The Left Needs A Rhetorical Haircut

January 18 2002 saw over 100,000 people in San Francisco, and over 300,000 in Washington D.C. to protest the administration's plan to go to war with Iraq. "Official" estimates (75,000/200,000) were of course, ridiculously low, and organizer's estimates (200,000/500,000) were probably high. Regardless, the point is that the Peace Movement is alive and well. February 15/16 will also have a huge turnout as the administration's war talk continues.

It's crucial that all who support a responsible and peaceful solution to international problems and disagree with the administration's plans for unilateral war get out there and protest. We've all seen the unbalanced and dissent-quashing coverage in the mainstream media. We've seen and heard those who disagree with the administration have their patriotism questioned. John Ashcroft went so far as to say in front of Congress that "those who criticize the administration are aiding and giving comfort to the enemy," an insinuation of treason. ("Aid and give comfort to the enemy" is one of the bases on which one can be convicted of treason).

Sheer numbers and repeated demonstrations are a strong way to show that whatever the administration and media say, we do not subscribe to the empty slogan of "United We Stand" behind the administration no matter what. What we stand united for is responsible government, and each of our voices must be heard. Protests make that point, even if they're underreported. Repeated protests make it harder and harder to ignore. However, the left must also be responsible, savvy, pragmatic, and know that they will be portrayed in the worst possible light.

The Jan. 18 and Feb. 15 , 2003 protests, as well as the April 20th and Oct. 6th, 2002 protests were all organized by ANSWER, an organization with many positions we both disagree with and even find foolish and wrong in many ways. Regardless, we were still out there at the demonstrations.

The right is very good at appearing unified on core issues. The left needs to learn from this and be able to put aside differences at crucial times and get out there with even groups like ANSWER to get the message out to the general public. BUT it's also important to know what you agree with and disagree with about groups that organize public events, because they are who the media will focus on. It's the job of each of us to educate the who we are that want a peaceful government, and that ANSWER is not the only group out there and doesn't represent everyone's�in fact, doesn't represent a significant portion of the progressive movement's�views. We give ANSWER a lot of credit for bringing the Peace movement back into the national spotlight, and organizing numerous large scale events. They are very good at fast, big organizing. We appreciate that, and participate. ANSWER is opposed to war in Iraq and the administration's policies of unilateralism and basically bullying the rest of the world. But we need to draw a line to differentiate ourselves from the rest of ANSWER's ideals. So while we join ANSWER out there in the streets, and appreciate their great organizing, we disagree strongly with a lot of their rhetoric and public positions. And we feel it's crucial to let them know this.

What are our beefs with ANSWER? We worked with ANSWER for several months for the April 20th 2002 rally. Both I and many of my peers were so frustrated and turned off my ANSWER that we left and are not likely to work with them directly again. So we're not just repeating what was written in Salon. Frankly, ANSWER's rhetoric is so extreme, such old-left Marxist, Stalinist, and Leninist, "revolution" talk, that many points of PEACE are lost to the public. They make an easy target for Red-baiting and invalidation. They do it to themselves.

We find their position basically supporting violent Intifada and nearly celebrating suicide bombers fantastically hypocritical in an organization that purports to be a vanguard of the PEACE movement. In our experience working with ANSWER, there was no room for criticism of the Palestinian's own violence. The stock reply was "an oppressed people has a right to rise up against the oppressors." In the 21st century, we need to be more sophisticated than that. The situation in the Middle East cannot be reduced to textbook Marxism. We believe they should instead be supporting and encouraging a peaceful, committed, MLK-style resistance in the Mideast, and thoughtful, effective criticism of both Israel and the Intifada groups.

The violent "uprising" they support uncritically has not and will not work. Instead, ANSWER demonizes Israel, puts on speakers who call for the destruction and dissolution of Israel, and grants no time to those who support Israel in any way or criticize the Palestinian shortsightedness. Again there is no place for that in a PEACE movement, a free speech movement. Disciplined nonviolence is hard. Broad thinking is harder than black-and-white thinking. Self-reflection is hard. Too bad. We believe that in nearly all cases, Mideast included, violence begets worse violence in the long run, whether it's the "oppressors" or the "oppressed" pulling the triggers. There is also a tendency to make people like Hussein seem innocent, when they're not. No issue is so simple or clear-cut.

Terry Gross of Fresh Air recently had an interview with Todd Gitlin, followed by Mara Verheyden Hilliard, a representative of ANSWER. While I agreed with about 90% of Gitlin's criticisms, all I could think of when listening to the Hilliard was "If they sounded this rational and balanced in person, I'd support them." But the problem is that they don't. As far as I could tell, she was doing just what Ari Fleischer does. For a far better cause, but just as dishonest. ANSWER should be honest about its motives. We all should. She resembles ANSWER in person as much as George Bush's sex life resembles Dirk Diggler's. (Ouch. Now that's a scary image.) You can hear or read a synopsis of the Terry Gross interview here by searching for the January 23, 2003 show.

In addition to all that, ANSWER is a prime example of the largest fault of the Peace movement these days. There is a "stuck in the 60s" style and rhetoric that the Peace movement continually falls victim to. This is a new era with new problems. It's the 21st century. To treat the world, it's problems, and public the same as they were in the Viet Nam era is foolish and ineffective. Many more mainstream folk are alienated by the Peace movement because it looks and sounds and organizes like it's 1968, not 2003. We cannot afford to live in the past. The debacle of the November 2002 mid-term elections proves that. A friend's brother, an investment banker, showed up at the protest but was put off by the tired old rhetoric, and the feeling that he was at a Dead concert attended by Marxist Hare Krishnas. Not that there's any problem with the Dead, but 35-year old tactics and strategies, 35-year old marketing, and a 35-year old viewpoint, along with a shallow and judgmental view of the world doesn't work.

Someone once said to me, "if you want to be taken seriously, get a haircut and clean up." While we don't believe that "a haircut" will solve the problem, or that we all have to wear pinstripe suits all the time, the point is, speak to your audience. Be inclusive, which means not just to those who never criticize you. Make some compromises to get most of what you want. Stop screaming about "viva la revolution" and "the heroic suicide bombers" and start talking about pragmatic solutions�idealism with legs.

So many lefties have an aneurysm burst at the idea of having to "change for someone else." But if the goal is change, if "getting a rhetorical haircut" means that ANSWER and the rest of the Peace movement will get its message across more effectively, what kind of real peace activist�someone who's commitment is to peace�can say no?

Excuse the example, and I know I'll get some flack for this but think of the Medical Marijuana people. Medical Marijuana is a fine issue. It has value, it has validity, it has a point. But how many of us know people who just want to get stoned but couch their arguments in the Medical Marijuana argument? How many stoners claim to have a medical need when you know they don't? Not only does it detract from the cause and invalidate those who really need it, not only does it create resistance for other related issues like Hemp fabric, paper, and biofuels, but to the general public (and some more skeptical lefties) it portrays the Medical Marijuana folks as a bunch of spineless liars who are doing exactly the same thing as the antiabortion forces are doing with that whole "partial birth abortion" crap. It's a lie. Have the courage of your convictions to say what it is you stand for and want. You want to legalize pot, go ahead, don't use Medical Marijuana as a front.

Likewise, ANSWER is antiwar (as long as it's not the Palestinians you want to talk about). But I firmly believe its agenda is deeper and different than that, and it does the Peace movement a disservice by both lumping everything together ("No War" + "Go Suicide Bombers!"), but by misrepresenting all of its true motives. Ramsey Clark, ANSWER, International Action Coalition, have the guts to say what you stand for in public without just hiding behind antiwar movement and acting as if you're the voice of it all. Include a wider variety of speakers on stage, even those who may disagree with your positions and rhetoric. Tone down the tired and shrill talk of "revolution," your black-and-white view of the world (just as black-and-white as that of the right) and start talking�and acting�instead about "change" and "inclusiveness" and teamwork. We'll all get a lot farther that way. [Recently, well-known Jewish peace activist Rabbi Michael Lerner was blocked from speaking because he has "criticized ANSWER in the press." We think that's cowardly of ANSWER. People like Michael Lerner are a strong voice for Peace in the Mideast and banning him does nothing but make ANSWER look hypocritical. More on this.]

If the goal is convincing the public and the administration that war is an ineffective solution, that our foreign policy is shortsighted and inflammatory, (and so is our domestic policy) then concentrate on what's effective to get there. Tie dyes and getting stoned, Marx, and Revolution talk all has its place, but it's not effective as a central thrust or public persona. It's bad marketing and neither inviting nor appealing to the majority of America. And that's the real bottom line for the PEACE movement of the 21st century. Appeal to the real masses, not the theoretical"proletariat."

The right has learned to use modern tools, like the wheel. Or, less sarcastically, the media. The left, apparently, has not. We desperately need to if we are to achieve the world we envision.

Send this article to a friend Printer-Friendly Version