The Lerner Affair

[Liza Featherstone]

Clearly it was not a good idea for the whole coalition to agree that no
"critics" of any of the coalition's members could speak. That sends a
message that debate and critique within the movement is not allowed. The
Lerner flap illustrated that vividly -- obviously he's someone who should be
included. But I didn't sign that petition because the very last sentence of
it revealed that its agenda was not to improve the rally but to divide the
movement. They were making ANSWER's existence the issue when the point is
that people can have criticisms and still be part of the movement. However,
I hope some good will come out of the whole mess -- organizers probably
won't agree to that "no critics" rule next time.

Liza


> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:41:27 -0500
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: The Lerner Affair
> 
> LouPaulsen wrote:
> 
>>> The point is to stop the war, not aggrandize ANSWER.
>> 
>> The point is to stop the war, not split the movement.
> 
> Yup. I couldn't sign that statement because even though I thought
> Lerner should be allowed to speak - despite his annoying piety and
> self-promotion - but I though the organizers of that petition were
> really looking for a club to bash ANSWER with. I'm not a member of
> the ANSWER fan club by any means, but I thought this was the wrong
> fight to have at the wrong time.
> 
> Doug