> I was telling a friend how amazing it is that even
> with all the Bush debacles in Iraq, the anti-war
> movement is actually far weaker today than it was
> before the war when groups like ANSWER were at their
> height. It's the virtual opposite of the experience in
> Vietnam. The anti-war types have made themselves even
> more fringy even as the unpopularity of the war grows
> with average Americans.
>
> Pretty mind boggling stuff.
I don't see anything mind-boggling about it at all! In fact, one essay on the antiwar movement that I've been working on has a working title of "I Told You So..." As one of the early outspoken critics of ANSWER, I can say now that my analysis and critique of them was right on target. The problem with ANSWER and the anti-war movement is not that they have fringe politics, but that they replicate a hierarchical system of organizing and tactics that weren't effective even back in the 1960s. Instead of replicating the *successful* tactics, strategies and structure of the anti-globalization movements, the post 9/11 antiwar movements were dominated by either authoritarian groups such as ANSWER, or by peace groups who simply built a movement and strategy based on faulty assumptions.
Let's look back to September 2001 to once again see how this mess was created.
The anti-globalization movement was poised to repeat the Seattle protests, this time in Washington, DC. The expectations for the September anti-globalziation protests were high--many people were coming from around the country and the police had estimated that the number of protesters could easily reach 100,000. The September anti-globalization protests were being organized by a loose coalition of five groups (and movements): The Mobilization for Global Justice, the Anti-Capitalist Convergence, the Latin American Solidarity Coalition, religious groups, and the labor movement led by the AFL-CIO and others. I may have mentioned this before, but on 9/11 I was to have represented the ACC to a coalition discussion wih the AFL-CIO and the religious groups.
Where does ANSWER play into this? ANSWER didn't exist until a few hours or days after 9/11. ANSWER was started by the International Action Center, which is a front group of the Workers World Party. You all know that. Brian Becker and other activists from the IAC had been trying for years to take a leadership role within the anti-globalization movement. Becker had demanded exclusive speaking time at MGJ meetings so he could represent the IAC as a powerful player. The IAC was always rebuffed and ignored. One time Becker and some of his IAC minions had been tipped off about a coalition-building meeting. Needless to say, he wasn't made to feel wekcome.
The IAC, having been stymied in their efforts to force their "leadership" on the movement, resorted to one of their favorite tactics: call for a competing protest on the same weekend of the anti-globalization protests. They announced this protest in June 2001, which pissed off some of us, but we were all too busy to really care. The IAC proceeded to implement their usual tactics aimed at controlling the day of protest. Evidently they decided that if we wouldn't accept their leadership, they would sour the milk.
Their September protest was billed as an "anti-Bush" protest. It would feature their usual ineffective march around the White House. The label of this protest wasn't important, because the IAC understood that they could switch the theme if current events provided a more convenient theme. The IAC also implemented their tactic of applying for all possible park and parade permits in downtown D.C. They do this with two goals in mind: 1) Having official access to permits gives them leverage with other groups when they want to set up a permitted rally or march. The practice of bogarting all the permits gives the IAC a bargaing chip; 2) the IAC hoped that the police would deny or challenge some of these permit applications. This sets up a legal struggle which the IAC then exploits to gain publicity. Instead of the media covering the protests in the weeks before the protest, they focus on the IAC and the legal battle. The IAC and ANSWER have used this strategy effectively for years. Of course, the best way to neutralize this tactics is for other groups to simply reject getting permits.
What happened after 9/11? As many people know, the anti-globalization protests were cancelled by NGO and big labor representatives within MGJ who were worried that protests would hurt their relations with donors and politicians. The IAC, as far as I can tell, held a meeting or conference call within hours of 9/11. They evidently saw this chaos in the movements as an opportunity for them to assert leadership. They created the ANSWER "coalition" which of course was just a front group for the IAC at that time.
The prospect of war in Afghanistan woke up the peace movement, especially many of the old guard peaceniks who hadn't participated in the anti-global movement. Many within the anti-glob movement saw that anti-war activism would be on our plate. Several of the long-standing peace groups called for a conclave in Washington for the week before the anti-war protests which had replecaed the anti-globalization protests. This meeting was ostensibly to talk about building a movement and possibly a coalition. Several hundred people attended this series of meetings. While this meeting didn't lead to a coalition, it was a democratic assembly, unlike the unilateral authoritarian ANSWER coalition.
The Anti-Capitalist Convergence was deeply disappointed by MGJ's "cancellation" of the protests. We met and decided to organize an unpermitted anti-war march. We ended up holding the first national march against the war.
Chuck0