Why I Stand with ANSWER

[Adam Levenstein <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

Why I Stand with ANSWER

Much has been made of the ANSWER coalition in recent weeks. As in
October, a massive outpouring of anti-war sentiment in Washington has
been met with a chorus of redbaiting from media outlets and ?leftists?
alike.

But the repeated publication of the supposed ?real forces behind
ANSWER? doesn?t seem to stop people. It didn?t stop 200,000 from
rallying in October, and it didn?t stop over twice that many from
rallying in January.

International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) was formed
after September 11, 2001 to try and form a movement against the
constant saber-rattling of the Bush administration. It was largely
initiated by the International Action Center, an anti-imperialist
solidarity group in which Workers World Party has heavy participation.
The IAC remains a central group in the ANSWER coalition, which also
includes IFCO/Pastors for Peace, the Free Palestine Alliance, the
Nicaragua Network, the Muslim Student Association of the US/Canada, and
many other groups unaffiliated with WWP.

It can scarcely be denied that ANSWER has contributed much to the
anti-war movement. Protests the like of which haven?t been seen since
the Vietnam era are popping up all over the country, from Atlanta to
Washington to San Francisco, to Portland, Oregon. Denying ANSWER?s role
in building this movement not only does a disservice to many committed
ANSWER organizers, but is blatantly dishonest.

What makes the ANSWER formation different from other groups is that
they refuse to see the Bush war drive as isolated; they see it as
inextricably linked with attacks on working people in the United States
and abroad. In this, I wholeheartedly agree with ANSWER. One cannot
discuss the war drive against Iraq without discussing the ?war on
terrorism? and INS roundups; and one cannot discuss the ?war on
terrorism? without discussing past abrogation of civil rights,
political prisoners, and Palestine.

Many central ANSWER organizers are Workers World members and
supporters; this too can scarcely be denied. Despite my own political
differences with WWP, the tireless work that these comrades-?and I do
not hesitate to call them comrades-?have done in ANSWER has been
admirable, to say the least. In a nonsectarian fashion, ANSWER has
built demonstrations that have united anti-war activists across the
board, from the committed Bolshevik to the apolitical ?soccer mom.?

Listening to Todd Gitlin or David Corn, one gets the impression that
WWP has used its position in ANSWER to promote ONLY its views. This is,
quite simply, a lie. Every event ANSWER has organized has included
people from a range of viewpoints, even from supposedly ?competing?
anti-war coalitions. Mike Farrell of ?Win Without War,? Bill Fletcher
of United for Peace, and Rev. Jesse Jackson all have shared the podium
at ANSWER rallies. On October 26, Jackson even went so far as to
describe the 1991 Gulf War as ?just?-?a view ANSWER and WWP most
certainly do not share.

The other popular criticism is that ANSWER permits other issues to be
addressed in its rallies. This ?talk out of both sides of the mouth?
routine is a common redbaiting tactic; first we?re supposed to condemn
ANSWER for only pushing one particular view, then we?re supposed to
condemn them for allowing other views to be expressed.

Apparently ANSWER is supposed to patrol their demonstrations, lest
someone shout the horrible slogans of ?Free Palestine? and ?End INS
Roundups.? The irony is, were ANSWER to actually have such a
reactionary policy, they would be lambasted for being against free
speech.

In fact, many of the ?pacifist? and ?moderate? organizations and
coalitions DO conduct such practices?-or, at least, try to. (Trying to
police chants and signs is as practical as trying to keep beer out of
sporting events.) They think that people who try to link the ?war on
terrorism? abroad to the domestic ?war on terrorism? are too radical,
and prevent the supposed legitimate anti-war view from getting a broad
audience.

So in reality, those who criticize ANSWER have two main points:

1.      Some of the organizers have different opinions than they do, and
2.      ANSWER dares to permit people to speak their mind.

Do I have my criticisms of ANSWER? Certainly; some organizational, some
political, but all unimportant. The plan and simple fact of the matter
is that ANSWER is and remains a large part of the anti-war movement.
Attacking ANSWER is an attack upon the movement itself, just as a war
against Iraq is a war against the Iraqi people.

I stand with ANSWER. I heartily congratulate-?and thank-?the organizers
for the spectacular work they?ve done, and I have no problems about
helping to build and promote ANSWER events. I call on all anti-war
activists to do the same, and not partake in this illegitimate
redbaiting that is a thinly veiled attempt to disrupt the movement?s
momentum and dynamics.

Adam Levenstein


=====
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Levenstein                          cleon42@xxxxxxxxx
ICQ: 17125158

Microsoft will make something that doesn't suck when
they start manufacturing vacuum cleaners.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

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