ANSWER is not the Answer

Watched most of the antiwar rally that commenced in DC on Sat. It was organized primarily by ANSWER, a Stalinoid sect that has, from what I can see, zero contact with the working people it claims to champion, but which does one hell of a job getting rally and march permits in DC. And as I expected, the majority of speakers either parroted the ANSWER line or stayed close to it. What is the ANSWER line? Go here and read for yourself -- and if sucking up to a decrepit monarchy in northern Korea doesn't jazz you, then I suggest you look up some of their dispatches from Saddam's Iraq. ANSWER and its many other manifestations loves those who murder and jail leftists and trade unionists, so long as said murderers mutter slogans they can co-opt.

Other than the Raging Grannies, an amiable group of older women who sing antiwar/anti-administration songs to the tunes of dated melodies, there wasn't a hint of original creativity seen on that stage. As I said, a fair number of speakers got to pretend they were Lenin, Mao, Che, Ho, or whatever revo-caricature they were imitating in their heads -- barking at the crowd, spitting out statements so old and tired they needed crutches to reach the mike. My daughter, who's fiercely antiwar, watched this with me and asked "Who the hell are these people?"

"Oh, most of them were around when I was active in New York."

As Ramsey Clark ambled onto the stage, I added, "And this guy -- I met him back in '90 with a few other activists who were against the build-up in the Gulf. He used to be LBJ's Attorney General who tried to throw Noam Chomsky in jail. He was pretty full of himself when I met him. Kind of a creep, actually. I later read about his cozy visits with Saddam, where they exchanged stories about their relatives while Iraqi dissidents were being tortured and killed. He's a fraud. But make up your own mind."

She continued watching the conga line of ANSWER-bots, then said, "They're all over the place. Why don't they stick to the war?"

"They don't care about the war -- hell, they support China's occupation of Tibet. They'll use whatever issue they can to inflate their importance. They're not progressive. They're assholes."

Still, there were bright spots. Several family members of those serving in Iraq were allowed to speak, and instantly brought some credibility to the pageant. Cindy Sheehan of course appeared, and received enthusiastic applause. Nancy Wolforth, Executive Vice President of the AFL-CIO, spoke about solidarity with Iraqi trade unionists. A representative from US Labor Against The War, a union group that also works with Iraqi trade unionists (as opposed to their killers), was given too little stage time, but at least was present. And that was pretty much it, save for celebs like Jessica Lange, Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, Al Sharpton and George Galloway who, as with any seasoned comic, used his best lines tested the night before on Bill Maher's "Real Time," where he appeared with, once again, Mr. C. Hitchens, reluctant, grimacing straightman to Galloway's clown persona.

I suspect that growing criticism of ANSWER's restricted speaker list and input from co-organizer United For Peace & Justice had a lot to do with the openings seen. But there were far too many topics addressed, most in demagogic, simplistic terms, to capture the casual C-SPAN viewer. The Iraq war and the fallacy of "the war on terror" should have been the sole focus. Wanna talk about Aristide? Stage a Haiti rally. Wanna praise Hugo Chavez? Put together a Hands Off Venezuela march. With the majority of Americans turning against the war, a leaner, tighter, more direct series of speakers (with labor groups, military relatives and dissident soldiers and Marines leading the way -- why wasn't someone from Iraq Veterans Against The War invited to speak?) would've been electrifying. And why not mix in some antiwar libertarians and Repubs? If you truly oppose the brutal status quo, I'd think you'd want to reach as many people as you can.

Nationalize the opposition to this war and the wars on the horizon. Don't let groups like ANSWER privatize it.

Naturally, many antiwar liberals were appalled by the ANSWER fest, and for good reason, as I've already said. But I do not share every one of their objections, some of which are, at this late date, rather surprising if not completely ridiculous. Of all the liberal criticisms I've read, none have topped Steve Gilliard's statement that --

"Palestine is really unpopular in the US, even among liberals."

Really? I know that most mainstream Dems toe the Greater Israel line, and have for decades. But I seem to recall as far back as 1988, at the Dem national convention in Atlanta, that a large group of party delegates won the right to introduce a plank to the party platform that favored "mutual recognition, territorial compromise and self determination for both Israelis and Palestinians." The party leadership so feared this outbreak of democracy that they struck a deal with the delegates: drop the platform request in favor of a debate about the issue. The delegates accepted, doubtless after much backroom pressure, and James Zogby ably debated Charles Schumer, who was booed as he defended Israeli expansion and air strikes on civilians.

Indeed, most polls I've seen over the years have shown that a majority of Americans are in favor of a two-state settlement, which is, in essence, a "pro-Palestinian" position. And thanks to the tireless efforts of Israeli, Arab and American activists, one can speak about Palestinian rights much more freely than you could twenty years ago. Shit man, even Bush has done it, regardless of how phony and corrupt his intentions.

Is Steve G. suggesting that American liberals are outside of this ongoing consensus? Or that they should be? While I agree with his view that the rally should have focused solely on the war, it's hard to divorce what's going on in Iraq from Israel/Palestine, which for those on the ground is the issue that frames regional debate.

But even without Sat's rally and march, the majority of Americans would remain against this war. Their -- our -- numbers are steady, and continue to grow.