>I'd like to know what David Corn thought he was accomplishing by
>appearing on that show.
Here's his response. I suppose I'm violating etiquette by sharing it, but there doesn't seem to be anything terribly personal in it, and I'm not very troubled by my indiscretion.
Doug
----
>Thanks for writing. Since when is the truth bad for the peace movement? I
>wrote what I did. O'Reilly would have used the piece with or without me. I
>went on the show knowing that he would try to taint the whole movement with
>the WWP. I clearly stated that those who attend the WWP rallies do not
>realize the WWP is the lead organizer and do not share the views of the WWP.
>And I said--as I argued in my article--that I believed the WWP's influence
>and involvement is going to be an obstacle to the growth of an antiwar
>movement. Rallies that include taped addresses from convicted cop-killers
>like H. Rap Brown--whatever the reason--are not going to lead to a broad
>movement. I noted that I did not believe that the attendees were dupes, but
>that both organizers and the protesters were using one another.
>
>What is your standard? Should the leadership of a movement not be
>scrutinized? Should the way the leaders affect the agenda/message of a
>demonstration not be examined? Should people who believe Kim Jong-Il,
>Slobodan Milosevic, and Saddam Hussein are champions of the working-class and
>enemies of US imperialism who deserve solidarity not be challenged simply
>because you agree with them on the issue of war? Is the enemy of the enemy
>(in this case, the Bush Administration and various warmongers) always an ally
>who warrants full embrace? Are you suggesting that all progressive
>journalists engage in a conspiracy of silence and not write about the role
>of, as you put it, "a weird Stalinist cult"? Here's a what-if for you.
>Suppose white supremacists organized an anti-WTO rally via a front group--and
>that rally focused on globalization, not racial matters--would you encourage
>people to attend? Would you say that The Nation, the LA Weekly, or The
>Washington Post should not probe the people doing the organizing? Heck, if
>Pat Buchanan called an anti-Nafta rally, don't you think journalists should
>explore why he was doing so and what differences existed between him and
>other anti-Nafta forces? And how he was shaping the message of the
>anti-corporate trade resistance? Don't you think a progressive might raise
>concerns that an anti-Nafta movement led by Buchanan would end up with an
>ill-chosen, jingoistic, sovereignty-uber-alles message that could be
>self-defeating for progressives? Do we only care about the truth when it
>works to our immediate political advantage? Do we believe it is wise to hide
>differences and problems?
>
>What's wrong with telling the people who is in charge and letting them decide
>whether that matters to them? You can argue that this gives ammunition to the
>other side, but--guess what?--the ammunition already exists. And when the
>other side needs to use it, believe me, they will find it on their own. At
>this stage in the game, they have no reason to be worried about the antiwar
>movement and, thus, no pressing reason to discredit it. But, if we're lucky,
>such a day might come. So you want to think tactically? Let's be tactical. It
>is better to have this discussion first on our terms and to encourage the
>develop of a movement that has a broader message and is less encumbered with
>fringe issues than to turn our heads now and later see a WWP-led movement
>make strategic errors or be discredited by Fox News Channel, at a time
>when--I hope--more people are marching and more people are watching. But
>tactical considerations aside, I return--naively, as you might put it--to a s
>imple premise: why evade the truth? Citizens, be they voters or
>demonstrators, deserve to know the truth about their leaders. If the WWP role
>in the antiwar movement is problematic--and you may not believe it is--than
>how does one justify not confronting it in public?