Lazare responds

[Doug Henwood]

Nathan Newman's numbers are themselves ridiculous.  Of course, 
"support for ending the war had a majority in 1968."  Who didn't 
support ending the war by that point?  The question was how, i.e. via 
unilateral withdrawal, an escalation of the bombing to the point 
where North Vietnam was reduced to little more than a parking lot, or 
something in between.  When you start asking that, then it is clear 
that true antiwar forces were in a distinct minority right thru to 
the very end.  And how could it be otherwise?  It was obvious that 
defeat at the hands of North Vietnam / NLF would be a serious blow to 
US imperialism and, like it or not, the great majority of the US 
population at the time, including the working class, saw US 
imperialism's interests as roughly consistent with its own.

Today, things are different.  Not only is the US economically more 
polarized, but US imperialism is far more naked and hence repulsive 
to a growing portion of the population than it was even in the days 
of napalm and free-fire zones.  It stands far more clearly revealed 
as the self-serving policy of a tiny corporate elite than in any way 
beneficiary to the people as whole.  The class structure is different 
and therefore the class response is likely to be different as well.

I don't know who Nathan's friends are who are turned off by left-wing 
rhetoric at antiwar demonstrations.  All I can say is that, judging 
from the growing numbers at such events, far more people are turned 
on.  As for his suggestion that rallies are overrated and that people 
would do better to call their legislators, I think he really has 
little sense about how corrupt and benighted American political 
institutions really are.  Calling legislators only gives them 
encouragement.  Rather than lobbying the government, the Oct. 26 
demos in DC and San Francisco were designed to confront it.  I hope 
the march this weekend does so equally impressively.

Dan Lazare.