Nation Magazine polices the antiwar movement

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

While most sensible people would regard the growing unity between ANSWER
and the Not In Our Name coalition, who endorsed each other's actions in
October, as a positive development, leave it up to red-baiter Liza
Featherstone to try to open up a cleavage. On the Nation Magazine's website
(http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021028&s=featherstone), in an
article titled "Peace Gets a Chance", she offers a glowing report on last
Sunday's action in Central Park organized by Not in Our Name:

"The lively and youthful demonstration--some 20,000 strong--was a beautiful
sight indeed. A largely regional protest, it did draw some visitors from
Ohio, Massachusetts and elsewhere, and a Swedish couple was overhead saying
something incomprehensible--except for the words 'Not in Our Name.'"

Like a parent who favors one child against another, Ms. Featherstone then
chastises ANSWER for not being as smart or as ambitious as her sister Betty:

"Of course, not all the recent antiwar organizing has been this appealing
and sensible. Even the smartest groups are making some questionable
decisions, continually harping on the US intervention in Afghanistan, a
fait accompli that was enthusiastically supported by most Americans. At
some protests, demonstrators have signs proclaiming Bush Knew, suggesting
that the President was directly implicated in the 9/11 carnage. Act Now to
Stop War & End Racism (ANSWER), an international coalition, doesn't go in
for such wacky conspiracies, but its rhetoric makes few concessions to
Americans who may be concerned about security as well as imperialism."

What does she mean by concessions?

She offers up the dreadful Todd Gitlin, who has worked overtime since 9/11
to punish the radical movement for refusing to salute the stars-and-stripes:

"In the same vein, sociologist and author Todd Gitlin, who supported the
war on Afghanistan, reminded protesters at a September rally in front of
the United Nations to be 'careful' to condemn the crimes of Saddam Hussein
as well as those of Bush, calling the Iraqi leader a 'brutal dictator.' His
speech rankled some of the faithful--one grumbled, 'That's their
propaganda! That kind of talk has no place at an antiwar rally'--but it's
just the sort of message that will help the antiwar movement reach a
broader public."

Let's be as clear as we can about this. THERE ARE NO GOOD REASONS FOR
ANSWER AND NOT IN OUR NAME TO COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER, NOR TO HAVE SEPARATE
COALITIONS SINCE THERE ARE NO PRINCIPLED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO
FORMATIONS. SECTARIANISM WOULD BE THE ONLY PRETEXT. LET ME REPEAT THAT:
SECTARIANISM WOULD BE THE ONLY PRETEXT.

On the other hand, the Nation Magazine and its network of social patriots
has a different agenda entirely. They want to elect Al Gore or John Kerry,
or some other palatable Democrat in the next presidential election. In
order to maintain some credibility before the progressive community, they
have to give lip-service to the antiwar movement but in reality they will
be as much of an obstacle to an effective anti-war movement as the "doves"
around the Democratic Party were in 1968-1972.

With so much at stake, the left has to eschew every last bit of
sectarianism and move forward. The only way that we can isolate the Todd
Gitlins and Liza Featherstones of the world is to maximize our power in
institutions where ruling class ideology is at its weakest, the college
campuses, progressive unions, etc. But to maximize our power, we have to be
UNITED. All obstacles to UNITY in this period are objectively
counter-revolutionary.





Louis Proyect
www.marxmail.org


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.