<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>I generally agree with Raimondo's perspectives in this article, and I've apparently been naive for some time in assuming that it's become obvious to those in the left antiwar movement that there needs to be an alliance with the antiwar right. I should know better. On "progressive" Common Dreams, for example, the antiwar right has yet to exist.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I do, however, have one caveat regarding his criticism of Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report):</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>On the other hand, one can easily imagine that Ford, who has called the Ron Paul movement and the tea partiers “</EM><A href="http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/right-left-and-ugly-fear-and-loathing-white-america"><FONT color=#990000><EM>racists</EM></FONT></A><EM>,” ... see(s) a left-right coalition as a deadly threat to “their” movement.</EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM></EM> </DIV>
<DIV>Ford is a sensible leftist who is focused on issues of race in relation to class and institutionalized racism, not so much in terms of attitudes ("diversity"), as his recent commentary on Sherrod made clear. I'm not sure that he cares how Ron Paul "feels" about blacks. He does care that on the libertarian right there is no critique of institutionalized racism. If he's uncomfortable with an antiwar alliance, it's on this basis, and it's understandable in terms of his dominant focus.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On the radio version of News from Neptune, Saturdays at 10 on WEFT, we usually begin with Ford's weekly commentary, which is invariably scathingly anti-Obama in corporate terms.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>DG</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> C. G. Estabrook <galliher@illinois.edu><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> peace discuss <Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Wed, July 28, 2010 2:54:23 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Peace-discuss] It's up to us<BR></FONT><BR>I hope it's clear that I quoted Raimundo's recommendation of the SWP strategy re Vietnam because I think it's the right strategy re AfPak.<BR><BR>"...a really effective strategy ... was to make the antiwar movement ... a single issue movement. The idea was to unite all who could be united around a simple axiomatic principle: Get the US out of [the Middle East]. Period. The SWPers were among the most energetic and effective antiwar organizers because they knew the difference between building a mass movement around the issue of war and peace and building a
political party: the former had to be broad and all-inclusive, as opposed to the latter, which, by definition, has a more<BR>comprehensive ... character."<BR><BR><BR>On 7/28/10 5:31 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:<BR>> From Justin Raimondo's attack on the United National Antiwar Conference in<BR>> Albany last weeked:<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> "...What is needed is not another leftist-dominated 'coalition,' which puts on<BR>> conferences that address the faithful, reasserts their well-worn dogmas, and<BR>> sponsors marches of a few thousand (at most). You’ll note that these marches<BR>> nearly always take place on the coasts – especially San Francisco, that bastion<BR>> of the left’s past glories – but never penetrate into the American heartland.<BR>> Until and unless they do, the antiwar movement, as an organized force in<BR>> American politics, will literally remain a fringe phenomenon.<BR>> <BR>> "The irony here
is that it was the Trotskyists in the 1960s who really<BR>> understood how to build a mass antiwar movement: the Socialist Workers Party<BR>> (SWP) had a really effective strategy and that was to make the antiwar movement<BR>> during the Vietnam era a single issue movement. The idea was to unite all who<BR>> could be united around a simple axiomatic principle: Get the US out of Vietnam.<BR>> Period. The SWPers were among the most energetic and effective antiwar<BR>> organizers because they knew the difference between building a mass movement<BR>> around the issue of war and peace and building a political party: the former had<BR>> to be broad and all-inclusive, as opposed to the latter, which, by definition,<BR>> has a more comprehensive (and self-limiting) character..."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Full article (which I don't entirely endorse, although I think the above is<BR>> correct) at<BR>> <<A
href="http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/07/27/why-is-the-antiwar-movement-stalled/" target=_blank>http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/07/27/why-is-the-antiwar-movement-stalled/</A>>.<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Peace-discuss mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A><BR><A href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A><BR></DIV></DIV></div><br>
</body></html>