Re: Forwarded from Anthony (NYT)

["David Quarter" <davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

  I'm not sure which of your specific points Comrade Lieu was
responding to, but I agree with his basic premise about building a
more inclusive movement.

 Obviously, I'm not advocating the reformist or passivist line referred to 
below.
And I'm definitely not advocating watering down our program.
I'm thinking more in terms of the way we present our message  The
main thing is that we should tone down the rhethoric and stop the
finger pointing -- for example, get rid of the cliches (ie., "class
collaborator", "false consciousness", "petty bourgeois" ), stop the
divisive interventions, communicate in language acessible to
average citizens (i.e., workers, students, small business men,
immigrants, etc -- ie., all the exploitive groups as well members of
the middle class ).

I would like to hear other people's thoughts on  this ?

DOQ



>
> These are fine sentiments, but what do they mean programmatically.  Do we
> advance by embracing slogans like "Peace is Patriotic,"  "Support Our
> Troops" ?
>
> I don't think it's extremist to propose more precise, definitive ways
> forward.  Certainly we will alienate some, including the NYT, we will add
> others (not the Washington Post).
>
> What's alienating?  In April 2002 when Bush announced that he had made up
> his mind that Saddam "got to go"  would saying to Bush "You first" be
> considered alienating?  Maybe.  But that would have been a good starting
> point.   Would arguing against UN sanctions, inspections, peacekeepers today
> be alienating?  ONLY TEMPORARILY.
>
> We have to create the bridges to move the struggle forward.  You cannot do
> that without risking, and losing, some of the comfort some of the others
> feel with your direction. Indeed such differentiation is part of the
> transition process itself.
>