>CB: There's nothing wrong in the least with peace activists heaping abuse
on supporters of the >war.
First I oppose the war in Afghanistan, but even if I supported it, trashing the 95% of people supporting the war is not a very good approach to coverting them to your side. That's my point in criticizing the strategy of the antiwar movement-- in both the Gulf War, the movement has seen its support fall with its mobilization, not very good sign of good strategy.
>You try to avoid the obvious point I make , but you can't avoid it. You
are not a trustworthy >advisor on how to organize the anti-war movement if
you are not definitely against the war. >Your credentials on the substantive
question of war vs. peace are shaky, and so they >undermine your
credibility in advising how to organize the anti-war movement.
But my credentials as a "swing voter" on the issue are impeccable-- if you can't convince me, you aren't going to convince those firmly supporting the war. The idea that only the blind true believers have useful advice for movements is exactly what's wrong with the antiwar movement.
>CB: You are not holier than us, nor more democratic. You are the artificially righteous one in >this discussion. You are full of what's wrong with the peace movement. Well, you can be >criticized just like you criticize.
"Fifth columnist" is not criticism-- it's accusations of bad faith. And I don't care about the criticism of myself personally; I'm just noting that it is representative of exactly the failures of strategy that have led to the dismal results of antiwar organizing.
Nathan Newman