Right to speak. All the textual analysis conflating "ban" with right isn't worth a cup of warm spit. Lerner is not allowed to speak. He is a logical choice to speak, unlike most of the other 'six billion.' Call it whatever you like.
The talk about 'dividing the movement' could be summed up as: be reasonable, do it my way.
ANSWER is doing what it likes. It has every right to do so. UFP does too. My criticism is not directed at ANSWER. They are doing exactly what they should be doing. I am too: I'm trying to contribute to an effective anti-war movement, a precondition for which is a subsidiary role for ANSWER IMO. If this means "a parochial affair," that's ANSWER's choice and so be it. Otherwise there is no reason to have a UFP&J.
I would not exclude ANSWER, nor would I discourage people from going to its rallies. I went myself, encouraged others to do so, have been defending it and the D.C. rally against a parade of goofballs and goons on my web site. I've even defended the WWP (I said you're harmless).
I am not afraid of a two-demo scenario, since if UFP asserted itself it would become dominant and ANSWER would end up going along. My own preference frankly is to marginalize ANSWER. Not because it includes WWP, but because on the message front it is inept and embarrassing. I would honestly like to bust up an alliance predicated on equal, top-level status for ANSWER. I would like to see an alliance where ANSWER was included but that presented a different face to the world.
LP made this statement:
"Berubé . . . Writing in a "symposium" on David Horowitz's frankly inimical frontpagemag.org site, he agrees with Horowitz that Lerner is a fool to encourage people to attend rallies along with ANSWER."
I read Berube's remarks and they do not jive with your characterization. He does say people should not go to ANSWER rallies. He does not say they should boycott this weekend's rallies. In a note to me, he said the contrary.
I don't care who is responsible for the multiplicity of coalitions. I want a coalition that can include someone like Lerner, not because I'm crazy about him, but because his type of voice is an essential part of the mix. The fact that two no-name rabbis will speak is some compensation and mitigates against the anti-semitism charge (which I have never made), but it's not good enough. I was not pleased to see a column by Lerner on the WSJ op-ed page with a headline about anti-semitism in the anti-war movement, but writers never have control over headlines.
Honestly, Lou: is all this brouhaha worth the pain of giving a platform to Lerner for five minutes? If you had it to do over, would you make the same decision?
The best point LP makes is to note the lack of anti-war agitation coming from people who criticize ANSWER. Some people are making a living off this. I'm not one of them, and neither are most of the people who signed that petition. It points up the insubstantiality of the democratic left, in terms of actual organization, as opposed to writers of Dissent articles. I hopes of UFP filling this gap, and it may yet. 'Win Without War' goes too far in propitiating pro-war arguments. Right now the landscape is bleak in this sense.
All this chatter could prove to be completely irrelevant. The news stories Monday will be of huge rallies, not of Michael Lerner. Some tiny slice of the population is involved in this discussion. The fact of mass opposition to the war remains. The work that remains to be done lies outside of mass rallies, as Nathan has pointed out, though I think the rallies are necessary too.
max