> Public opposition to the war is at an all time high,
> yet DC mobilization draw fewer and fewer people
> (even usual suspects).
This mobilization was the biggest since the war started. It was not made up of only the usual suspects. Anyone who was there will tell you that. You're simply wrong on the facts.
> The numbers are important to the extent that they
> are used by UFPJ and ANSWER to establish that
> they are leaders of some movement. People opposed
> to the war could accomplish more and inspire more
> people if they reject UFPJ and ANSWER and organize
> accordingly.
How many people were brought to the demonstration directly by UFPJ (I won't even ask the question when it comes to ANSWER because their numbers are surely smaller and less relevant)? My guess is that it was a minority. My understanding is that ANSWER got one of the permits, that UFPJ put the buses together in a lot of places, etc. -- and all of that certainly costs money. But how did people actually get to DC? By raising money and mobilizing people locally. I doubt very much that the majority of the money spent on this demonstration came from either of the two formal "coalitions" (I put this last word in scare-quotes since UFPJ actually is a coalition while ANSWER is not).
> There were anti-globalization protests today, which were
> totally eclipsed by the opportunistic UFPJ and ANSWER
> who picked this weekend to leach off of the anti-
> globalization movement.
This statement of yours is an example of why I sometimes just assume that you really don't believe any of the stuff you say. It's hilarious. Surely you're satirizing a cartoon anarchist, and you don't really believe this megalomaniacal nonsense?
> I suspect that the White House and the right wing are scared
> more of those ads than they are of a bunch of "hippies"
> protesting in Washington
That's not the majority of who was there. Believe me, I get annoyed by such people for the same reason that I get annoyed with you: they have no interest in reaching a mass audience, they go to demonstrations to play dress-up and to act-out instead of to do something real, and they actively marginalize themselves and the rest of the movement. But while the hippes, the grungy anarcho-punks and the newspaper-hawking sectarians were all out in force, they were a distinct minority. This was definitely a regular person's event. I would say that I am glad you've finally come around to my point of view and now recognize that message matters, that we have to reach masses of people, and that that "diversity of tactics" stuff is a whole lot of nonsense. But you don't really believe that, either, because consistency has never been your strong point. Now you're talking about how mobilizations should be connected to a real strategy. Well, no shit. But who's putting that strategy together? You?
> The Cindy Sheehan ads reach ordinary people and speak to
> them in an emotional way that mass demos on TV do not
Fair enough, but guess where Cindy Sheehan was yesterday? Washington, DC. Supporting the demonstration yesterday is not mutually exclusive of doing other things. Like I said earlier, to the extent there's been media coverage, the people getting the coverage have been people like Sheehan, the military families, and regular folks in the crowd -- not the screeching trots on the podium or the godawful Radical Cheerleaders on the margins. This is good for us, because it means that the large numbers of regular people in the demonstration swamped the wackjobs, and furthermore the media are responding to the attitudes of their consumers who are increasingly anti-war. So ANSWER is exaggerating when they say 300,000 -- they're assholes, and I don't know why we'd expect them to do anything else. But who cares what they think?
Everybody here -- not just Chuck -- needs to cheer the fuck up once in a while. We actually have some momentum these days, so let's make the most of it and not be so gloomy.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories