But his points in the email generally are right on.
And by the way, I don't believe Sarandon and Robbins are clueless about the WWP/IAC role. They have been around the progressive movement too long to be clueless, but they no doubt maintain plausible deniability for just such moments.
And I agree with Max that the more critical debate in not generally in the pages of magazines but within organizations deciding whether to endorse or not endorse WWP-led actions and working to encourage alternative coalitions. I've had a bit of miserable failure within the Guild, but that is because a few too many people in key leadership positions there share chunks of the WWP ideology, much to my distress. And the fact that myself and others, especially some younger activists, are somewhat disaffected from the Guild is another part of the collateral damage of the whole issue.
-- Nathan Newman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
Chuck0 wrote:
>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?