[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] "The Progressive Movement is astroturf beholden to the rich elite…"

[Randall Cotton]

> You might convince someone who wasn't there that this is what happened to
> AWARE, but the reality was much more banal.

Speaking as one who was there, I would agree with aspects of both Ricky's
and Carl's characterizations. They are not mutually exclusive. Back in
those days there was essentially no one who "despised" Obama except perhaps
Carl, certainly not in the way many of us (myself included) despise Obama
today. Many of us were still chumped at that point, indeed some were still
unabashed cheerleaders.

As with any group engaging in activism that winds up with radically
different internal views on a hot-button issue like the first black
president, there is great potential for conflict. The ingredients were
there.

In my view, Carl is uncompromising in many respects as a matter of activist
principle (something committed activists normally appreciate) and will
generally never relent in expressing views aimed toward the common good
regardless of whose individual feelings might be hurt. I would argue
there's something to be said for that. Whether it's best to relent for the
sake of cohesiveness or forge ahead despite risk of personal conflict would
make for a debate that could never be won conclusively by either side. I
hope folks don't waste time on that.

I think "belligerent" is an overstatement. Belligerent means war-like.
There is really no other connotation. The only overt hostility I ever saw
from Carl (a few fleeting shouted words) occurred in response to an attempt
to squelch and censor his speech in a meeting, and at the time he faced
much more aggressive (almost physically threatening) hostility directed
toward him.

Generally speaking, I think you can easily find people who characterize
Carl as aggressive because he persistently and effectively makes and argues
points even when others disagree and are emotionally upset by those points.
I would disagree that this constitutes aggression. Just because someone is
emotionally upset, it doesn't automatically follow that the cause was
aggression.

I do recall there was a leaflet that some AWARE folks objected to since it
provided the clear appearance that the group as a whole materially endorsed
it, though it wasn't so endorsed. After the complaint, I believe it never
happened again. Instead, flyers were described as endorsed by "members of
AWARE" rather than AWARE as a whole, and it seemed folks were generally OK
with that.

It is true that some members disengaged due to emotional conflict around
that time. It wasn't just over Obama (or any other single issue) - I think
it was just a general aversion to emotional upset within the group. Other
opinions will differ, no doubt, but personally I think it's hard to say, on
the whole, whether that was for the greater good or not.

R

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:34:03AM -0500, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> 	socialist forum core <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>,
> 	ocCUpy <occupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]
> 	[OccupyCU] "The Progressive Movement is astroturf beholden to the rich elite…"
> 
> You might convince someone who wasn't there that this is what happened to AWARE, but the reality was much more banal.
> 
> You put AWARE's name on a leaflet that was explicitly rejected by the group, then at subsequent meetings you finally pushed over the edge people who were already on the brink of not being able to tolerate your belligerent behavior during meetings.
> 
> At the time you claimed some farcical "tyranny" of politeness or some such, but now it's cooptation by some abstract "Progressive Movement" and then-Sen. Obama, who hardly ever even spoke with any of us-- never, to my recollection, except in one argument while we demonstrated outside his speech.  It's hard to see how he coopted members of AWARE who despise him, some who have written quite a but about his evil -- less hard to see that the group "split" in a very similar fashion to your own political campaign.  Looks like a pattern from here.
> 
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
> 
> 
> "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668
> 
> What these tapes tell us is how influential the active anti-war movement of 45 years ago was, and how right Obama was to be afraid of its revival, as he reveals in The Audacity of Hope.
> 
> The principal strategy of Obama's presidential campaign(s) was the co-optation of the anti-war movement, and in that they were successful.
> 
> (In Champaign-Urbana, it was co-optation by this 'Progressive Movement' - in the person of the state's junior senator - that split 'AWARE' in 2005: <http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/09/29/illinois-anti-warriors-and-the-attractive-senator/>.)
> 
> --CGE
> 
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:06 PM, C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com<mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com>> wrote:
> 
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/15/the-progressive-movement-is-a-pr-front-for-rich-democrats/
> 
> "...in early 2007 ... the truly dark and cynical agenda of the professional Progressive Movement and the Democratic Party revealed itself. Under Pelosi the Democrats could have cut off funding for Bush’s unpopular wars and foreign policy. Instead, with PR cover provided by MoveOn and their lobbyist Tom Matzzie, the Democratic Congress gave George Bush all the money he wanted to continue his wars. For the previous five years MoveOn had branded itself as the leader of the anti-war movement, building lists of millions of liberals, raising millions of dollars, and establishing itself in the eyes of the corporate media as leaders of the US peace movement. Now they helped the Democrats fund the war, both betting that the same public opposition to the wars that helped them win control of the House in 2006 could win the Presidency..."
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

This message was in reply to:

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:34:03AM -0500, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> From: Ricky Baldwin <rbaldwin at seiu73.org>
> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com>
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:34:03 -0500
> Message-ID: <rlfdm7o0h1urk22uqov3p04b.1363610042296 at email.android.com>
> Cc: peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>,
> 	socialist forum core <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>,
> 	ocCUpy <occupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]
> 	[OccupyCU] "The Progressive Movement is astroturf beholden to the rich elite…"
> 
> You might convince someone who wasn't there that this is what happened to AWARE, but the reality was much more banal.
> 
> You put AWARE's name on a leaflet that was explicitly rejected by the group, then at subsequent meetings you finally pushed over the edge people who were already on the brink of not being able to tolerate your belligerent behavior during meetings.
> 
> At the time you claimed some farcical "tyranny" of politeness or some such, but now it's cooptation by some abstract "Progressive Movement" and then-Sen. Obama, who hardly ever even spoke with any of us-- never, to my recollection, except in one argument while we demonstrated outside his speech.  It's hard to see how he coopted members of AWARE who despise him, some who have written quite a but about his evil -- less hard to see that the group "split" in a very similar fashion to your own political campaign.  Looks like a pattern from here.
> 
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
> 
> 
> "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668
> 
> What these tapes tell us is how influential the active anti-war movement of 45 years ago was, and how right Obama was to be afraid of its revival, as he reveals in The Audacity of Hope.
> 
> The principal strategy of Obama's presidential campaign(s) was the co-optation of the anti-war movement, and in that they were successful.
> 
> (In Champaign-Urbana, it was co-optation by this 'Progressive Movement' - in the person of the state's junior senator - that split 'AWARE' in 2005: <http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/09/29/illinois-anti-warriors-and-the-attractive-senator/>.)
> 
> --CGE
> 
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:06 PM, C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com<mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com>> wrote:
> 
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/15/the-progressive-movement-is-a-pr-front-for-rich-democrats/
> 
> "...in early 2007 ... the truly dark and cynical agenda of the professional Progressive Movement and the Democratic Party revealed itself. Under Pelosi the Democrats could have cut off funding for Bush’s unpopular wars and foreign policy. Instead, with PR cover provided by MoveOn and their lobbyist Tom Matzzie, the Democratic Congress gave George Bush all the money he wanted to continue his wars. For the previous five years MoveOn had branded itself as the leader of the anti-war movement, building lists of millions of liberals, raising millions of dollars, and establishing itself in the eyes of the corporate media as leaders of the US peace movement. Now they helped the Democrats fund the war, both betting that the same public opposition to the wars that helped them win control of the House in 2006 could win the Presidency..."
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss