Help me with an appeal to the really far left

I participate in an online discussion group that was started in order to opppose the war. We've successfully held marches and vigils. Now discussion is turning to what to do to mark the aniversary of the start of the war.

The discussion began with the suggestion that the focus be on removing Bush from office. I agree with that. However, others in the group want it to be what I'd call, one big gripe fest. They want to include issues of:

- World Trade
- Police Brtutality
- Mumia
- Socialism
- Pro-Palestine

I agree with them on many of these issues, but I contend that by including a broad variety of issues, we will not only dilute the "Bush Must Go" message, but that we give the average Jane and Joe a reason to find something objectionable in our actions.

How can I persuade my cohorts to focus on the big picture? How can I convince them that coming togehter in support of a single message is more advantageous to their interests than simply having a cocophony of grievences?

None of these issues will even be raised by anyone with influence until Bush is gone.

Focusing on Bush right now does not take away from them hilighting these issues when Bush is removed.

nail on the head! focus on the war. and in association, removal of bushco. hit this hard and often. once bushco. is over, other issues become manageable.

I'm not sure how to convince them. But you're absolutely right that your focus ought to be on Bush and the war. I guess that you might mention that even in liberal SF, the "moderate" media use any excuse they can to put down anti-war protestors. During the anti-war protests here, you would have thought that all the protestors were armed and wearing black just because a few were. On mainstream talk radio (you know, the sort of station that carries Dr. Dean Eddell) we kept hearing about people vomiting and defecating to protest the war. As if everyone did it. If that can happen in SF, imagine what can happen somewhere else. Don't give them an excuse to marginalize you.

You might add that all those things will benefit from getting the radical conservatives out of power.

:shrug:

If the idea is to mark the anniversary of the war then I would recommend staying focused on the war for that one occasion,but for any marches/vigils after that include the other issues.

For the anniversary though I would focus solely on the war.

CSpan right now. They are talking about free trade and its dangers.

Although it was ostensibly about cutting the war short, speakers pounded on their pet issues as though everyone there should be on the same page about every one. It helped the media to portray us as a bunch of whining liberals who couldn't decide what they were fighting against.

Adding "static" to the protest dilutes the message, invites division, and encourages dismissal by outsiders.

when there are too many subjects to protest at one event. Although the event may be highly organized and well thought out, with that many issues it will appear to Jane and Joe to be a half-assed thrown together thing and they probably won't listen to what is being said.

The group will probably understand the value of keeping it simple...if anything, you could always point out the very small attention spans of the average American.

if they can't be focused in their criticism, your better off uniting with more like-minded individuals.

A vote for anyone other than the Democratic candidate in 2004 is a vote for Bush.

You will never get any of the programs you support as long as he and the Republicans control the White House and the House of Representatives.

You will only continue to see the disolution of everything you have worked for since 1955.

that helped the poster with his problem :eyes:

Clearly you read the post very carefully, considered what he was asking, and chose to frame your response in the most helpful and neutral way possible to avoid inflaming unnecessary debate.

Your sensitivity and intelligence are deeply appreciated by all who read your post, and I'm certain we are all changing our votes to Lieberman even as we speak.

What was wrong with that response? The original poster asked how to get his group to focus on defeating Bush*. Saying "You will never get any of the programs you support as long as he and the Republicans control the White House and the House of Representatives." is not just reasonable, it's absolutely true.

What's the problem?

The respondent, quite obviously IMHO, simply read the title of the initial post, without reading the post itself, and gave what was seen as a flippant reply.

And considering how long you've been around here, sangh0, you should know that for many people on the "far left" there is little that gets our blood boiling more than telling us simply that "the Democratic Party deserves our votes". Whether or not the respondent intended that to be the impression of his/her post is immaterial. That is the way that such a response will be inevitably seen -- especially when it really isn't addressing the initial post.

Especially so effectively. They'll never understand that they can't corner us into a vote.

I thought that "You will never get any of the programs you support as long as he and the Republicans control the White House and the House of Representatives" is the best argument to convince people to focus on defeating Bush*, which is what the original post asked for.

you should know that for many people on the "far left" there is little that gets our blood boiling more than telling us simply that "the Democratic Party deserves our votes".

I didn't see anything about "deserving" votes. I did see something about how Bush*'s presence in the White House prevents us from achieving our goals. The initial post asked for an argument that might convince some people to focus on defeating Bush*. IMO, pointing out how Bush* continued presence in the WH affects their goals and interests seem relevant to me.

I don't insist they conform to my opinion, or refrain from using profanity, or avoid using cutesy nicknames to avoid real debate.

At a bare minimum, though, I would hope that someone actually reads a post before they reply to it, and that the reply have something to do with the original post. Hijacking a thread is barely tolerable when it's simply "Great post! My candidate can do that best!" cheerleading. But this kind of hit and run tactic which does nothing to advance debate is no better than spam.

"Want a Democratic majority? You should increase your penis size! Ask me how!"

IMO, pointing out that Bush* continued presence in the WH prevents us from achieving their goals is very relevant.

The post didn't say "You should increase your penis size!".

The post didn't ask "Want a Democratic majority?"

The post gave an argument for why they should focus on defeating Bush* (ie. They won't get anything done while Bush* is there) which is what the original poster asked for.

regarding how best to focus the energies of a diverse group with varied concerns. He was asking a question pertinent to all of us here at DU, as we all have faced this issue at one time or another.

Rather than offering advice in a manner appropriate to the tone of the original post, the responder instead chose a glib response that was clearly one of his pet issues. As a response to the question, it was something close to "Tell them all to quit whining about those other issues and just vote for the Democrat." Hardly inspired advice for someone attempting to focus the concerns of self proclaimed far-lefties who have reason to doubt just how liberal the Democratic party really is.

I know that you share this pet issue, as I've seen you attacking Greens as traitors on many other posts. For you, the only answer to any question seems to be "Vote for the Democrat." Once they're in office, they'll take care of everything. Doubtless, for you, that seems an entirely appropriate response to the questions many of us see in shades of gray. However, for those of us who have on occasion doubted the sincerity of the Democratic Party in proclaiming itself the guiding light of progress in the darkness of the world, it seems both naive and condescending.

Do you really think the question of whether to focus a protest on the war or to include the issue of Palestine is best answered by "Vote for a Democrat?" If so, then I hereby give up any further hope of convincing you otherwise and will stop trying to do so.

whatever you do, DON'T tell them that their vote is "wasted" if they can't, in good conscience, vote for the Dem nominee. And DON'T repeat the line "a vote for anyone but is a vote for BUSH".

It's this kind of insulting, patronizing talk that has kept "far lefties" (many of whom are more "democratic" than 1/2 of our current presidential candidates) from voting for Democrats for president in 1996 & 2000.

And, as we've learned over the last decade, our votes for the Democrats have often gone to waste. For example, how did Clinton help the left? Were "welfare reform", NAFTA, "don't ask, don't tell" programs that were supported by the left? How about the so-called "war on drugs", and the death penalty?

If we go based on the recent past, the left has NOT gotten any of their agenda passed under Democratic presidents, either. So why would they expect anything different from yet another "traditional" Democratic presidential candidate?

You won't win any points by patronizing them and telling them to "vote Democrat or else". Most of these people have come to their positions through a lot of thought and investigation, not to mention personal experience in dealing with our system. If you want to keep them on "our side", don't belittle their views or trivialize their votes. Unless you want the election to be so close again in 2004 that Shrub can steal it away again...

then maybe there isn't much hope. You expect people with different views to be careful with their words, and complain if just one word is inappropriate, but you are free to insult Democrats and deny their liberal successes like CHIPS, Family Leave Act, more progressive taxes, increased deductions for college tuition, increased funding for civil rights offices, defending Affirmative Action, defeating extremist judges, defending abortion rights, etc

I see your point and I can understand the dissapointment in the democrats. Here's something that suprised me though, maybe you'll care to comment. A number of people in our group DON'T VOTE. They see the whole system as so screwed up that it offers them no hope. That I find a little suprising.

What argument would you make to convince them to at least participate. Also, for those who are dissapointed in the dems, can you think of any contrasts one can draw between Bush and the dem candidats that may at least argue for supporting the lesser of, what may be in their eyes, two evils?

If there are people in your group who don't vote, see the system as terminally bollixed, and have no enthusiasm for any of the Democratic candidates -- then why make the event about the 2004 election?

If you're an anti-war group, keep the focus on Iraq. It seems to me that's where it really belongs.

Making Iraq the central issue would also allow some secondary emphasis on globalization and Israel/Palestine issues, for those who particularly care about them.

If you touch enough bases in that way, you might even be able to politely ask the Free Mumia people to save it for another day.

if there is one single action that can have any real and concrete effect as a repudiation of the Iraq war, it would be to remove Bush from office.

The point is similar to a discussion that ensued among the group recently about a poor showing for an anti-Rumsfled protest upon his recent visit here. One side asked, how are we going to ever change things if we don't let the administration know that we repudiate their policies?

The other side argued that if tens of millions of people marching throughout the world had no effect on the Bush administration, no amount of protest ever will; that rather than expect that our message will miraculously get through to a tone deaf president, we should work towards something that can culminate in a concrete action -- the election of a new president.

Sure, a focus on the war alone isn't objectionable to me, but it falls short of prompting any real change, in my opinion.

If you touch enough bases in that way, you might even be able to politely ask the Free Mumia people to save it for another day.

You can politely ask all you want, but they (along with other groups) will still show up and attempt to push their pet cause ahead of all others, no matter the venue. Trust me, it doesn't matter how nice you are to them, or how much you ask them. They believe that their cause must take precedence over all others at all times.

They know that choosing between the Dems and the Repubs has no real bearing on their lives or the direction of the country.

To convince them otherwise, we need a Party that is concerned with the real interests of the people...which is why we thought/think the Green Party was a good idea. But I don't think Green values have mass appeal...I'd like to see a People's Party that refuses funding from any business entity...made up of Greens, Libertarians, and other "fringe groups".

With all due respect, you sort of contradict yourself. Tell me if you don't agree. You say that those who don't vote are the smartest, then go on to make the case for third parties -- lamenting the fact that the Greens seem to lack mass appeal. Well, if a third party is ever going to have a chance, won't it start with those "smartest among us" voting? I mean how smart is it to say one is not going to vote until the perfect party comes along. Won't the perfect party evolve by people epxressing their will in elections?

Of course I contradict myself. I guess what I should have said is, *today* the people who don't vote are the smartest. If a Party really wanted to reach them, they'd have to rise to their level. It could be the Dems, but they can't because they are part of the problem.

And the idea that people voting for a Party can change a Party is ridiclous...the only thing you change is the rhetoric. Have the Republicans become more Christ-like with the Christian vote? Hell no...they just talk the talk. Same goes for the Dems.

What I'm saying is that the smartest among us, today, see through all this bullshit. You won't fool them by having the perfect message. Its about dropping the BS, calling it like it is, and acting in the interest of the people.

like some of this thread already shows.

on just the "Bush Must Go" message. While I easily see why you want to narrow the focus to just that, the truth is that Bush only exists because of a deeper array of social forces. To pretend that Bush is the main problem, while he's really only a symptom of the main problem, is a misrepresentation. It may feel good to do that, but it blocks a valid understanding of the situation.

You should argue to your cohorts that all their issues are likewise specific symptoms of the "main disease," then strive to present the Bush phenomenon as a manifestation of that disease. That way, you lay the groundwork to present all these issues as being connected -- which they are.

I take your point. You are right. I was not arguing for the "big picture;" more accurately perhaps the immediate goal. I appreciate your comments and I see what you mean. This should help.

Anybody who doesn't understand this needs to turn off the TV and start asking the bigger questions. Start with: www.fromthewilderness.com.

What you'll find is that what you call "the far left" doesn't actually exist. What exists is a group of people who see the system for what it is and are no longer fooled by politics and business as usual.

It doesn't matter the venue of protest, whether it is anti-war, anti-free trade, what have you -- the same suspects will ALWAYS show up, seeking to use the forum to present THEIR pet issue rather than contributing their focus to the issue at hand.

Those suspects are: the "Free Mumia" crowd, the "Free Palestine" crowd, the CPUSA, and so on. Nothing you say or do will prevent the more hard-core activists in these constituencies from presenting their personal message, even at the expense of the one at hand.

It's frustrating, to be certain. It has turned me off on big protests, because they end up being a soup of a bunch of different messages that end up all getting lost in the cacophony. I guess the only thing you can do is to get involved with organizing these kinds of things, and to do what you can to ensure that the message that is presented is as uniform as possible among those willing to work WITH others. The different factions are going to show up regardless -- but it is the role of the organizers to ensure that the basic theme (especially speakers) is focused on the cause at hand.

The personal message that the CP brings to every coalition is the need to vote for the Democrats--don't worry about them.

after reading statements here, it becomes evident that what is necessary is a real new world order. that means "revolution". in my mind the quickest way towards that would be to re-elect bushco. and let this country fail in the eyes of the blind until their eyes begin to work again.

:hi:

Thank you. And thanks to everybody who's commented so far. This is where the DU rubber hits the fan in my book. (How about that? Three mixed metaphores!)

As was pointed out, these "communists" support whoever the Democrat happens to be and never mention anything controversial. I think the Trotskyites are the problem. They are always seeking to "intervene" in mass movements with their "transitional programs."

The groups that I've seen at anti-war and trade protests, waving old Soviet flags and chanting "Fuck the USA!" as they marched up and down the street.

Sorry for the misstatement. I'll get back to lashing myself with my cat-o-nine-tails as penance. :dunce:

The same folks that brought us the slogan, "A chicken in every pot, an icepick in every Trot", and the PLPLP (don't ask -- I mean it).

Martin

... after giving me such colorful quotes?

C'mon, Martin -- I'd love to hear about your experiences with some of these folks!

First, the glossary: PL is the Progressive Labor Party, a group that can only be described as "anarcho-Stalinist".

They came out of the CPUSA in the 1950s, as a Maoist collective. They were quite active in SDS in the 1960s and early 1970s, at one point winning leadership of the Society. In the 1970s, they turned their attention to militant (and sometimes adventurist) antifascism, forming InCAR (the International Committee Against Racism). Over the years, though, they seem to have mellowed out a little, dumped their adventurism, and are not bad to deal with ... unless you're a Spartacist.

I've worked with PLers on some community issues, and antifascist work. They sometimes seem to come from left field with their comments, but they are pretty energetic and throw themselves into their work completely.

Now then, as for the PLPLP, that was not one of their finest moments. In the late 1970s, not long after SDS disbanded, they were looking for a way to bring their politics into the mainstream. They were toying with a bunch of ideas. What they settled on was an album of parodies of then-popular songs (disco, mainly -- see where I'm going here?). Thus, the "PLPLP" (or, to make it more clear, "PLP LP") was born. It included such hits as "Imperialist Inferno" (to the tune of "Disco Inferno").

Possessing a copy of the PLPLP today is considered a rare thing. There were only a few hundred copies made, and most of them have long since disappeared from the earth. If it ever shows up on eBay, I'm taking out a loan. ;-)

Martin

If you're trying to convince them not to focus on Palestine or what they consider political prisoners, this is an approach that won't work. You should appeal that a broad united front must be worked out with an attack against the right and Bush. The slogans and demands should be quite broad. Within that framework, they can and should address their issues.

There is one "root cause" issue behind all the issues:

- Is X policy intended to help "the people" or "power?"

If you can convince "us" that X party is really for the good of the people, not for corporate / government power over people, then we can unite. However, he who pays the piper calls the tune...so as long as the Dems are tied to corporate funding, you're gonna have a hard to convincing people.

Really, you have to take the long view. RepubliKKKan's are herding the world headlong into a new dark age- their brand of 'cleansing' is only a matter of time.

Since bush stopped the media from taping the flag draped coffins returning home, I would love to see a protest that involved a procession of flag draped coffins - one for every soldier who died. Americans need to see the true cost of war.

Now that would be a powerful image!

You can't just say, "we should have a single message"...who'se single message? Yes, we all want Bush to go...next?

This is a common problem, actually. The fact is that you will not get some organizations to put their "pet issues" on the back burner, for different reasons. Some organizations regard those "pet issues" as part and parcel of the fight in which you want them engaged; other organizations look at their "pet issues" as more important. The former can be worked with; the latter are generally hopeless.

The best thing to do is to work out some kind of agreement about the focus of the event (in this case, getting rid of Bush), but at the same time NOT restricting their right to raise other issues. Sometimes, folks on the far left can be like little kids: you tell them not to do something, and they become doubly determined to do it.

If you can only get agreement on when to meet, where to meet, and a central slogan, leave it at that and don't try to ratchet it up beyond where it can go. Tell them they are welcome to bring in their "pet issues" as long as they can adequately explain what they have to do with the issue at hand.

For many of the smaller far-left groups, if it is a principled united front -- i.e., no one is trying to force one particular issue down everyone's throat -- they would be more inclined to focus on the issue at hand. Some will be hopeless, but many will take that principled stand for what it is and work with it.

In other words, the principles you want to promote -- democracy and plurality -- have to apply at all ends. If some of the groups feel a need to link Bush to Palestine, allow them. If some want to go beyond the "single issue", tell them they are free to distribute any and all literature to that effect. But then remind them that, if they want to speak, the subject is getting rid of Bush, and if their specific "angle" fits into this effectively, then fine.

Summary: You're not going to get them to shut up about their "pet issues", so you'll have to work around them, and make it so they can/have to focus on the matter at hand.

Martin

I am sure the "far left" will ignore your patronizing plea as they should. Some of us are capable of being able to focus on more than one issue and tie it into a big picture.

but, but, but, what about Jane and Joe?

Most of us are. But the question comes back to what is the consequence of our actions? My premise, perhaps not clearly stated, is to use the media coverage to reach out to Jane and Joe American, who are perhaps a little unsure of Bush. To send the message that there are thousands of your neighbors who think Bush must go; that repudiation of Bush isn't radical, but really is mainstream. That message will have consequences with people who don't come to the rally but only see it on TV.

That message gets lost if all the people see or read about is a Don't Eat Meat Free Mumia Workers United Save The Rain Forests Drum-Beating Puppet-Waving Scarry-Looking Angry Hot Head rally.

by that, I mean, why is there a priority in extricating Bush from office, when a lot of the people you're talking about see the same problems when Democrats are in office?

I'm not going to apologize for any place that desires to discuss the real issues that matter and do so from the correct standpoint of progressive liberalism.

I don't agree with you that the "big picture" is simply "Bush must go." And I'm tired of sacrificing all other issues on this alter, and of assuming that they two aren't compatible aims.

of the reight wing winning.

It really doesn't matter who's in the white house if we don't bother to stand for anything or have the guts to focus on, stand up for, and advocate the issues that matter.

It really doesn't matter if fundmentalists judges get appointments?

It really doesn't matter if civil liberties are erroded?

It really doesn't matter if polluting corporations are given leeway to pollute even more?

It really doesn't matter if this country adopts a foreign policy of pre-emptive war at the expense of international law?

It really doesn't matter if this country decides to withdraw from the anti-ballistic missle treaty?

It really doesn't matter if a women has a right to make her own reproductive choices?

It really doesn't matter if this country pursues a fiscal policy destined to place a financial burden on your children?

You can arguably make the case that on some issues there is little difference between republicans and democrats. But please don't pretend that the differences that do exist are on issues that don't matter. That's moronic. Furthermore, anybody who suggests that they will not vote because there are SOME issues on which there is no difference between the two parties is extremely self-centered. They are no friend to their fellow man if they willingly allow things to be as bad as they can get because they cannot have things as good as they would like.

Go ahead and snipe at the "machine" from the outside. I'm sure some people are waiting for the "revolution" that will never come. Such sad sacks are going to end up on their death beds ashamed that the world turned rotten before their eyes -- knowing they could have done more; or they'll see a world that improved before their very eyes and feel the regret of knowing that they left the heavy lifting to others.

"Fuck the System"

or, with a more positive spin:

"Take back our country."

When you acknowledge the fact that the problems go way beyond Bush...THEN you might be able to get us to agree that, short term, we need to unite to get rid of Bush.

You have to show a relationship between Bush and his policies to the "pet issues" of many of us on the far left. Let me take a stab at a few you listed:

- World Trade

It's common knowledge that the WTO is a friendly faced front for multinationals and the iron-fisted rulership of global big business, in order to make the world it's sweatshop. Remind your leftist friends that Bush is in bed with some of the greatest big business offenders in this scheme, and that his flavor of neoconservative servitude to their aims is a direct and present threat to the goal of protecting the world's working people against abuse and exploitation.

- Police Brtutality

Free Speech zones. Homeland Security. The Seattle police reacting to the famous WTO protests. Patriot Act. Laws against protestors wearing kevlar or defending themselves against increasingly darth vader looking police. What is the common denominator to all these late breaking events? A Bush presidency, and its underlying reichwing love for a police-statish ham fisted destruction of dissent, and trashing of constitutional due process.


- Pro-Palestine

It is common knowledge that without US financial/military aid to Israel, she would probably not be there today. But what is less known is that the Bush administration has strained to excede all previous military encouragement to the Israelis in their continued attempt to denigrate, brutalize or even destroy the Palestinian people. Billions of US dollars and tons of military high tech equipment flow unabated to Israel, as security for Israelis is at an all time low and attacks on them increase. Bush's own JudeoChristian zealotry has been exposed, in that he thinks "God" sends him to this new chapter in the Crusades. In short, Bush is a God-send to the hawkish right in Israel that would love nothing less than the disappearance of the Palestinian people.


That's just a few examples, but I hope you get the drift. Relate, connect their issues to Bush. Don't let up on the message and dont get frustrated if you can't get past some singlemindedness on some issues. I myself have been frustrated with them over myopy on Mumia, etc. You can't win them all.