----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa & Ian Murray" <seamus at accessone.com>
>wonder how many of them make less than 30K a year. who anointed them
leaders? dc
>is a swamp [max and chuck0 excepted of course] these folks need to tour the
>country more often and LISTEN to people; the east coast would not have done
>"seattle" blah blah blah......
Who anointed them leaders?: The millions of members of their organizations
who elected them to office and continue to fund their efforts.
********
The Campaign for America's future has millions of members?
>>It is so convenient for folks who haven't been elected to dogcatcher to
trash the credentials of those elected to union and other leadership. It's
fine to criticize them, but after a while it becomes an elitist game by
those good with the pen to validate their own right to lead through writing
and talking, since those elected are so obviously illegitimate.
*******
To dismiss criticism as trashing is to ape the right when they try to reduce criticism of the system to whining. I hate dogcatchers, they have no place in democratic society. I've also been elected [and held accountable for other's irresponsibility!] before so I'm no stranger to the myths of "leadership". Writers of the World Unite!; who'd've thought that was the solution? Or are you just reinforcing the "theory is the opiate of the intellectuals" drivel?
There is a clear power game by those whose major activism is media
politics - in whatever its form, leaflet, writing, the Internet - to trash
such substantive political leadership, since it gives such media activists
equal right to speak "for the movement" with those elected by thousands even
millions of folks.
******* Like I said, I've trashed no one. Come down off your cloud. What movement?
I am committed to union democracy, but that is because I am committed to
democracy, which includes respect for the will of that demos as articulated
by its elected leadership. Respect is not the same as mindless parroting,
since constructive opposition is a big part of democratic action, but
mindless questioning of the credentials of such leaders shows a profound
disrespect for democracy itself in the movement.
-- Nathan Newman
*******
Again, what movement are you referring to? Surely not the "leaders" who decided to do China after Seattle. That was sheer stupidity and those who promulgated it as a strategy deserve mega broadsides of criticism from every direction as they cost various groups that were starting to confederate despite their differences much wasted time and resources. By a negative coattail effect they managed to hurt the "credibility" of those who would have made better "leaders". I blame this on the fact that East Coast trustafarians don't get across the Mississippi that often. Those who pushed the China card are not leaders and can't really feel what international means. How many of them have come out in writing [or other media] and simply stated "we were wrong and we are going to take a position similar to that of Michael Douglas' character at the end of Traffic". Or does arrogance mean never having to say you're sorry?
Ian