no interest in addressing it here. However, it is avoided only by avoiding alliances altogether and ultimately consigning the movement to the irrelevance in which it finds itself today.
So if one chooses to live in the real world, (as opposed to in Lacania or in Derridania) one confronts situations like the following: Many of those, including myself, who have participated in Plowshares actions or in Zapatista support networks, have had to ask themselves whether they are comfortable with what is in some cases the highly orthodox Catholicism of the leadership of these movements, that of, for example, Phillip Berrigan or Archbishop Ruiz. Many feminists, in particular, would not consider making this sort of alliance. I bring up this point because you seem to assume that these sorts of issues are trivial-that the general principles you articulate having to do with alliances (and which I agree with) are unproblematically applied to real world situations. I don't agree with you that that matters are so simple generally, or in terms of the specifics you mention, which I will return to.
I noticed, by the way, that you failed to answer the direct question about the possibility of entering into alliances with sectors of institutional Catholicism. I'm interested in your answer, specifically-to repeat the point- why an alliance with this particular racist, homophobic, sexist, and repressive institution is any more acceptable than alliances with the far right organizations you mention.
As to your general points: I agree entirely. No alliance should be entered into, as you say, uncritically. However, that doesn't just apply to alliances, it applies to allegiances. One's allegiance to a party, or an individual, or to a doctrine should never be blind or uncritical.
So for example, you are entirely justified in asking
> the Naderites to clarify their relationship to the
> Millikens, and Pat Choate, and the US Business and Industrial Council
etc.?
> How about asking that if Spotlight is passed out a their meetings, that
they
> have a policy of distancing themselves from it? If they insist on
putting
> union busters on their panels, maybe Lori Wallach could mention in some
> polite way that there is a disagreement over the role of unions in our
> society?
Furthermore, should you (or we) not receive a satisfactory response in good time, you and we, are right to be highly suspicious of Nader's good faith.
What you are not justified in assuming is that that Nader's appearance at these forums necessarily indicates a sympathy for the goals articulated by the leadership rather than an attempt to reach and educate the rank and file of these organizations. Finally, you also need to be aware that by simply presenting as fact-wrongly, in my opinion- that Nader is sympathetic to "anti-union, racist, sexist, homophobic, or antisemitic" elements, you are providing still more ammunition not so much to Nader's enemies within the Green party (who have already construed your charges as fact on this list, as you may have noticed) but to the forces within big capital who see Nader as a real threat. (There was some discussion on this point a few weeks back.) Joel Kovel, incidentally, as much as I appreciate much of his work, is not in this category and his "pensees" which have been circulated here give me little reason for hoping that he has the potential of becoming one. As I mentioned a while ago, Nader's potential viability as a candidate is not a reason to overlook his very real faults and the potential that he is treading on dangerous ground, rather it is a reason to keep these in perspective.
To return to your main thread:
>
> What I find intellectually dishonest is the technique of making false
> assumptions about my argument and then flicking them off like some bug on
> your sleeves.
>
In what sense is any of what I have written "making false assumptions" rather than simply attempting to understand your positions and examining some of them critically? Your defensiveness on this point and on others, your interpreting honest questions as personal attacks, and your utter lack of a sense of humor, is unfortunately all too typical of the left. Is it any wonder, as George Orwell once asked, why everyone hates us so?
In solidarity,
John