> The movement has squandered its moral credibility by
> accepting
> ANSWER's leadership.
I agree of course with the writer that the WWP/IAC and by proxy ANSWER leadership are odious turds that deserve to be flushed down the toilet bowl of history; however, I dont think too many people who attend these rallies accept their ideological leadership. We just go to these demonstrations because we are against the war.
These people in the WWP/IAC happen to have the time and organization to do the paperwork, etc. Most people dont have that kind of time or organization. So due to laziness, lack of organization or whatever, the anti-war movement gets defaulted to the WWP...but that is the only reason people go to these demonstrations...it's not because people think highly of or even know about the WWP. The WWP/IAC/Answer is the Kim Il Sung Bus Company; Answer is nominally the organizational leader of the movement, even though they are far from being the ideological leaders.
On the other hand, I dont know at what point we can say that WWP/ANSWER is an assistant or a liablility to the movment. Can we blame the press if they unveil that a certain protest is being organized by supporters of North Korea and various other two-bit dictators? Of course, some newspapers might do this JUST to malign the anti-war movement, but even then they would be telling the truth, as long as they dont go so far as to suggest that everybody at the march supports North Korea or Sadam Hussein. Of course, even if this is not explicitly suggested, it is implied and the anti-war movement will be guilty by association in the eyes of some.
It is true that the powers-that-be will attack the anti-war movement no matter the composition. So, the argument goes, we should not dance to their fiddle and do a cosmetic make-over of the movement in hopes of becoming respectable to them. That is true. However, it is one thing to defend those in our ranks when they are innocent of charges and it is quite another thing to defend those who are guilty as charged. The WWP supports regimes and dictators that represent the diametrical opposite values of those of most peace activists. I dont care what George Wills thinks about the movement, but I am concerned about the impressions of average americans who might otherwise be supportive. Will this or has this had the effect of deterring people from joining the anti-war movement? I dont know.
The best would be to chuck the WWP/IAC/Answer or rather organize parallel to them. Just as I would not like to march with anti-semites in a protest against Israel, nor do I enjoy marching for peace led by a group that has consistently-and without remorse- supported anti-democratic butchers. And YES, I AM equating the two. "A rose is a rose is a rose"...it does not matter that WWP/IAC dress theselves in the rhetoric of liberation....who do they support in reality?
Fine, then "if you dont like ANSWER, organize your own march." That is a powerful argument. I dont have the time, organization or talent at my disposal to carry out such a task. However, during the days following the outbreak of war, when things were hot in San Francisco, the movement broke free of ANSWER's gravity. ANSWER did manage to organize a march the following Saturday, but it was a subtext to all the break-away marches (which ANSWER tried unsuccesfully to control). It's frustrating to find so much of the movement pulled back into the WWP orbit just because this latter happens to have a good marketing dept.
===== <<You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals So let's do it like they do it on the Discovery Channel>>
Bloodhound Gang, "The Bad Touch"
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com