> How about the pathetic number of people at antiwar marches in New York City
> for the two years that ANSWER was leading the rallies. As soon as groups
> like United for Peace & Justice took over organizing them, they ballooned
> to hundreds of thousands of marchers. The contrast was dramatic. So those
> are the numbers. My experience -- and remember I was going to almost every
> antiwar march in NYC from 911 on as a legal observer -- was that large
> chunks of my left friends and family were refusing to go to the marches
> because they so hated the rhetoric and flyers being distributed. These
> were folks who had marched in all sorts of left and antiwar marches in the
> past but didn't want to go near them during 2001 and 2002.
That's a very convenient liberal take on the anti-war movement, which just happens to be wrong. The problem with the anti-war movement is more than just one cause. It certainly didn't help that the liberal left has conveniently been supporting imperialist wars when they were conducted by their guy (Bill Clinton). The International Action Center, the parent of ANSWER, was pretty much the only visible coalition to organize against Clinton's war in the Balkans. It's not to hard to see how they came to dominate an antiwar movement that has a short historical memory and is dominated by liberals who pick and choose which wars will be protested.
I've been one of the most vocal and prominent critics of ANSWER since they were started in September 2001 by the WWP and the IAC. Since I had recently been involved with some serious organizing of anti-capitalist protests, I had some first hand experience of dealing with them. Combine that with my tenure as an activist and you can see why I chose to speak up. I foolishly thought that the antiwar movement would listen to me. Instead I was attacked, defamed and undermined by short-sighted activist morons who adhered to the idea that Hitler had taken power and thus the Left had to follow the first group of authoritarians to put themselves up as leaders.
We saw what happened. A sad detour of activism into pointless marches in Washington, except for a few brilliant moments like February 15 and the shut down of San Francisco after the war started. Groups like the UFPJ and others have since stepped up, but the anti-war movement is still not a threat to the Bush regime or the U.S. war machine, which is supported by many Americans.
Nathan wants us to believe that Ward Churchill's analogies are alienating people from joining the movement. Others of his ilk scolded radical protesters to behave themselves at the RNC. Then the liberal wing brought everybody one of the biggest political defeats in recent electoral politics. Their candidate lost an election to a guy who could have easily been defeated by any warm body who espoused a few anti-war views.
So Nathan's liberal friends and family wouldn't go near the antiwar protests because they disagreed with a few slogans. How fucking convenient! What a bunch of little Eichmanns!
Chuck0