Where there is no right, legal or moral, there is no fundamental violation, or at least that's the way liberalism goes. Michael Lerner, Michael Berube, and Marc Cooper know the political rhetoric of liberalism very well, and that is why they demagogically put it that Rabbi Lerner was "banned" (e.g., "Rabbi Michael Lerner has been banned from speaking at the antiwar rally in San Francisco this Sunday, February 16," <http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-09.htm>), implying that his right and freedom to speak was violated, instead of accurately saying that the good Rabbi was not "invited." The American Heritage Dictionary gives the primary meaning of the verb "to ban" thus: "1. To prohibit, especially by official decree." Now, that's sinister, repressive, and authoritarian! All lovers of liberty would feel they ought to protest a "ban"; much fewer would protest a mere lack of invitation to a man of _an outsize ego_ to speak from a podium, much less agreeing with him that there is "anti-Semitism among some of the march's organizers" (as charged in the Lerner/Tikkun statement included in the initial letter of protest-organizing).
At 5:51 AM -0500 2/12/03, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>This was the first big chance for a non-ANSWER rally. I thought it
>was mainly a UFP&J affair. If ANSWER wants to endorse fine. But
>the point of a separate coalition is separate politics. It is
>reasonable to ask speakers not to dwell on the shortcomings of
>coalition members. It is stupid for UFP to indulge ANSWER.
A reasonable opinion, but that is a complaint that should be brought to the San Francisco branch of UFP&J, not to ANSWER. In contrast, the initial protest letter and the statement posted at <http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-09.htm> complain of ANSWER.
If you would like to influence UFP&J (or especially its SF branch) as to how you think it should relate to ANSWER (e.g., organize a rally on its own, with a list of speakers different from an ANSWER list), a sensible course of action would be to write to UFP&J organizers (e.g., Andrea Buffa <andrea at globalexchange.org>), telling them that you will not donate any more money to the coalition if it is to become just an appendage of ANSWER.
That said, there have and will most likely be events organized by coalitions of coalitions. Whose ideas will become hegemonic in the Gramscian sense in such coalitions of coalitions, as well as the anti-war movement in general? I bet that a blend of ANSWER's and NION's -- rather than WWP's or UFP&J's -- will set the tone. Why? WWP's undiluted Marxist ideas won't make it, as everyone here (including Lou Paulsen) knows. ANSWER/NION's message, however, is clearer, simpler, and more coherent than UFP&J's. Assorted liberals that make up UFP&J, when it comes to the affairs of the empire, are a fickle bunch, as they have _no political principle that binds them all_ regarding imperialism. Today's liberals' approaches to imperialism are ad-hoc and case-by-case -- a mishmash of cacophonous and often contradictory voices of individualists (unaffiliated intellectuals wishing to have their individual takes heard above all, NGOs always competing with other NGOs in fundraising appeals) -- lacking faith in the republican principle that animated the Anti-Imperialist League*. It is certain that the USG will have more wars (soon on Iraq and later on whatever), but it is not at all certain how UFP&J will react to changing conditions (the beginning, the middle, and the end of the war on Iraq, wars on other nations, etc.). Who knows if UFP&J will survive the war on Iraq? Liberals sit out some wars and some actions of the empire with no organized protest, so they need to recreate a new coalition every time the empire acts up and brings to them a war that even they cannot tolerate.
At 5:51 AM -0500 2/12/03, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>Lerner's voice, as much as it grates on radicals, is exactly the
>sort of moderate, booshwah message you want to include in this sort
>of rally.
We've heard plenty (IMHO, sometimes too many) of "moderate, booshwah" messages at all anti-war rallies, including ANSWER-organized ones. Hell, ANSWER even invited such an authentic member of bourgeoisie as Ben Cohen!
At 5:51 AM -0500 2/12/03, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>The test here is whether a two-state solution person is permitted to speak.
"Within the anti-war movement, there is a wide spectrum of diverse and opposing views regarding Israel and Palestine, and those views will be heard on Feb. 16. On that day, two rabbis, David Cooper and Pam Frydman-Baugh, both of whose views are similar to those of Michael Lerner, will be speaking" ("Statement from Feb. 16 Anti-War Coalitions Regarding Rabbi Michael Lerner," February 11, 2003, Contact: Bert Knorr 510-644-8071 / 415-307-8028 [cell]). I don't see why a two-state solution must be voiced by Lerner in particular.
Postscript:
* Take a look at the eloquence that faith in one's own political principle produces:
"Imperialists assume that with the destruction of self-government in the Philippines by American hands, all opposition here will cease. This is a grievous error. Much as we abhor the war of 'criminal aggression' in the Philippines, greatly as we regret that the blood of the Filipinos is on American hands, we more deeply resent the betrayal of American institutions at home. The real firing line is not in the suburbs of Manila. The foe is of our own household. The attempt of 1861 was to divide the country. That of 1899 is to destroy its fundamental principles and noblest ideals" -- "Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League" (1899)
No such eloquence comes from a coalition of mishmash liberals today. Also, take note of the Anti-Imperialist League's confident patriotism: the old Anti-Imperialists knew not only that they were patriots but also that imperialists were _traitors_!!! Compare that with the tone of diffidence that inevitably creeps into today's liberals' protestations of "me-too" patriotism -- "I, _too_, am a patriot -- don't call me un-American just because I oppose the war. This flag belongs to me, _too_."
In one respect, the old Anti-Imperialists were even superior to not just today's liberals but also a number of today's Marxists. They were _convinced_ that imperialism is not in the interest of ordinary Americans -- no if's, no but's, no futile guilt-tripping rhetoric of how privileged American workers benefit from the empire that one often hears from liberals and leftists alike today. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://solidarity.igc.org/>