The Free View-- weblog of a presidential candidate

Pox Americana; or, Martin Luther King Jr. -vs- A.N.S.W.E.R.

I was forwarded an e-mail release by John Perry Barlow, founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and former songwriter for the Grateful Dead. He's got some stuff to say about the war and "King George", and is urging people to turn out for the October 26th anti-war rallies. His statement is more compelling than I make it sound. You can check it out here.

One thing that I found worthwhile about his letter was that he had some heavy criticism for the International A.N.S.W.E.R. group which is organizing the main rallies. I remember seeing their rally post-9/11, urging a nonviolent response and preservation of civil liberties. In most cases, it appeared that they meant well, but they are a very broad and undefined coalition, and that was clear watching their rally. Each speaker had a different issue they were trumpeting, and few of them semed to have a direct connection to the "war on terrorism". Certainly, there was no clear message to be ascertained, except for maybe "say 'no' to the system"-- whatever system you see as the problem. Which is an alright theme-- I'm generally down with anti-authority sentiments, to be sure, and certainly against systems of control, manipulation, and abuse of people-- but it lacked cohesiveness, even coherency.

I think for a movement to be really powerful it's got to be rooted in something. Generally it's principles, or a desire to accomplish a specific goal. The best movements are grounded in both. Emotion, urgency, hand-waving, and screaming "No!" to those in control is all well and good, but a movement won't stick unless it makes sense. Movements-- real movements, not special interest lobbying-- need to change minds. Movements seek to take a minority viewpoint and make it a majority viewpoint, through education, demonstration, debate, publicity, civil disobedience, etc. And this brings us to the problem with A.N.S.W.E.R. (aside from the problem Barlow claims, which is that it's a communist front organization). A.N.S.W.E.R. does not seem to have a specific viewpoint, which they hope to bring from minority to majority status.

If they have a message, it is presumably found in their acronym of a name. It stands for: Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. Looking back to the month after 9/11, it's easy to see how the name of their group and their ultra-basic mission statement came about. They were spearheading the indignant masses who were flailing to respond somehow to the outpouring of war talk (and action), the post-9/11 war on civil liberties, and the and racial divisiveness that was abounding-- the clash of cultures if you will, between the West and the Muslims. So in a context of October and November 2001, their message seemed to be just about right: Act Now (because the warlords and tyrants sure aren't waiting around) to Stop (the impending) War and End the Racism that has come about due to fear of Muslims and such.

And so maybe they were right on last year, at least in their goal-- to react against the sudden majority call for war and state-sanctioned racism. And given the fact that folks with the liberal viewpoints on war, minorities and civil liberties were pretty much shaking in their boots in the couple months after 9/11 (or at least a little worried, as I was), it's no suprise that everybody and their grandmother hopped on the coalition bandwagon-- just as they did with the In Defense Of Freedom statement, and most other petitions and efforts that came about in that time.

I guess A.N.S.W.E.R. is simply the product of circumstances, a natural outgrowth of the times. The default bandwagon for the underdog team. I just hope they find a way to focus their efforts, and particularly their message. Martin Luther King Jr. did not succeed because he got hundreds of thousands of people to march in the streets and in Washington-- he succeeded because he took a principled stand, and had a clear message, which he delivered eloquently. When people saw him, or heard of something associated with him, they knew exactly what he stood for and why, they knew exactly what he wanted and why, and ultimately, they were unable to avoid knowing that he was right. Martin Luther King won by changing people's minds-- one at a time, and millions at a time. That's how it's got to be done.

I'm not convinced that the rallies on October 26th are going to really change anyone's mind. The only potential for that, I think, is if the rallies are so utterly huge that it changes people's minds about how big the resistance to war is. And that could possibly result in some people pondering why there's such big resistance, or even deciding to resist themselves, if they were on the fence. But I highly doubt it's going to make anyone who supports the war decide to be against it. It's not going to make any racists become non-racist. It's not going to have any effect at all on the state of our civil liberties, except possibly in the negative, as the crowds and/or violence will be used as an excuse to suppress dissent and dissenters.

I don't mean to get down on A.N.S.W.E.R. or any of the groups in the various anti-war coalitions. I'm actually one of what seems to be a minority who thinks that rallies and marches can still be effective tools of activism-- and I'm delighted when I see people motivated and passionate enough to get of their butts and demonstrate. I just see a lot of problems with the current approach that has manifested in the "dissident mainstream". Then John Perry Barlow got me thinking about A.N.S.W.E.R., and the rest just came spilling out.

I would guess that more minds will be changed by John Perry Barlow's letter than by the rallies on Oct. 26th. Still, I do think it's important that there are rallies and protests against the various wars (on civil liberties, on Afghanistan, on Iraq, etc.) that our "leaders" have brewed up for us, and I'm glad A.N.S.W.E.R. is trying to meet that need. Well, maybe I'm not glad A.N.S.W.E.R. specifically is doing it, but I'm glad someone is. :-)