[Peace-discuss] Last night's meeting

[C. G. Estabrook]

These strike me as eminently level-headed reflections, Ricky,
all the more valuable from their (partial) origin in a serious
political movement with deep, deep contradictions -- the labor
movement. Why we have a conservative union movement in this
country, and what should be done, given that it is, seem to me
to be important questions for the anti-war movement as such --
for both questions of organization and of general political
understanding.  From the AFL-CIO's support for the Vietnam
war, through organized labor's equivocation on anti-corporate
globalization in Seattle in 1999, to the present split,
matters of substance and not of manners have been at stake. I
appreciate the comments from your experience with serious
struggles.

And I agree that AWARE must "focus on the best way to advance
an anti-war and antiracist agenda."  I think in fact we need
to do even more -- such as figure out what an anti-war and
anti-racist agenda is: it's not obvious, and there seem to be
differences among us on that. I think it begins with candor --
with calling things by their right names. 

It's extremely difficult, I think, to escape the seductions of
the greatest change in modern politics -- the PR revolution. 
We're convinced that if we can just find the right way to say
something, we can carry our agenda.  But that quickly slips
into not saying what we mean, because people will disagree
(aka, "find it offensive").  I've mentioned being shocked,
during the local Green party campaign in 2002, at the
condescension revealed in attempts to craft the Green message...

I think our disagreements in AWARE are about substance, about
what an anti-war anti-racist agenda should be.  (E.g., would
it be identity politics?  I've argued that it shouldn't be.)
And I think there is a danger of covering real disagreements 
with disagreements about form (tone, etc.). Cindy Sheehan has
made the point clearer this summer.  Alex Cockburn had it
right, it seems to me, when he wrote, 

"Cindy Sheehan frightens the right and stirs them to venom,
and she frightens the Democrats too, because she's so clear.
Contrast the timeline of Sheehan [he means the demand for 'out
now'] as against that of even a relatively decent Democrat
like Russ Feingold. Feingold calls for a start to withdrawal
from Iraq maybe sixteen months from now. How many dead troops
and new Gold Star moms can you fit into that calendar. A
thousand or more? Sheehan's Out Now call should be the
bright-line test for any antiwar spokesperson."
 
With that in mind, I want to defend the piece I wrote for the
News-Gazette (about which, I'm small enough to note, I've 
received only positive comments -- except from within AWARE).
The point of it (as the headline writer rightly saw) was to
warn against what I saw as traps for the growing local
anti-war movement (viz., asking the good senators to stop the
war eventually -- but nicely, otherwise they won't do it; and
not criticizing "their" senator in front of black people).  

That movement is a good deal larger than AWARE (and growing),
 and it would hardly be candid to warn about those traps
without saying that were under debate in the leading
local anti-war organization -- however covert that debate may
be.  Although the piece wasn't about Al -- his name wasn't
mentioned -- it is to his credit that he stated the position
clearly.  

But if the only way to avoid being "harmful to the effort to
get more people involved in anti-war anti-racist efforts
generally" is not to say what the real disagreements are, then
we're not treating the people we're talking to -- the whole
community -- with much respect. After all, the point at issue
was saying one thing to one audience and something different
to another.  

Regards, Carl

PS--Yeah, I'll take a cookie.


---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>  
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Last night's meeting  
>To: peace-discuss at chambana.net
>
>Hi folks-
>
>Can I just start off by saying I understand why people
>get frustrated over these kinds of things.  I do, too.
> But I do think we are having a discussion of the
>issues.  Maybe email is a good way to get more said,
>but I do think last Sundays’ discussion was a good
>one.  I agree with Karen that it was good to discuss
>the question of what gets AWARE’s official stamp
>concretely rather than abstractly.  In fact, I like
>the ‘temporary’ solution that Aaron and Matt came up
>with very much -- much more than the one I spoke up
>for originally -- so I’d like to propose that we take
>it as a general way of proceeding in the future.
>
>That is, when time doesn’t permit discussion at a
>meeting, of course individuals are free to print and
>distribute what they want on their own, with a
>recommendation -- for practical purposes if nothing
>else -- that in such cases it’s a good idea to include
>contact info and/or time and date stuff for a few
>local groups and/or info outlets, like AWARE,
>Democracy Now!, News from Neptune, Media Matters, the
>IMC, etc.  But we don’t really want AWARE listed
>alone.  It makes sense, given the need to provide
>folks a next step to take once they receive
>potentially troubling info and given the serious
>concerns folks have raised about effectiveness of our
>organizing (or “outreach” if you prefer).
>
>And I think it’s a good starting point for discussing
>the other issues we are struggling with now.  I agree
>with Carl that we need to focus on our common
>objective, but I also think some careful discussion is
>in order about the most effective way to do that.  We
>could all learn something.  I agree wholeheartedly
>with Linda that conflict resolution is in order.  It
>doesn’t help us for everybody to just keep repeating
>that it’s the others, or one other, who is the
>problem.  The point is, we have to work it out.
>
>On the issue of AWARE's name/image/publications-
>I have always been an advocate of more flexibility
>rather than less.  That’s why AWARE exists, in fact:
>because a group of folks didn’t want to have their
>hands tied by what they perceived as the PRC’s slowed
>down approval processes for everything.  Linda makes
>an excellent point about this.  Anarchist principles
>are hard to get used to, but they have served us very
>well.  We can act without going through painstaking
>discussions ad infinitum, with the default always
>being that nothing gets done unless folks can agree.
>
>We do not ask for approval of signs -- although that
>was discussed at one point when things got heated at
>the Prospect for Peace demos.  We do not ask for
>approval of press releases, letters to the editor
>defending AWARE or critiquing politicians or
>columnists, etc., or really of flyers, posters, or
>PSAs.  We do not designate spokespeople to talk to the
>press, nor do we give direction to folks who do talk
>to the press (although some helpful advice might be in
>order sometimes).  All these things directly impact
>the image of the group in the public eye, but we try
>our best to educate ourselves and each other to
>eliminate any need or desire for such rigidity.  
>
>We are stubborn about telling anyone, who asks what we
>believe, that we are a diverse group.  And if anyone
>asks how we operate, we often say we are loose, that
>we have no officers or leadership as such, that
>whenever a group of us wants to take the initiative to
>work on something, the onus and the responsibility is
>on them to put it together and carry it out (they are
>free to ask for help and advice, of course).
>
>One caveat is that we must be open to disagreement
>over anything we do.  Before or after the fact.  We
>must encourage disagreement, in fact, and accept it
>graciously and in good humor (because that’s how you
>encourage it).  We don’t have to agree at all.  Ever. 
>But we must demonstrate that we are open to
>difference.  That’s how we learn and grow, and how we
>organize more effectively.
>
>Of coures, when it comes to spending group funds, we
>do expect agreement before it's done.  There is a
>similarity in that to use of the group name, but it
>isn't exact.
>
>Frankly, I think we should be less jealous of our good
>name (collectively and individually to be honest). 
>Our names are not that important.  I think we should
>be proud to be associated with people who are standing
>up to this war and the general bullshit surrounding
>it, the torture, the racism, the imperialism and the
>vicious disregard for human life and human needs.  I
>am, because that‘s what‘s really important.  We do not
>have to agree.  With ANSWER, with AWARE or with the
>Quakers or Muslims or anybody else.  We do not have to
>be comfortable.  But we do need to be as effective as
>humanly possible.
>
>That means, again, that we encourage people to speak
>up if they have something to say, that we take turns
>doing so, that we not interrupt, that we not shout
>each other down, that we not mock people we are trying
>to work with, that we not jump out of our chairs in
>anger or charge across the room any such behavior,
>that we respect the facilitator’s efforts and if we
>disagree with how the meeting is running that we take
>the responsibility to raise that as a point for
>discussion before the group.  It also means the
>facilitator should not be arguing on one side or the
>other of a discussion, but in the role of facilitator
>as neutral as possible to *facilitate* discussion --
>and disagreement as well as agreement, and dissent,
>and practical nuts and bolts of how we proceed
>constructively.
>
>I was not at the meeting where some of the above
>allegedly occurred.  I have been at meetings where
>people have done similar things.  It is not conducive
>to planning and carrying out AWARE’s goals, and it is
>certainly not conducive to participation -- especially
>by folks who may feel they are not well enough
>informed to spar with intellectuals or confident
>enough to disagree or question folks they thought were
>on the same side who are shouting or mocking or
>laughing at others in the group, certainly not folks
>who are approaching others in a hostile pose.
>
>In the labor movement, which is my background, there
>is a lot of shouting and swearing and finger pointing.
> Physical confrontations are not unheard of.  But the
>effect is mainly to secure a few people in control,
>discourage dissent and ultimately participation, and
>really to serve the bosses’ purpose rather than the
>workers’.
>
>I think we need to keep in mind what it is we want to
>accomplish here and how we encourage others to join in
>that.  We will not always agree, nor should we, but if
>we cannot make our arguments rationally in a way that
>others can understand and appreciate, that is
>certainly frustrating.  I know what it is like to be
>annoyed and feel that I am not expressing myself well
>enough, or being heard or understood, or that I cannot
>speak my mind without getting annoyed and defeating my
>own purpose.  But I think we have to keep in mind,
>again, what it is we are about.  That is not simply
>being right all the time or feeling comfortable or
>looking good in the public eye or being witty or
>exciting controversy necessarily.  Any of these can be
>good things, but only if we are being as effective as
>we can be.
>
>I was very glad to hear the discussion last Sunday and
>the thought expressed by Stephen, a new member, that
>we need to educate, not alienate.  I don’t think that
>means we have to back away from any of our positions. 
>If Obama or Lehrer, or Michael Moore, or Amy Goodman,
>or David Kucinich, or anybody else needs public
>critique for their positions, then we have a
>responsibility to do that if we can.  Same goes for
>other points that need raising, within the limits of
>our abilities of course (we can’t do everything,
>though we may try sometimes).  But we always want to
>do that in the most effective way possible, reaching
>frankly and honestly out to people who may be
>potential allies (if they resent our POSITIONS, fine,
>then let them, but let it not be because they are
>reacting to our PRESENTATION, which is after all, or
>should be, a secondary concern for us).
>
>I personally did not have a big problem, for example,
>with the Obama leaflet or anything else that occurred
>at Obama’s dog and pony show.  If others think we
>could be more effective in the future by doing things
>differently, then by all means I want to discuss it. 
>That’s how we improve.  But let’s not blame
>individuals for their efforts, but thank them for
>trying, and be constructive.  And let’s not be
>oversensitive to criticism.
>
>I’ve been trying to get AWARE to buy some balloons for
>over two years now, and frankly I’m frustrated with
>some of the arguments that have been raised against
>the idea.  Some have some validity, in my opinion, and
>others are not too persuasive.  But I will bring it up
>again and won’t hold it against anybody who disagrees.
> Hell, I’m wrong myself a lot of the time, I know.  If
>I weren’t, I would never learn anything.  I’d just be
>stuck.  Same for AWARE, I think.
>
>When these issues do get personal, I think it’s time
>for conflict resolution.  Not taking group time away
>from group projects to discuss individual behavior or
>misbehavior.  We can be open about the fact that we
>are having conflicts without turning that conflict
>into something destructive to our goals.
>
>For example, I disagree with Al that we should treat
>black politicians differently -- except of course that
>we should treat every person as an individual, and
>everyone including every politician has his or her own
>constraints and it’s pointless for us to try to weed
>out every failing of every one, but we need to focus
>on the best way to advance an anti-war and antiracist
>agenda.  The guest editorial that Carl wrote could
>have been such a means, in my opinion, until it came
>to mentioning AWARE (or any other specific group) in
>association with some pretty serious charges.  I think
>this is very harmful to the effort to get more people
>involved in anti-war anti-racist efforts generally,
>and particularly to the effort to bring people
>together who may be working on one of these but not
>(yet) the other.  I think it’s important to discuss
>these issues as a group, but not to (in my opinion)
>use the group as a sounding board for our personal
>conflicts, even if those conflicts are partly or
>wholly political.
>
>It is possible of course that I am being too harsh. 
>If so,  I apologize.  But I hope that if I’ve chosen
>bad examples to illustrate my point, that we can still
>see the point.  I also hope I haven’t offended anybody
>personally.  I realize that a problem with email is
>that you can’t see facial expressions or hear tone of
>voice.  I don’t deny some frustration and concern over
>this issue.  I think that’s appropriate under the
>circumstances.  But I really don’t mean to blame
>anybody, just to try to help us take this opportunity
>to improve our efforts and not get bogged down when
>the work we do is so sorely needed.  I really mean
>that.
>
>And of course, I welcome disagreement or concern,
>etc., especially if it may help me and/or us figure
>this all out.
>
>And if you get this far, I think you deserve a medal. 
>Let me know, and I’ll maybe make you some cookies or
>something.
>
>Ricky