Watch Your Affiliation

Just finished listening to John Tierney's discussion on C-SPAN about the Anti-War Movement and have determined to buy his book The Politics of Peace: What's Behind the Anti-War Movement even though his delivery was modest.

Tierney went to some length to separate those who are pacifists from being lumped in with the Anti-War Movement. He defines a "Movement" as being highly organized with its members taking orders like an army. Perhaps the greatest source of controversy is his position that if you affiliate with a Movement then you endorse its principles, although some might claim that marching in a parade organized by ANSWER does not mean that they endorse all of their positions, Tierney counters that if the KKK organized a parade against the war most anti-war advocates would never dream of donning a hood and participating:

In looking at the activist strategies and radical backgrounds of anti-war organizers, Tierney concludes that the movement’s leaders are anti-American rather than anti-war. Indeed, the anti-war movement wants war and violence, not peace—if it will lead to the overthrow of American institutions and government. That a militantly secular anti-war Left def ends and justifies the violent actions of Islamic religious extremists is only one of the many strange alliances created by those whose ulterior motives are to oppose the broader War on Terror.

...But the radical and subversive links detailed in The Politics of Peace have been obscured in false media depictions of a grassroots and idealistic anti-war movement.

Tierney offers that his book details the historic connections between the Anti-War Movement and its members and anti capitalism organizations such as the WWP. He states that these Anti-War groups are in essence those that espouse revolution of the Che Guevara stripe (the Soviet model having fallen out of favor in the 60's and 70's) and hide behind any banner that suits their purpose - Anti-War during the first Gulf War - then once that goal disappeared resurfaced as Anti-Globalization ala Seattle WTO protests. The common traits of these organizing groups is that they are anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, anti-free speech and anti-democratic - John Tierney's sage advice for those with a principle against a war is to consider your 'bed fellows' very seriously  lest you find ourself endorsing an organization that does not at all represent your position.

As I suspected, Tierney's work complements the positions of former "Liberals" such as Christopher Hitchens and David Horowitz. George Galloway is unmasked by such knowledge.

UPDATE:
Marc Cooper validates Tierney's assertions - from the Left. No one seems to be able to tolerate them - now if only the Democratic party could get its act together the nation would benefit... sometimes I think the only viable option is for the Republican party to split into conservative and moderate halves to get a rational national debate in gear.

Comments

[abdul-halim]

it is an interesting comment. I guess off-hand I have a couple of responses. Firstly, the Klan is obviously a special kind of case and their mere presence has an extreme emotional component that if they participate in hoods at a certain event, it is likely to change the character of the event.

Leftists, even Communists wouldn't have the same kind of effect.

Secondly, I wonder... if one is a thoughtful person, how many sorts of reasons are there to oppose the war in Iraq? And what exactly do you mean by Anti-American? I mean, if you believe that a certain course of action being taken by the government is immoral, does that make you anti-American? What if it isn't just a one time event but a set of policies being carried out in many different countries in different parts of the world? Is that "anti-American"?

But if you aren't a pacifist and you believe the war in Iraq to be wrong, what does that mean?

[Stuart Berman]

Thanks for the comments Abdul!

These are good questions.

The Klan comment by Tierney was meant to illustrate the power of affiliation - granted it is an extreme one - but demonstrates his point.

I have to take the blame for not wholly reflecting Tierney's views about opposition to the war (of which he too is critical) which has nothing to do with Anti-Americanism. His point is that the motivations of some of the organizing groups such as ANSWER, IAC, NION, and UPJ are wholly anti-American and are using a peace facade despite their belief in violence. A nice excerpt to this effect can be found at: http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/OT0305.pdf

[Saar Drimer]

Unrelated.

Stu,
I'm getting worried, where are you? Shana Tova!
Saar.

[Stuart Berman]

Not to worry!

I have been very busy preparing to teach a new SANS class - just delivered it a few nights ago - now I am trying to catch up...