Nathan Newman wrote:
> Why is it so hard to accept that folks on the left have different
> interpretations of where we are politically, what is takes to get to where
> we want to go, and may have different views on what needs to be done-- yet
> share basic values on which we should be able to align despite those
> differences.
-My basic value is the necessity of a mass movement unhampered by the -DP's performance of its historic function of barring the development of -mass movements. In other words, I argue that the values you state that -you support are unachievable by any means as long as the DP exercise -hegemony over the left.
That may well be true, but that is exactly the kind of tactical disagreement that should not lead to attempts to divide people "in" and "out" of the Left. It may define who you work with on a lot of specific projects, but especially given the reality that most of the folks in mass movements who you should care about by your own statement don't agree with you tactically, it is silly to define that tactical disagreement as defining who you are aligned with on overall goals.
I would never refuse to work with someone on other projects just because of their particular electoral issue -- although I might not directly fund them personally and contribute to their ability to pursue a wrongheaded strategy. For that reason, I have sympathy for those who wanted to stop funding Nader after the election, but none for those who would stop working with Nader groups on particular issues. I think Nader made a collosal mistake but I have no doubt of his motivations.
Those are real distinctions that many on the Left lose track of. And the defections of folks like Hicks are partly due to that.
-- Nathan Newman