Asymmetrical Information

Good points, Megan. Anyone who considers attending one of these "anti-war" rallies should also consider one other fact: the level of anti-Semitism displayed, which seems to be rampant (see Lee's report at www.right-thinking.com). It's hard to see why any well-meaning person would want to be associated with this kind of thing.

If you're against the war, then start a blog, write your congressman, hold your own rally...but *don't* participate in what should honestly be called the Hate Rallies.

Whatever you do, don't protest and rock the apple cart. :)

Go ahead and protest your wits off. But let's have full disclosure by the media: along with all the dramatic footage of the yowling disgruntled, run some real stories shining light on the organizers' financing and motives. 'Anti-war' needs some truth in labelling too - only US military operations qualify in their minds as war. It's perfectly fine with them if Saddam eats Kuwait, or the North Koreans run gulags and threaten their neighbors with nukes.

Or go wild and organize your own rally. Specify in advance that to International Zionist Conspiracy (TM) theories will be allowed. That Iraqi dissidents will not be rudely mocked. That this is a "peace by and for everyone" rally, not a "peace by W only, everyone else can kill whomever they like" rally. I am very afraid that it will be you and the three other people there (including one lost tourist), and that you will not make it to the NYT, but I think the experiment would be worth a try anyway.

These folks seem to have mislaid that "Not In Our Name" slogan of theirs just at the moment it's needed most.

It doesn't matter how much you protest that they don't speak for you -- they do, now. You let them.

If high political muckitymucks, or the holy American People, or some such collective, takes my presence at the rally as anything other than asserting a desire for peace - they are also mistaken. However, at least in the case of the former I do not think them that ignorant. Politicians understand coalition building, and the necessary but distasteful aspect of it - working with the Kollectivist Klan for the puppies of peace, if that's what it takes.

Agreement on one issue is not support. To actually support ANSWER or other collectivists, vote for them, sign a lefty list or give a lefty money. I did none of these things at the rally. Mainly I stood there holding a libertarian party sign. The hope is to gradually move the left back towards its roots in libertarianism. But this won't happen in a day.

I "support" ANSWER in one thing: peace. The rally was for peace. I showed my desire for peace, held in common with ANSWER and presumably everyone else there, by showing up. No more and no less. Your assertion that attending a rally equates to meaningful support for the organizers is simpleminded propaganda, designed to suppress the peace movement by scaring off fellow travellers. The world is more complicated than you make it out to be.

Paul: I saw numerous handmade "not in MY name" signs at the rally. It was by no means the most common meme - that, I would say, was probably "no blood for oil". But it was certainly there.

Who are you trying to speak to, Leonard? Because the people I presume you wanted to reach -- the government -- heard that you support Jesse Jackson and ANSWER, whatever it was you were trying to say.

Jane that's what you hear. You don't speak for our rulers.

I sent a message of wanting peace - if anything at all gets through. Our rulers know that people other than socialist radicals were at the rally, if, for example, they read the NYTimes, or the WaPo, just to name two minor ways which they might get information. If anything I think the attendance at the rally was more leftwing than you would make out from those sources. But I imagine there were agents there sufficient to get a reasonably accurate picture of the attendance.

Our rulers know that libertarians exist - and Christian pacifists, soccer moms, 60s retreads, Veterans for Peace, and every imaginable sort of person. Really, they are not dumb, and when it comes to politics they are extremely well-informed. It is, in fact, their jobs.

I guess this works both ways, right?

So if I support the war by participating in a marh organized by the GOP that means I support their stands on abortion, capital puinishment, and taxation?

If they're the organizers, that's the way it will be interpreted politically, yes. Did you not know that?

Jane: I believe the Marxist appellation for Leonard and GT is "fellow travellers". Not quite in the vanguard of the proletarian struggle, just along for the ride.

That's how it would be interpreted by YOU. Which is not the same thing.

I, for one, have yet to hear a single commentator, of any political persuasion, argue that there is support for the Bush tax cut plan based on support for war on Iraq, for example.

Most people realize those are two separate things.

Most people realize that if Jesse Jackson can get 50,000 to protest against the war it DOES NOT mean those same 50,000 would support his presidential election, views on taxes or affirmative action. They realize those are separate things.

Sorry, if you attend a rally organized by a political entity, your attendence WILL be interpreted as support for ALL of that entitie's positions, just as the U.S. alliance with Stalin during WWII was interpreted as support for Stalin's rule generally. Go check out the propaganda about "Uncle Joe" that was disseminated during WWII. Now, giving support to a titanic mass murderer at a time when you are locked in a death-struggle with another titanic mass murderer may be a necessary evil, and unavoidable if one wishes to survive, but it is giving support nonetheless. If you march with Stalinists, then you are in support of Stalinism, and unless you are forced to do so out of combat with a greater, more pressing evil, a great moral harm is done. If you wish to attempt to make the case that Bush II is Hitler, to ANSWER's Stalin, go ahead; the leaps of logic have entertainment potential, if nothing else. Even if most political parties or entities aren't as toxic as ANSWER, one should approach associating with such groups with circumspection, since it inevitably means lending support to what is morally inexcusable. Choose very carefully who you will be seen with, and if one chooses to associate with the truly monstrous, it best be only done to combat the equally monstrous.

Isn't A.N.S.W.E.R run by a bunch of communists?

I love those guys. One of their brethren of the Socialist Equality Party recently authored a beautiful peice on the airline industry awhile back and actually had the guts to state that "at the heart of the betrayal of the union leadership is its alliance with the Democratic Party, the big business party responsible for pushing through deregulation under the Carter administration in 1978."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/ua-d07.shtml

I'm sure there were any number of "Not In My Name" signs-- and that those carrying them either approved of having their names used by the Workers World Party or were as oblivious as Leonard to the irony. In a group of people dim enough to think "No Blood for Oil" is a telling slogan, the oblivious probably outnumbered the collaborators.

Sorry, if you attend a rally organized by a political entity, your attendence WILL be interpreted as support for ALL of that entitie's positions

Of course. That makes a lot of sense.

For example, if Bush and the GOP organize a rally in support of his tax cut plan that means that all those who participate are announcing to the world that they agree with Bush's foreign policy, his views on Social Security, his judicial nominees, his environmental policies, hey even with his taste in hamburgers!

I wonder why we even bother asking voters what they think of different policy initiatives. After all if they support Bush on one thing they support him on everything.

Will, by posting on this page you have chosen to associate with, among others, me.

Perhaps you had better be circumspect. I hold opinions that you seem to think are toxic - such as being for peace. (And even if I am not quite toxic, you still should be careful, as you say.) Yet by posting here, you are associating with me. Perhaps you should better not associate with me at all! Otherwise you would "inevitably" lend support to what is morally inexcusable - my pacifism, anarchism, capitalism, etc. Perhaps you should stick to only posting in places where everyone agrees with you; where you are certain that there is nobody who might taint you by association.

I am saddened that your views would seem to require you to drop our association.

Paul, "Not in my name" is a good slogan. Doubly so if attending an event put on by people whose overall politics you don't agree with. In that case it is not ironic.

Were there many folks there asserting "not in my name" but who were fully compliant, even mindless tools of the evil ones? Perhaps; I don't know. If so, then yes it is ironic in their case.

Sorry to be slightly juvenile, BUT...

Have we all read some signatures on the 'not in my name' petition. Hitler showed up and Stalin, Mao, Lenin and other of that ilk signed their names.

I trust the formal petition included their names: they traveled hard and far to sign the thing.

Jane has an excellant point here and Leonard and GT are failing to rebut it. The attempt to use an analogy of polling data fails, show up to a rally and you are going to be associated with the organizers. Its all the more hilarious for how often the language of guilt-by-association is used - specifically by Democrats, liberals etc.

GT, if you attend a GOP-organized rally, people are going to assume you are broadly supporting the GOP platform. If you think otherwise, I invite you to attend GOP sponsored rallies anywhere you choose.

Things depend on particulars, and are subject to gradations. If you attend a hypothetical "Don't Invade Iraq" rally that forms spontaneously and is sponsored by nobody, then your participation can only be interpreted in one way. If you attend a "We Love ANSWER, Those Stalinist Cuties!" rally, similarly, it can also only be interpreted in one way.

If you attend an rally billed as "Anti-War" that happens to be sponsored by ANSWER, it can and will be interpreted in multiple ways, and the "proper" or at least "politically accurate" manner of interpreting it will be subject to partisan games. See the original post and this discussion for examples.

In fact, it can't be predicted a priori how these games will work out, and what the political effect of rally attendance will be. Jane's implication that you should always disassociate yourself from disagreeable bedfellows is untenable, because nearly any large-scale political action will involve working with those whom you otherwise disagree with, and who may try to spin your association into "support". On the other hand, failing to do "due diligence" about who your working with does indeed risk your being turned into a "useful idiot", rallying for what you abhor.

There are no easy prescriptions here. It is simply a political judgement call.

One problem with Galt's comparision is that there's a huge difference between her hypthetical support of the KKK and the actual support of Stalinsts.

The difference is that the Stalinists killed orders of magnitude more people. The KKK killed as a by-product of policy, while the Stalinists killed as policy. By any rational scale, the Stalinists are significantly worse.

Yet, look at folks fall all over themselves to argue that, because their hearts are pure, they weren't supporting Stalinists.

Look folks - if you think that your mental state matters, you didn't have to show up. Miss Cleo can read you from a distance.

Yet, you did. You marched with Stalinists.

> because nearly any large-scale political action will involve working with those

If the Stalinists had been yet another group who joined up, that might fly. They weren't. They organized the event and you signed on to their protest.

If you intended to do something else, you should have done something else.

Since many of those who attended the rallies did so while acknowledging the sponsorship of the event and denying that they support the other "causes" of said sponsors, we can only presume the position of the "decent left" to be that anyone who opposes the impending war with Iraq is an ally in this fight. This is a cynical argument, and the left can't claim to be principled while making it.

Setting aside the accusations of red-baiting (which has become the standard defense by people defending the protests), even the World Church of the Creator has held rallies against the war with Iraq. (The war is a Jewish conspiracy, don't you know?) Is the enemy of the war always the anti-war movement's friend? Or would the WCOC have been unwelcome in DC and San Francisco this weekend?

Somehow I doubt it.

Dear Megan,

Say you want to vote for a candidate. You then find out that, oddly enough, the KKK are big fans of the same candidate, even though the candidate isn't a member and isn't pandering to them. The Klan just likes his tax policy, say.

So you've got the Klan doing a get-out-the-vote effort to support a cause you happen to support.

Do you *not* vote, just because the Klan happens to support the same candidate, and lots of Klansmen will be at the polls?

I'd wager you wouldn't. I bet you wouldn't let your voice be silenced.

So why should the anti-war faction silence their voice, just because the reality-challenged nutjobs of ANSWER are also anti-war?

Personally, I figure the speakers at these rallies, such as Jackson, are just "talent" meant to attract people for the rally. Headcount is what matters, after all, right? The fact that, say, Jessica Lange shows up and talks doesn't imply that thousands of people are devoted followers of her ideology. The audience, and Lange, happen to support the same thing, for various reasons.

The same is true for Al Sharpton, or other talking heads who spoke.

I think it's an error to read too much into the motivations of the crowd, based on the influence of ANSWER.

I mean, come on. Left-leaning demonstrations aren't exactly famous for ideological uniformity. It's more like herding cats, with everyone being on their own wavelength, supporting their own take on the cause.

The proposition that every attendee of the anti-war protests was an ANSWER supporter is ridiculous for that very reason.

If you want an event where every participant hews to the ideology of the organizers, you should
be looking to the *right* wing, not the left.

I hope someone from the RNC is clipping and saving these ingenious excuses. Should come in handy next time some Republican leader is accused of associating himself with the Dixiecrats. (Or of having some of the same initials as a Confederate general, or whatever.)

GT, if you attend a GOP-organized rally, people are going to assume you are broadly supporting the GOP platform.

Nope.

Not in the real world.

If I attend a pro-tax cut rally nobody should assume I am also pro-life.

In fact, if anyone said this on TV they'd laugh him off the screen.

Or did you EVER hear anybody in the media, commenting on the attendance to an abortion-rights rally, say "look at all the people that oppose Bush's tax plan"? Of course not.

It's one thing to say that those that agree with some of the major aspects of the GOP platform (or any other paltform) MAY also agree with other aspects. It's quite another to say, as you do, that support for ONE VERY SPECIFIC issue implies support for all other issues.

A cursory look at the voters that comprise any coalition shows you how laughable this idea is. Have you never heard of the tensions in all major parties between the different sub-groups? Do I really need to point out to you that people that agree with Bush's tax plan may actually oppose his conservative judicial appointments (as is the case with many of my colleagues in the Wall Street world)?

You made a general statememnt that appears to bear no resemblance with the real world.

In fact I would bet money that the majority of Americans who even heard of the anti-war protests have no clue that ANSWER organized it nor who makes it up.

Bottom line? The whole argument is ludicrous. Whatever the merits of the antiwar protests (I for one happen to mostly support the war effort) the fact that some of the organizers may be unreconstructed Stalinists is something that:

a) Most people have no clue about

b) has little relevance to the matter at hand (is the war justified or not) and

c) Should not, and in fact IS NOT, construed by anyone responsible (other than partisan right wingers who love these conspiracy theories) as support for OTHER issues some of the organizers may support.

But hey, why don't you prove me wrong? Show me where in any part of the mainstream media ANYONE says that the anti-war protesters are, by the simple fact of attending the rally, also supporting the other non-war related issues the organizers may also support.

Anybody?

Coming up with more failed analogies doesn't deal with the fact that these people chose to be led by communists.

Just read Tacitus' post.

Simply ridiculous.

So now those that oppose the war support Tiananmen Square?

Only the mind of a rabid partisn could come up with something like that.

Perhaps at future rallies police crowd estimates could also include figures on the number of participants who kept their fingers crossed.

I can't speak for Megan, Jon, but I'll give you my answer to your question. If a candidate I supported was endorsed by the Klan, my reaction would depend on how the candidate responded.

If he rejected the Klan's endorsement and publicly disavowed any connection with them, I would continue to support him.

If he remained silent on the issue, his failure to distance himself from the Klan would cost him my vote. I take such things very seriously. This would not be "letting my voice be silenced." My choice of who I don't vote for is an expression of my views, too. And if I find none of the candidates for an office acceptable, I reserve the right to withhold my vote entirely.

"So why should the anti-war faction silence their voice, just because the reality-challenged nutjobs of ANSWER are also anti-war?"

They shouldn't. They should organize their own demonstrations without ANSWER's help. Silence their voice? They should shout from the rooftops that they find ANSWER repugnant and that they do not support it.

In fact I would bet money that the majority of Americans who even heard of the anti-war protests have no clue that ANSWER organized it nor who makes it up.

Well, a more cynical person than myself might posit that that's because the liberal media has reported breathlessly on the protests without bothering to mention who organized them and those organizers stand for.

But since we're told by the Daily Howler and Atrios and Hesiod and a bunch of others without the capacity for shame that the media is really conservative, that couldn't be it, could it?

Yawn. Not another 'it's all the liberal media's fault" argument!

Jeez.

Jane now twice you have asserted that I gave power and money to ANSWER. Power is debatable; I think not, you think so, we will continue to disagree about that. But money - do explain.

I think GT and others are missing the point here. There is no "Bureau of Impartial Rally Analysis". What Megan is basically saying is that ANSWER and pro-ANSWER people will use the size of the rally to imply that many Americans support ANSWER's other positions. And impartial people evaluating ANSWER's claims will have to give at least some credence to them, figuring that you wouldn't be at ANSWER's rally unless you agreed with them more than not.

Sure, you can say that the only point you agree with them on is the war on Iraq. But if the war is an important issue for you, and you disagree with ANSWER on everything else, you would find another way to express your opinion (multiple ways, probably).

We saw something along these lines in the Million Man March. It was billed as a vague pro-black-men rally ("Day of Atonement"), but Louis Farrakhan was a prominent organizer and the keynote speaker. No one thinks that the hundreds of thousands of black men who showed up were 100% behind Farrakhan's beliefs; but Farrakhan was a much bigger player after the march than before. It became much harder to dismiss him and his Nation of Islam as a fringe group when (almost) a million men had turned up to hear him speak.

I'm a little surprised there's even any argument about this. After all, what's the point of having a protest? It calls Congress' (or whoever's) attention to the problem, and implicitly demands that they meet with the protest organizers. (Sure, Leonard, you speak for yourself; but do you expect some Congressman to want to speak to every person at the protest?)

Once ANSWER, say, has a Congressman's ear, do you really expect them to limit themselves to the war against Iraq? This is exactly why "movements" have so much infighting over who is on the executive board (or whatever it's called), because that determines the issues that will be pressed when chance comes up.

Steve Waldman is right on.

Here's another way to consider the matter of an issue-related rally and its organizer. Assume that a group which a person generally agrees with organizes a rally for one of the rare issues on which that person disagrees with the group.

For instance, perhaps the GOP, which (let us assume) Jane seems to generally agree with, holds a rally to promote free prescription medicine for retirees (which we assume Jane thinks is a bad idea).

By Jane's reasoning, she should attend the rally anyway, in spite of being against what it is titularly for, since her affiliation will, in her opinion, be "creditted" to the organizing party and not the issue. So attended the free-medicine rally is no different than attending any other GOP event. Oh sure, some "little people" might be fooled by her presence, but that hardly matters. What matters is how the "powers that be" perceive the act; and they perceive it only as support for the organizer, not support for the issue.

Or is it the case that some of the support will go to the issue and not the organizer? If so, how much?

Can it be the case that for particular, important issues, the amount of support going to the issue will outweigh the effect of the support going to the organizer?

PJ, your point is good but the issue is more complex than you make out.

If the "theme" of a rally is sufficiently trivial, untimely, and/or inchoate, then more of the credit will redound to the organizer. Imagine that the GOP organizes a rally for "volunteerism", say, and 100000 show. Now imagine that the GOP organizes a rally to change the income tax to a flat tax at 10%, and 100000 show. In the first case, because the issue is imprecise the organizers' take on it will be held as more important. In the second case, the demonstration might well be attended by many people who despise the GOP on most issues, but think the flat tax is a good idea.

The million man march made Farrakhan exactly because what it was for - "atonement"? - was formless. People reason that it must therefore be him. And I don't think they are wrong, though I could be educated on that.

In the case of the rally yesterday, IMO "peace" is what controls the interpretation of just about everyone except a few warmongering bloggers. That's because (a) ANSWER is unknown, and (b) peace is extremely important and controversial just now, and well defined.

Jane,

Though I respect many of your opinions, I think you're stretching on this one. If you are saying that any rally I might attend means that I agree with all of the views of the organizers, that would mean that I could only ever attend a peace rally organized by myself. And by your definition I would be the only person that could attend, because only I have the same views as myself. Being a bit more realistic, this would mean that we would have to have lots of smaller peace rally's rather than having one really big one, with each organized and attended by people of similar beliefs across a full range of issues. (After all ANSWER supporters couldn't be seen at a rally organized by people who think North Korea is a failed state).

Leonard, I agree the issue is complex.

I don't see "peace" as well-defined, though. What kind of "well-defined" message do the marchers send when they oppose attacking Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, but at the same time protest the UN sanctions? And if these marches are limited to peace, why all the Free Mumia signs? Are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jessica Lange and John Conyers Jr. all well-defined peace activists?

And you are again suggesting that these things are judged by some impartial and omniscient committee. ANSWER is going to spin things in whatever way benefits them, and they'll get a hearing because they are the organizers.

If the issue of peace with Iraq is very important with all the marchers, but they disagree with ANSWER on many other issues, why haven't they organized their own protests? We're left with two logical interpretation of the protest crowds at ANSWER-sponsored rallies: (a) these people agree with ANSWER on most things, especially the war or (b) these people feel strongly about the war and are indifferent to ANSWER's other issues. ANSWER, of course, will choose to emphasize the former. An impartial observer will guess some people fall into the latter category, but in fairness will have to accept ANSWER'c claims (with a grain of salt) unless he has additional information (eg, he is reading this thread <g>).

Your idea about attending rallies to show general support even when you specifically oppose the main issue is cute but silly. Attending a protest is expensive (in time and energy, if not money); certainly we can assume most people showing up at a rally support the issue (ignoring reporters, bloggers, and hecklers). Megan's original point was that your support of the issue can be (and is) used by organizers to suggest support for a range of issues beyond what you think. (Mumia springs to mind as an obvious example.)

Jolly thundering arguments such as above don't rise above academic jousting, until those well-organized cadres actually acquire power. Then the well-meaning fellow travellers who bulked up the mobs and enabled the power acquisition find that their own lack of organization and hierarchical discipline are great for hair-splitting disputes but leave them helpless when the cadres begin issuing orders and shooting the disobedient. Remember the Socialist Revolutionaries?

Jane:

I went to the anti-war demo yesterday in San Francisco. I'd say the "Bush Nazi" and "Bush is the Terrorist" signs reflect the hateful minds of a few not the many.

However, you got the goods on ANSWER. A footnote to chew on: One of the larger peace groups that gives legitimacy to those wanna-be Stalinist retreads is "Not In My Name."

Bob Armstrong

Jane:

I went to the anti-war demo yesterday in San Francisco. I'd say the "Bush Nazi" and "Bush is the Terrorist" signs reflect the hateful minds of a few not the many.

However, you got the goods on ANSWER. A footnote to chew on: One of the larger peace groups that gives legitimacy to those wanna-be Stalinist retreads is "Not In My Name."

Bob Armstrong

Jane:

I went to the anti-war demo yesterday in San Francisco. I'd say the "Bush Nazi" and "Bush is the Terrorist" signs reflect the hateful minds of a few not the many.

However, you got the goods on ANSWER. A footnote to chew on: One of the larger peace groups that gives legitimacy to those wanna-be Stalinist retreads is "Not In My Name."

Bob Armstrong

Jane:

I went to the anti-war demo yesterday in San Francisco. I'd say the "Bush Nazi" and "Bush is the Terrorist" signs reflect the hateful minds of a few not the many.

However, you got the goods on ANSWER. A footnote to chew on: One of the larger peace groups that gives legitimacy to those wanna-be Stalinist retreads is "Not In My Name."

Bob Armstrong

I detect here that once again, the right will castigate the indefensible behavior on their side (Trent Lott latest example), or (to be cynical about it) will at least publicly specifically distance themselves. The left on this thread appear to feel no need to even now distance or even speak to A.N.S.W.E.R.'s despicable record whatsoever, but are busy arguing the percentage of power and respectability that does or does not accrue to the organizers of a successful march. Irresponsible.

> If I attend a pro-tax cut rally nobody should assume I am also pro-life.

If the rally was organized by a pro-life organization, yes.

You picked your company. It's not that they picked you.

And, there's also the standard left response when someone on the right does something even close to this.

Of course, there is a difference. Most of us think that Stalinists are, by far, a greater evil, than the KKK. Feel free to disagree, but please describe how you're judging relative evil....

"Or is it the case that some of the support will go to the issue and not the organizer? If so, how much?"

Well, a more apt analogy would be "The National Alliance march for Free prescription drugs". Would you attend? I think not. But you have no problem attending the marches of the Stalinistas in the WWP? Does that difference provide relevant information? I say it does.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

"Of course, there is a difference. Most of us think that Stalinists are, by far, a greater evil, than the KKK. Feel free to disagree, but please describe how you're judging relative evil..."

I'd set the KKK apart, since the KKK of old at least (They are more clandestine about their killing these days, so it's hard to tell...)used to kill people "in person", so to speak. I use the National Alliance as a fair comparison - they are theoretical avocates of mass murder and race war. I say one of their anti war rallies would be far less covered and visited than the WWP one. (There is empirical evidence on this, these guys have done a fair deal of anti-war, anti-israel demos, with pathetic attendance...)

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

The moral relativism of the left comes through over and over again in these posts.

What I'm reading seems to say this:

1. All rally organizers are equivalent, i.e. a rally by the League of Women Voters to support tax cuts is the same as a rally by the Nazi's to support tax cuts. They're both simply organizers.

2. Just because I agree with them on just this one one thing, doesn't mean I support them in all things, therefore it's morally okay for me to go to the Nazi-organized rally.

If a person cannot see the difference in attending a rally sponsored by the Nazis versus one organized by the LWV then they have so lost themselves in the righteous of their "cause" that they will follow anyone, no matter how despicable, because it's expedient.

The Left used to have honor and morals. No longer. It's very sad, because America needs the Left. You've destroyed yourselves.

Jon H sez: "Say you want to vote for a candidate. You then find out that, oddly enough, the KKK are big fans of the same candidate, even though the candidate isn't a member and isn't pandering to them. The Klan just likes his tax policy, say.

"So you've got the Klan doing a get-out-the-vote effort to support a cause you happen to support.

"Do you *not* vote, just because the Klan happens to support the same candidate, and lots of Klansmen will be at the polls?"

False analogy. The vote is an activity "sponsored" by the state, for the purpose of electing representatives (for instance). It is most assuredly not an activity sponsored by a particular subgroup of supporters of a particular candidate. You must vote, if you want to exercise your duties as a citizen, and the act of voting does not reveal where your affinities lie.

The ANSWER-sponsored anti-war rally, OTOH, was arranged wholly by ANSWER, and your attendance was completely voluntary. Attending reveals -- and very explicitly -- that you share at least some of their goals.

As I said, the analogy completely fails...

I agree with Jane 100%. I will give you a practical example.
Back in 1970 I was a freshman in college(yes I am really that old), we had a big rally that spring. It was organized by the anti-war crowd and all the speeches were anti-war. When they were gearing up for it though they got as many other groups on campus involved as possible. Everyone who had any issue with the college was told to attend, even if the only thing you were againist was "in loco parentis" , you were told you had to be there. As a result they got a pretty good turnout but even that was not enough so people went into buildings and pulled fire alarms.
The speakers were all anti-war. The majority of the crowd even then was mostly gawkers. The size though was what mattered. The size enabled provocateurs to throw things at the police and not be arrested. The size rattled the police and highway patrol. We got gassed, not a pleasant experience. That evening the Ohio National guard moved onto campus.
My point being, size matters. And the people at A.N.S.W.E.R. are pros and know this. They will do anything, say anything to get as many people to show up as possible. They will use those numbers in any way they can to advance THEIR agenda which might not be yours.

The analogy with attending a GOP rally really dosen't wash. ANSWER is not just an organization some of whose ideas I disagree with. It is an organization whose fundamental principles are morally abhorent. They don't just happen to support Stalin along side a belief in economic and social justice; they were founded by those who refused to support socialism without Stalinism. They have consistently supported the worst, most evil, regimes in the world, solely becasue they are anti-US. Think about that. These are the people you are marching behind. Jane's comparison of a KKK rally for abused animals is more on the mark.

I have many disagreements with the Dems, the GOP, the ACLU, Common Cause, Peace Now, Amnesty International, Cato, and NARAL (all organizations which I have at some time supported, through votes, action and/or money) but I considered these to be minor relative to my support for the cause they were advocating. I don't assume that by marching you support ANSWER 100%, any more than I was 100% in agreement with any of these groups. This is not the accusation which Jane and Tacitus are making and refuting it is attacking a strawman. I do assume, however, that you value your agreement with them (which I will take your word is limited to opposition to attacking Iraq) to be greater than your opposition to their fundamental principles.

If you think this unfair, then I have two questions:

a) How bad would an organization have to be for you to say that you wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole? The Klan? The Nazis? Do you really think that Stalinism (not anti-Stalinist socialism) is morally superior?

b) Will you agree to drop all attacks-by-association (I'm thinking Bob Jones university)

Finally, I do have some sympathy (although strong disagreemetn) for individuals who honestly oppose the war and saw this as the only major protest rally being organized. They didn't have much of a choice. The same can not be said of many of the politicians and other leaders, who did have the ability to sponsor their own rally. Jesse Jackson, why did you, on the eve of Martin Luther King day, choose to speak with ANSWER, rather than lead the "I love America, Equality, and Peace" rally today? Why?

To paraphrase Charles:

I "support" Hitler in one thing: efficient running of the trains. The rally was for efficient public transportation. I showed my desire for trains which run on time, held in common with Der Fuerher and presumably everyone else there, by showing up. No more and no less. Your assertion that attending a rally equates to meaningful support for the Nazi party is simpleminded propaganda, designed to suppress the movement for efficient public transportation by scaring off fellow travellers. The world is more complicated than you make it out to be.

I "support" Stalin in one thing: redistribution of wealth. The rally was for economic equality. I showed my desire for economic equality, held in common with Stalin and presumably everyone else there, by showing up. No more and no less. Your assertion that attending a rally equates to meaningful support on Stalin is simpleminded propaganda, designed to suppress the peace movement by scaring off fellow travellers. The world is more complicated than you make it out to be.

I "support" the KKK in one thing: close family values. The rally was for families. I showed my desire for family values, held in common with the KKK and presumably everyone else there, by showing up. No more and no less. Your assertion that attending a rally equates to meaningful support for the organizers is simpleminded propaganda, designed to suppress the peace movement by scaring off fellow travellers. The world is more complicated than you make it out to be.

----

Who says you can't separate the message from the messenger?

Wow! Another set of non-arguments by the left.

Answer the question: Would you march in a rally principally organized by the Klan and a White Supremacist group with Klan members and Confederate flags and even Kill MLK signs in abundance just because it's anti-war?

TJ,

I think you're confusing Hitler with Mussolini on that one. And forgetting that the trains ran so well because the engines were greased with blood. The problem with using blood as a lubricant is that it tends to coagulate, so you always need more blood to spill on the engine.

'Redistribution of wealth' is a very loaded phrase. Do you mean greater economic opportunity for all as most serious conservatives would have it? Or do you mean making everyone poor except for a few murderous gangsters in charge, as Stalin applied it? Wealth is not a fixed quantity in the universe. It is something created by human effort and ingenuity. Wealth tends to blossom where freedom to pursue it is found and it is destroyed when authoritarians try to control it.

Having a goal in common is a very simplistic means to judge a relationship. When your neighbor says, "I have a solution for our dispute about the fruit from the tree growing on my land but overhanging yours," this may mean he wants to work out some rules for sharing or that he has purchased a gun with which to enforce his claim to all of the fruit.

Negotiation is a fine thing if there is reasonable expectation that your opponent is honorable and sane. In the case of Iraq and north Korea there is extremely good reason to expect just the opposite. If one of them says, "Gimme a bunch of money and stuff and I promise to be nice for five years," this means they expect it to take five years to convert the money and goods into a weapon with which to extort even more money and goods.

Methods matter. Wars have never been a good re-election strategy yet the Bushies think there is something important at stake. It isn't personal wealth. Almost everyone in the Cabinet sacrificed considerable holdings to take on the thankless responsibilities. These are people who truly think they are going to leave the world a better place when they leave office than when they entered it. Real positive change has never come from appeasement of thugs and dictators.

The Bush Administation is not pursuing war because it is the easy route but because it is the only route left to ending the current threats before they begin lobbing nukes. If it came to that we would still win but the cost would be terrible for both sides. The difference is that we have a history of being gracious in victory, regretting our enemies losses and doing our best to help them recover as a better nation than the one we defeated. Which of our enemies, past or present, could we have expected anything similar?

When the messenger has an ulterior motive and is not at all shy about it, you have to be pretty damn stupid to read the message and ignore who delivered it.

Oh Eric, you're right. Hitler built roads. Trains were Mussolini.

As for your other points, you did notice my tongue firmly planted in cheek? I know it wasn't exact - that wasn't my point.

Why are peace activits protesting the only way to remove a brutal, VIOLENT dictator who makes war on his own people and his neighbors? Maybe I'm simple minded, but the US Military will make avery surgical war that will do more to protect Iraqi civilians than anything Saddam has ever done. And the Iraqi people will probably live a more prosperous and peaceful life once the war is over.

Maybe I'm too simple minded to understand why someone who supports brutal dictators calls themselve a "peace activist."

Bolie IV

Leonard, it is painful to have to belabor the obvious, but I guess it is sometimes unavoidable, so here we go:

Megan is the organizer of this site. If Megan was an advocate/apologist of mass murder, on a truly titanic scale, I would not participate in this forum, for to do so would have the effect of increasing Megan's influence/credibility. I disgaree with most Democrats and Republicans (although more so with Democrats) but I will participate in forums organized by such people, because the influence of the major political parties is an unavoidable reality, AND because there is nothing in either party's platforms or constituencies that approaches the titanic moral horror of Stalinism, so associating with Republicans or Democrats does not carry the moral import of associating with ANSWER, or any other Stalinist organization. Clear enough?

Meanwhile, in the real world, only right wing partisans care about this.

GT: so you are now a member of the VRWC? You certainly showed your concern in this thread. Or perhaps your retort reminds me, almost to the word, with what the French Army said about the Dreyfus conviction. As a leftist you ought to know about that little episode of how one group in French society (a conservative one in that case) wished mightily to ignore the truth.

GT, if that's true, that's a pretty sad commentary on the left. The group is an apologist for left-wing totalitarian mass murderers; one should be no more willing to associate with it than one would with a group vocally supporting Hitler and Somoza.

If the right is able to get rid of its wing-nuts while the left cleaves to theirs, the left is going to find itself marginalized very quickly.

Will: To be accurate, both political parties have done some pretty awful things when they were in power. The treatment of the American Indians is a good example, but the suppression of the Moro Rebellion would be another which had bipartisan support. But left unsaid in your analysis is the difference between the American republicanism and Soviet totalitarianism. Today we have come to the conclusion that matters would have best been run another way, whereas Stalin's famous aphorism was "to make omelettes you have to crack eggs". The Soviets and their neo Stalinist successors condemned their Kulaks to starvation as a "dialectual necessity" and shed no tears. Today most Americans would say that we really made bad errors. There is a difference, and the intercourse that this discussion represents is a present example of how the two ideologies differ.

An important clarification, Tom; thanks. I certainly did not mean to attribute moral purity to Democrats or Republicans. Stalinism logically compels mass murder, however, so associating with entities which adhere to such logic is much different than associating with entities which do not, even though they have their own grave moral failings.

I don't know too much about ANSWER, but I will assume that they are socialists or communists.

I am not one.

I believe that socialism, communism, and similar ways of organizing society are bound to fail.

I accept as historical fact that millions of innocents have died in the name of these ideologies in the USSR, in China, in Cambodia, etc.

HOWEVER...

I presume that ANSWER, unlike Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, believe that socialism can be achieved without mass murder. (For all I know, ANSWER wouldn't call those three dictators "real" socialists anyway, beats me).

The point is, ANSWER probably would not justify the deaths of millions, nor would they support those who do. They probably have a dream of some kind of peaceful socialist revolution.

Unlikely? Hell yes. A bad thing if it did happen? I sure think so. But willing mass murder? I doubt it.

That is, ANSWER are misguided when it comes to the dangers of socialism, not ill-intentioned with regards to their fellow men.

While Stalin and Mao knew what they were doing when they sent millions to their deaths, and chose to do it anyway, I'd be surprised if the ANSWER people would do the same thing.

These people advocate socialism because they believe that it will lead to good things for people.

Sure, I think that's misguided and wrong, but it is certainly not the same thing as supporting intentional mass murder.

Now, I don't know a lot about ANSWER, so maybe my assumptions are flawed.

If I'm right though, then you should conclude that even if marching in a rally implies support for its organizers, participating in an ANSWER rally need not therefore suggest support for mass murder.

Now, a caveat: the history of socialism probably shows that the support of well-meaning but misguided people ultimately allowed tragedy to happen. By marching in a rally, being a "fellow traveller," do you pave the way for tragedy?

A marcher should consider the risk of being a "useful idiot." What is the worst will happen? ... ANSWER takes over the US and tries to peacefully institute socialism, but millions die anyway.

This is just not that likely today. And marching at an anti-war rally sponsored by ANSWER isn't going to take us much further down that path.

Therefore, an anti-war person could weigh the risks of giving power to socialists on the one hand vs. the benefits of creating a large anti-war demonstration on the other.

It seems that one could reasonably conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks.

And if I'm right that the ANSWER people are misguided but not evil (sort of like, who was it again, oh yeah, Jane herself in her socialist days) ... then marching at the anti-war rally is not such a sin.

If a person cannot see the difference in attending a rally sponsored by the Nazis versus one organized by the LWV then they have so lost themselves in the righteous of their "cause" that they will follow anyone, no matter how despicable, because it's expedient.

This sums it up best I believe.

Jim,

Your post makes perfect sense, but you are very wrong in your assumption about ANSWER.

I presume that ANSWER, unlike Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, believe that socialism can be achieved without mass murder. (For all I know, ANSWER wouldn't call those three dictators "real" socialists anyway, beats me).

The point is, ANSWER probably would not justify the deaths of millions, nor would they support those who do. They probably have a dream of some kind of peaceful socialist revolution.

ANSWER is run by the Workers World Party (WWP) The WWP was formed in 1956, when the Stalin-led USSR invaded Hungary. For many American Communists and socialists this was the last straw, and they formed the anti-communist (or at least anti-Stalinist) left. The WWP was formed by those who continued to support Stalin. They do not have a dream of a peacful socialist revolution, they have supported Stalin, Mao, the crushing of Tienamin Square, Milosovich, and today support Kim Som-Il. See Jane's link to Tacitus's summary of thier positions.

ANSWER is not misguided, they know exactly what they are doing and that is support of any evil which is anti-US. Many of the marchers did not know this (thanks, mainstreem media) and can be forgive as having been misled. However, some bloggers, as well as the politicians who spoke at the rally, knew full well who they were marching with.

My objection is not to marching with other groups on the left; my objection is to supporting this particular organization, which is both extremely hard left, and an active supporter of/apologist for Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Jong, Milosevic, and others.

I think the most pathetic aspect of this is that the supposedly vast grassroots anti-war movement hadn't the means even to organize its own protest. How hard would it have been for a large, legitimate left-of-center organization to put something of its own together? That reasonable opponents of war consented to sign on with the ANSWER lot because they they were such good organizers is shameful. (Slightly stronger statement deleted as I thought I'd better not pollute this blog.)

I think there hasn't been enough attention given to how the notice of the protest spread from ANSWER to the non-Stalinist groups who must presumably have done most of the serious work of getting the word out and persuading ordinary citizens to show up. ANSWER must have sent press releases to other antiwar groups, leftist organizations, leftist media, &c. I don't think an ordinary citizen who has never heard of ANSWER is at fault for attending an ANSWER-sponsored rally, but the more mainstream organizations that must have first gotten the word out to their members damn well had a duty to know who ANSWER is (or, if they didn't, to find out, which would take about a minute online) and I think they bear a good deal of the responsibility here.

Marc,

Thank you. My error. I've skimmed the Tacitus link and it appears quite damning at first blush.

A question then: if you march at such a rally, but hold up (or even pass out) decidedly anti-Stalinist signs, as Jim Henley did for example, is this acceptable? A sort of counter-protest to the Stalinist cause while affirming the cause of peace.

The key being that the denunciation of Stalinism is vocal (or visual anyway) as opposed to implied.

Marc is right about ANSWER. And I would bet that the vast majority of this weekend's protesters knew nothing about ANSWER or WWP. (I didn't before this weekend, and only learned through reading quite a bit about the protests as they happened.)

Now, a similar, but not identical point to Jane's -- If you are going to attend a rally, or engage in political activism of any kind, it is incumbent upon you to learn not only about the organizers, but about the cause itself.

It was pretty clear this weekend that many protesters knew nothing beyond t-shirt-worthy slogans. They did not lend credibility to their cause.

Likewise, analogies are cute, and hyperbole has its place, but if you really think Bush = Hitler or that the only difference between Bush and Saddam is that "Saddam was elected," then I don't feel there is a lot I can learn from you.

I believe that 99 per cent of the people at the rally( and an even higher percentage of the TV viewers) do not know who ANSWER is. What they know is that the demonstrators are against the Iraqi war.I note that every one of those who actually went to the rally said they were for peace, not ANSWER.I believe that these accurately represent of the view of those who attended the rally,and I believe that this is how the American people view the rally-as a rally for peace, not ANSWER. Right-wing ideologues may obsess about this,but I think that the American people understand that the peace movement is made of a bunch of groups, from pacifist church folk to isolationist libertarians to left-wing nuts to people who are genuinely worried about sending their sons and daughters to the wrong war in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.Certainly the third of the senior officers at the Pentagon who oppose the war can't be lumped in with ANSWER. Lets put aside who the organisers are, and get back to discussing why tens of thousands of people who don't know who ANSWER is nevertheless showed up to rally for peace.

TJ: Stalin did not call the rally. But the point that the warmongers are making here is fair enough: where do you draw the line?

If Stalin called it, I would not go. He, and his regime, were a powerful criminal organization. Furthermore, everyone knows what he was, and everyone knows that everyone else knows that.

To the extent that the organizer is well known, and known to have views other than those that the rally is supposedly about, and to the extent that the rally is not about anything consequential - the rally becomes one of support for the organizer.

If the WWP called it, I'd know vaguely who they are ahead of time, but I would expect few others to know. The WWP has never killed anyone to my knowledge; their "crime" is apologizing for Stalin and other communists; and more generally advocating socialist positions. As a radical group, they have little or no political power due to our two-party system. It's much more of a judgement call.

ANSWER is not WWP. Corn says it is a front organization; OK, fair enough, though 5 of 13 is not even a majority. The point of any front is distancing - to obscure the relation of those running the organization. Hiding like this may be negative, in the sense that ANSWER is supposed to be smuggling WWP "content" into their rallies. But it may also be positive, in the sense of that the organizers don't want their WWP affiliation to influence the acceptance of ANSWER, so they tend to shut up about their more unacceptable beliefs.

So. A obscure front (not necessary puppet, but at least influenced) organization with links to a tiny, weak, and marginal organization that apologizes for evil. The front is seemingly designed in order to distance the group from the evil-apologia of the other group.

Weighed against that, an evil that needs to be protested against. You make the call.

Thus the KKK analogy fails. The KKK is not obscure; the KKK engages in actual crime (not just the "crime" of saying offensive things); the KKK is not an innocuous and denatured front.

Similarly the Nazi analogy fails.

To be perfectly blunt, Leonard, why don't you, and other like-minded people, get off your asses and do your own organizing work, thereby obviating the need to rely on the efforts of those who advocate mass murder on a titanic scale (sorry, to apologize for those who promulgate ideologies that logically call for mass murder is the same as the advocacy of mass murder)? You rationalize the inexcusable.

Leonard,

Thus the KKK analogy fails. The KKK is not obscure; the KKK engages in actual crime (not just the "crime" of saying offensive things); the KKK is not an innocuous and denatured front.

OK, suppose it was the Council of Conservative Citizens rather than the KKK. Make you feel better?

Leonard: There is a Chinese proverb: "Evil exists where good men fail to act". Proposing a war is a known knife edge which those proponents must walk upon, and it is proposed precisely as other acts are judged insufficient. But to advise not going to war is a simple negation, and in walking with the devil you may just be lending him a support he wishes most. In saying that you do not espouse war, you do not advocate anything, and for lack of such specificity it is not unreasonable to conclude that you have indeed supported your fellow travellers. Don't forget Saul's role in Stephan's stoning: he just held the cloaks. Walking a similar moral knife edge is not a very good prospect.

I wrote: Of course, there is a difference. Most of us think that Stalinists are, by far, a greater evil, than the KKK. Feel free to disagree, but please describe how you're judging relative evil..."

> I'd set the KKK apart, since the KKK of old at least (They are more clandestine about their killing these days, so it's hard to tell...)used to kill people "in person", so to speak.

Since when is small scale killings (the KKK) worse than large scale (Stalinists)? Oh yes, "kill one person, and it's a tragedy, kill 10s of millions, and it's a statistic."

As to the "Stalinists don't intend to kill, they're just looking for a just society", the same can be said of the KKK. Of course, the KKK never managed to kill 10s of millions....

> I believe that 99 per cent of the people at the rally( and an even higher percentage of the TV viewers) do not know who ANSWER is.

Such ignorance is plausible at the beginning of the march, but by the end, the marchers have seen what's going on. By then, they weren't ignorant, they stayed because they believe in and support violent thuggery.

Jane, I want to thank you (as I thanked Tacitus) for having the courage to bring the truth about ANSWER and its complicit marchers to the fore of the blogosphere.
Well done--and I linked to both pieces in my post about this,too.
BTW, I love your new site, but I still miss the old one a bit. There was something about it that was so post-9/11 "We'll triumph over this outrage", but you're a rose who will bloom wherever you're planted.

>I think the most pathetic aspect of this is that the supposedly vast grassroots anti-war movement hadn't the means even to organize its own protest.

No. The most pathetic aspect of this is that the supposedly vast number of pro-war people can't organize any protests at all. All they can do is criticize.

>they stayed because they believe in and support violent thuggery.

Now, that's pathetic.

They stayed because they cared more about preventing an unjust, immoral war than they do about what a violent thug like you thinks.

Dana, you don't know that I'm pro-war. I am, I guess, but that's not what this post was about. I'm not criticizing people for being against the war. I'm criticizing what I think is tacit support given to a really foul political group, in the same basket with the even-more-powerless, yet nonetheless perfectly repulsive, KKK and American Nazi Party.

Jane: any Dana who calls somebody she doesn't know a "violent thug" has got a rhetorical screw loose. Or have you got a publicized criminal record with the NYPD? Otherwise, she's just an ad homenum troll wishing to be fed.

This thread has been very enlightening, in that it has exposed a nasty little fact; that some people disagree with the proposition that associating with, and relying on the organizing efforts of, political entities which advocate mass murder is disgraceful. Golly gee, they do support the slaughter of millions, but gosh, we agree with them on some things, and really, they DO throw such a marvelous protest......

I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same...many of the anti-war rallies of 1969 were led by radical leftists (I know because I was there) and now it appears the same thing is happening ("two, four, six, eight, organize to smash the State"). One might hope that the world has learned something since 1969 -- after all, we now know that the Red Guard slaughtered millions, and that collectivism generally has failed to produce anything except mass murder and poverty. Does this mean that everyone who marched behind ANSWER personally agrees that Stalin was a working class hero - well, of course not, but if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

Dana, the reason we don't is because most of us have jobs. And even those of us who are out of work or between jobs have lives...

Jane's basically saying that if you suspect some people might turn up to a protest that you may disagree with or dislike, then don't go.

Well, that sounds like a recipe for just about no protests ever to me.

Even if the organisers where paedophilic death cultists many people would have just seen a poster or some such saying 'come to an anti-war protest' and probably had little knowledge of the beliefs of the organisers.

Even if they were aware of the organisers beliefs, if it's the only game in town, and you have strong anti-war feelings, then you pick the lesser of two evils. Which for many would conceivably be attending the protest.

Organise your own? Who has the time? Lets face it, one large protest is going to have more impact than several small ones.

I think there is an element of laziness in all this. Why argue ideas when you can just smear the people who are against war?

They marched with ANTI-SEMITES! Sick, SICK people! You can't trust anything they say! They likely fornicate with dogs too! Sick, SICK people!

Oh, for christs sake lay off the sermonising and argue the real merits of the pro-war case.

Jane raises an interesting prospect - certainly, some folks no doubt do take the demonstrations as an endorsement of ANSWER. But I see no sign that, for instance, the Bush White House now concludes that there are several hundred thousand neo-Stalinists spread across the United States, nor that major media organizations do, nor that the Democratic Party's leaders are worried about a massive Stalinist presence to their left.

On the other hand, I'm way ignorant of a lot of things, and I will readily look at pointers suggesting that folks with power and influence do interpret these demonstrations that way.

Jane's basically saying that if you suspect some people might turn up to a protest that you may disagree with or dislike, then don't go.

No, actually that's not what she's saying. She's saying "if you show up to a protest organized by people who adore Saddam and Kim Jong Il and Milosevic, don't be surprised if people think you may sympathize with these people too." As people have pointed out on this thread a dozen times, if it were an anti-tax protest by the National Alliance (say), anyone with any wits and/or morals who knew what the thing was would be out the door ASAP. Why do you suppose that would be?

No one is saying that there is anything wrong with anti-war protests in and of themselves.

No one is saying that you are accountable for all the views of whatever idiot happens to be marching beside you.

No one is saying that all the people who went to the rallies ignorant of what ANSWER stood for are bad people.

What is being said is that the people who attended gave added visibility and credibility to the organizers, an organization that deserves neither.

What is also being said, I think, is that if you did attend knowing full well who organized the events or found out later and still defend your decision to attend then you are making a moral choice (lesser of two evils) and that choice says something about you and your values. Some may think it says something positive; many of the posters here obviously disagree.

And what's this garbage about not arguing the merits of the pro-war case? How hard do you have to look to find someone making the case for regime change? Just because it's not the subject of this particular discussion doesn't mean it's not happening.

For those who aren't familiar with my history, I'm not arguing the anti-war case because I am a candidate for the foreign service and thus not commenting on current US foreign policy. I'm not arguing whether protesters are right or wrong to protest -- only to protest here. Just as some protesters carried signs saying "not this war", I think it behooves to consider "not *this* protest", no matter how good they consider the cause.

If the peace protest was sponsored and organized by People In Favor Of Saving Lost Kittens, people would just be making fun. But since the organizing body was ANSWER, there's a little more involved. Just as if, for example, the RNC was organized by a white supremacist organization there would be LOUD outcry from the DNC.

Really, this is a no-brainer. You pal around with folks who are execrable, and people are going to start asking questions about what you thought you were doing. Maybe you should start asking yourselves and stop being defensive. If you're satisfied you have a good answer (pun unintended) then move on. What's to fight about?

ANSWER is COINTELPRO. Or maybe my tinfoil helmet is loose again.

I don't think I'm entirely serious about this, but I am at least partly so.

In the marketplace of ideas and social action, ANSWER is offering a service: demonstration organization. And they're doing it more efficiently, on more desirable terms, than any of their rivals on this particular topic.

Those who take part in ANSWER-organized demonstrations are customers in the social marketplace. Their acceptance of this particular transaction is no more an endorsement of everything ANSWER does than buying a Ford is an endorsement of the left-wing groups underwritten by the Ford Foundation. It is a market event, not the less for it not involving a transfer of cash. Service, customer, deal.

Jane, you are using the wrong term, and that is where the confusion is coming from. These are not fellow travellers, but useful idiots. That is how ANSWER will look at and use the folks that showed up on Sunday. Take a few Poli Sci courses and you will learn that in America, the size of your mailing list and the number of letters, phone calls and protesters you can threaten politicians with determines the strength of your organization. AARP isn't powerful because it is such a good cause, but the number of people it can count as members. Ain't it a bitch when reality so rudely runs up against idealism.

For all of those confused at why ANSWER is so repugnant, consider this. The comparison between communists and Nazis is a bad one because the Nazis are rank amateurs at genocide compared to communists. According to records from archives compiled in "The Black Book of Communism" the USSR killed 60-80 million people, and China has a tally of around 120 million and counting. I know that I want to be associated with an organization that says War=Evil, Genocide=OK if you are a communist.

Joe, few of us are disputing that ANSWER is composed of vile toads. What some of us are disputing is that participation in events like Sunday's will actually help ANSWER much. Who in the halls of power, political or corporate, is taking Sunday's numbers as evidence of a nascent Stalinist movement? Who is credibly asserting that they believe we have in Sunday's demonstrations a clue as to the strength of Stalinist organization in the US? Who among those who make law and/or attempt to shape opinion and policy identify participation in these events with meaningful endorsement of ANSWER's agenda?

At the risk of delving into nostalgic cliche, where's the beef?

(Note that these are actual questions. I know enough about the world to know that I don't know as much as I'd like, and it's quite possible that our hostess' speculative case is actuality. In that case, I would welcome pointers to citations to this effect, so that I can read and learn.)

Bruce Baugh is quite correct, in a sense: ANSWER provided a service to the people who attended the protest, for which they were not paid in cash. What the attendees need to ask themselves now is just what coin their hired organizers accepted in lieu of cash-- and whether it was worth paying.

To answer Bruce by analogy: I doubt that anyone will argue that the cause of segregation was helped much, or even could have been helped much, by Trent Lott's infamous comments.

The furor there concerned what those remarks said about his character; that argument was very much to the point, as is this one. What makes me nervous is the moral void I perceive in those who would insist that Lott should be condemned, while the protesters aren't even tarnished a little by their association with far worse.

But then moral consistency has never really been the strong suit of the left, I suppose... not even in the abstract.

The most pathetic aspect of this is that the supposedly vast number of pro-war people can't organize any protests at all.

What on Earth would the pro-war people be protesting? The fact that the government intends to do what they support? Or the fact that someone else disagrees with them? What a bizarre statement.

Organise your own? Who has the time? Lets face it, one large protest is going to have more impact than several small ones.

I think there is an element of laziness in all this. Why argue ideas when you can just smear the people who are against war?

Irony Squad, you have a cleanup on Aisle 4.

Lemme get this straight. It is important to take the time to protest against any coming war in Iraq, because such a war would be immoral and/or unwise, but it is not impotant enough to endeavor to avoid relying on the orgnaizational efforts of those who advocate mass murder on a titanic scale. My, what an outstanding example of moral clarity and reasoning!

Some related questions. I'm trying to work out the boundaries here, and none of this is trolling. I'd be interested in the reasons behind answers, where possible.

Was Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union immoral?

If I go to Busch Gardens, am I presumptively endorsing Busch's stance on the rights of homosexual employees?

Are fans of the San Diego Chargers presumptively supportive of Qualcomm's bungling of opportunities in cell phone service?

There are lines here, but I see a bunch of factors to weigh.

Lend lease was supportive of Stalin's murderous ways, but it was morally tolerable becasue Hitler was equally murderous, or nearly so, he was more of an immediate threat, and defeating Hitler without alliance with Stalin was very problematic. If you can make the case that the present administration is the equivalent of German National Socialism, and that organizing protests against it, without the aid of Stalinists, is as problematic as defeating Hitler militarily without alliance with the Red Army, then the analogy might hold. It is doubtful, to say the least, that such a case can be made. When you go to Busch Gardens, you are supporting Anheuser Busch's employment practices, and the success of Qualcomm stadium gives Qualcomm some degree of increased credibility. If you wish to make the case that providing awful telecommunications service has the same moral import as murdering a few hundred million people, go right ahead. If San Diego had a sporting facility called Pol Pot Stadium, I, for one, would never enter the building.

Michele - yes, exactly. The CCC is much more acceptable than the KKK, because the CCC doesn't have a history of murdering people and terrorism. Their offenses, to my knowledge, are only of speech and advocacy. They are not criminal.

However, I don't think that the CCC is as tolerable as ANSWER as a hypothetical protest organizer, for two reasons.

First, ANSWER is supposed to be only about (a) peace and (b) anti-"racism". These things encode other ideas, some of which are good and some not. But generally they are good ideas. In contrast, the CCC has a great number of positions, but it is distinguished from other "conservative" groups in its racism.

In other words, ANSWER is not prima facie objectionable. The CCC is.

Second, ANSWER is politically impotent, as far as I am aware. (Perhaps someone can point me to powerful politicians meeting with them.) On the other hand, the concern over the CCC is mainly centered on the fact that a fair number of powerful Southern politicians do curry favor with them. Trent Lott, for one, but there are many others.

Excellent commentary! I would highly encourage folks to take a look at Tacitus' exhaustive article on the matter. Very well done.

http://www.tacitus.org/archives/000327.html#000327

But Leonard, that's not true. You know it's not true, just like the CCC's alleged "heritage" mission is not what the organization is actually about. Saying you'll accept the euphemistic cover story of one organization, when you won't accept the other, because the one happens to be good at getting permits for rallies in a cause you like, strikes me as rationalization. Especially when David Corn has recorded folks admitting that it's a front group for the WWP.

At the risk of repetition, I will say it again: if it is believed that protesting this impending war is an important thing to do, then it is incumbent that those that adhere to this belief to protest without the organizational aid of the advocates of mass murder. Failure to make the effort to advocate your position without aid from the advocates of mass murder idelibly stains YOUR advocacy, and harms your credibility.

Guilt by association. Go to a protest organised by A.N.S.W.E.R. and you therefore must be in agreement with them.

Horseshit.

Is this the best the pro-war movement can come up with?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that many people would have gone to the protest who did not support much, if anything at all, of ANSWERS views. They simply wanted to make a statement against the war.

Claims that people support ANSWER simply by turning up and staying are simply cheap, not to mention stupid, shots.

Argue the pro-war case and leave the cheap, nasty and clumsy attempts at smearing out of it.

>Jane: any Dana who calls somebody she doesn't know a "violent thug" has got a rhetorical screw loose.

My god you people are completely irony-impaired, aren't you?

That guy does not know me, or ANY of the people he is accusing of supporting violent thugs. Get it?

>Dana, the reason we don't is because most of us have jobs. And even those of us who are out of work or between jobs have lives...

cybrludite (now there's something to be proud of)

Standard response: Jobs? In a Bush economy?

This is even more lame and pathetic than anything previous. Do you honestly think that the hundreds of thousands of people who marched around the world - on a SATURDAY - aren't employed?

(Silly me, using "honestly think" in a question to this bunch).

And yes, we do have lives. We would like to keep our lives and we would like other people elsewhere in the world to keep theirs. Even you. Therefore we take time in our lives to DO SOMETHING to express how we feel. I would venture to guess we have much richer and fuller lives than people who say they care so deeply about something (war - or at least excoriating anti-war protesters) yet can't get off their lazy asses and organize and go to a protest of their own.

Uh Dana, the point is that you did not get off your lazy ass and organize your own protest. You had advocates of mass murder do it for you. If you had gotten off your lazy ass and organized your protest without the aid of advocates of mass murder, this entire thread would never have developed. Is you cause so pathetic that you must rely on the organizational aid of mass murder advocates?

I guess I can start buying my webhosting services from Jeffrey Dahmer. After all, he's just providing a service.

Uh, Will, not every anti-war demonstration in the country was organized by ANSWER. We DID organize our own. It wasn't in DC or SF, it was just on the same day.

Now let's see you do better.

As for what you have to protest? Why, the fact that the war hasn't started yet. And might not, thanks to us. That has GOT to piss you off.

To Will Allen:

Why are socialists necessarily advocates of mass murder?

I know Stalin and Mao and others were upto their eyeballs in it, but that does not mean current day socialists endorse it.

They may be in denial over what really happened in communist China and the USSR mass murder-wise. They may think they can achieve a socialist paradise by learning from Soviet and Chinese mistakes and hence avoid the bloodshed. You may think they are naive to believe these things, and I'd agree. But if they do believe these things then they genuinely believe socialism can be achieved without the deaths and so to accuse them of endorsing mass murder is ridiculous.

Once again it's cheap smears and no substance from the pro-war crowd.

Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

It seems like I've been watching this fools all my life. "Demonstrating" has to be the most pointless activity there is. In the 60s demonstrations were nothing more than tantrums by overindulged children.

Today, they are homages to those children, by people who haven't thought anything through for themselves, and can't learn anything from experience. That's why they still think that the U.N. can solve the problem of Saddam, and that Iraq is not a threat.

When you do something and it doesn't work, but you keep doing it anyway, it's called an obsessive compulsive disorder. It needs treatment, not followers.

Stewart Kelly arrives a day late and a dollar short... Tell ya what, Stew: go to the links Tacitus provides of ANSWER's own words, and try to tell me they aren't advocates of mass murder. Just try. It may not be true of all socialists, but it's certainly true of that crowd.

Dana, you honestly think that paltry protest can stop the upcoming war? Are you sure you aren't a war supporter, trolling to discredit the anti-war crowd?

Its not a "smear" to point out that the people who protested at ANSWER's rally were allowing themselves to be led by communists.

As for socialists and mass murder, there is a long history of such being apologists for mass murder. More importantly, the WWP group is overtly apologist for such mass murders as the Soviets, Khmer Rouge and current terrorist Maoist groups like Sendero Luminoso. There is no "smear" to the simple truth.

"Guilt-by-association" and such is a nice rhetorical trick.

I live very close to the Srebrenica gravesites, and I don't see why this issue is so complicated: an organization that continues to try and apologize for and defend some of the worst human rights violations of this century organized an event that you attended, and chose the speakers for such an event... I don't care if this gives them more power (because I think it doesn't). It's simply an issue of moral credibility. At some point you say "no, those views are repugnant, I won't attend an event put on by those people." If certain far-right organizations put on certain events, it wouldn't be hard for me to avoid them and their speakers, no matter how much I supported the general idea.

If it's an "unjust and immoral war" that you are opposing (and please, offer alternatives then, negating something is not a policy), why are you letting your work be done by people who support the most unjust and immoral crimes of our century? What, ultimately, is the point then? At some point you have to stand up for a cogent set of values, regardless of political expediency. It can't be just "I oppose whatever Bush and the GOP do, because I think they are assholes and must always be on the wrong track"; it has to be "I stand up for human rights. That means I stand against people who support and defend Milosevic. I stand against Saddam Hussein (although I have a different concept, _____, of how to depose/contain him)."

Dana, if you attended an event that did not receive the organizational efforts of ANSWER, or other advocates of mass murder, then my comments are not directed at you. Many, if not most of the events, across the country DID recieve the oranizational efforts of mass murder advocates. I merely observed that one should refrain from participating in an event that was organized by mass murder advocates, no matter how much one agrees with the mass murder advocates on that particular issue. It is somewhat astounding, and illuminating, that so many find this observation objectionable.

Stewart, you need to educate yourself regarding the nature of ANSWER's, and similar groups', advocacy.

> Claims that people support ANSWER simply by turning up and staying are simply cheap, not to mention stupid, shots.

Many people have said that ANSWER's politics are irrelevant for one reason or another. The other participants' ignorance of said politics being a favorite.

Okay.

Would you have marched if the rally had been organized by the KKK? Would you have stayed after the KKK organizers started trashing things?

....

So, the organizers' politics does matter.

Everyone reread Starhawk's comments for a look at a potential repeat of the past history of the "peace" movement. People (useful idiots)showing up at rallies are being manipulated for other purposes by the same crowd that will once again throw rocks and instigate violence to further their anarchist political aims. They did whatever they could in the 70's to get innocent people killed and were very cowardly while doing it also. I saw it at my campus, it was organized and preplanned with people bussed in from outside the state to create crowd situations within which they could hide and throw rocks at police who responded to a false report of gunfire. We got the details from the asshole who threw the rock from behind us (we were his cover the shithead). He squealed pretty quick when two guys grabbed him. If anyone thinks these people aren't ready to do the same again, you're fooling yourselves and walking with the devil. They don't care about peace as I don't believe most of the people who were there believe in "peace". They are mostly isolations who want to preserve their own comfort.
Here's their real slogan: No American Blood for Brown People.

Comments are Closed.