“Rage Against the War Machine” Rally: Pros and Cons

Yesterday’s Rage Against the War Machine rally in front of the Lincoln Memoria in DC was spirited, with the vast majority of people and speakers supporting progressive positions on war, NATO, free Assange, etc. The rally was controversial due to the fact that it counted among its sponsors the Libertarian Party, and its right-wing faction known as the Mises Caucus. The progressive organizers of the rally supported the idea of uniting the left and the right on grounds that the urgency of the anti-war cause necessitates unity above ideological and other differences.

 

My feeling is that working with a party like the Libertarian Party would only be justified if the blatantly racist remarks of the far-right faction of the big tent Libertarian Party as well as those who make those remarks not be present at the rally. I arrived a little after the first speakers spoke and stayed throughout, and saw no overt evidence of racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. Nearly all the speakers were progressives identified with progressive positions. Ron Paul, Tulsi Gabbard (both of whom delivered the closing speeches) and Scott Horton were exceptions. But you would never know what Gabbard’s positions are on domestic issues and indeed in my opinion delivered one of the best addresses. The same could be said for Horton. Paul did call for getting rid of the Fed, but as a speaker he was amusing more than effective.

 

Indeed, I had no intention yesterday of staying long or even joining the rally, but I ended up doing just the opposite. To my pleasant surprise, the speakers and the mood of the crowd were invigorating.

 

I have mixed opinions about the rally and its organizers. The organizers of the rally located on the left side of the political spectrum should have been more careful to draw a line in the sand. Those associated with the Lyndon LaRouche movement (including LaRouche’s wife) and several others should have been excluded from the roster of speakers. The issue in my mind is not whether or not to plan events with the Libertarian Party. The issue is that of excluding anyone associated with hateful ideas from the list of speakers.

 

In addition, I criticize some of the rally promoters for employing a discourse that lashes out against rivals on the left as much as against Trump and others on the right. Jimmy Dore is an example of this. He attacks AOC and Bernie Sanders as if they were the enemy. They’re obviously not.

 

On the other hand, the strategy of incorporating those on the right end of the political spectrum into the anti-war movement leadership is a potentially productive strategy, though not without its downsides. Strangely, the only congresspeople who have voted against military spending in Ukraine are Republicans; other rightists like Fox News also sometimes question the war effort. What does that mean? That Republicans and Fox News are the good guys? Obviously not. They’re the bad guys. But their occasionally critical opinions reflect tremendous discontent among their followers over the war machine and the permanent war that the U.S. is engaged in around the world. Those are the people the anti-war movement needs to try to reach out to. Allowing some of their leaders (the non-racist ones, of course) to speak at rallies is a means to achieving that ends.   

 

I believe the arguments of both those who organized the rally and leaders of groups that refused to participate are compelling. Although that sounds contradictory it should not be surprising. Society, and particularly that of the U.S. over the last half a century, is imbedded with deep contradictions. Politics of all stripes, as any political scientist or politician will tell you, is about uniting disparate groups (Ernesto Laclau with his concept of populism and empty signifiers would say the same). So we need to grow accustomed to the ideas that different groups on the left with different constituencies will assume different positions. Mao called it “contradictions among the people.” And as Althusser pointed out, the so-called “proletariat” position is not tantamount to an absolute truth. It’s only the reflection of one class, which doesn’t even represent a majority of the population.

 

Those who opposed participation, for instance, presented a particularly cogent argument: How will we be able to go back to those who we purport to represent when we are holding hands with those who denigrate those sectors of the population? I get it. They have a perfect right to say, no we won’t participate because we don’t want to undermine the very work that we are carrying out.

 

My position is not one of wholehearted support for one of the two sides in this dispute, but rather to show that neither position is preposterous. Thus, I criticize arguments that overstate positions and in doing so question the sincerity and commitment of those on the other side. Example: the term “Red-Brown alliance.” Ron Paul, the most prominent member of the Libertarian movement is hardly a fascist. Compare that with the “browns” of Germany. Hitler was the undisputed head of the Nazi party almost from its beginning. The more popular elements within the party like the Strasser brothers who made common cause with the Communists in the 20s (on the confiscation of royal property) were hardly dominant figures (and one was jailed and killed by Hitler upon reaching power while the other – Otto – escaped). The Nazi’s could hardly be characterized as a big tent party, unlike the Libertarians.

 

More than taking sides on this knotty issue, I wanted to make a point that is almost more philosophical or sociological than political. Diversity has a material base and that includes diversity on the left. There are no easy answers to the controversy raised by the February 19 rally, but while we grapple with these issues, there has to be a sense that other currents on the left hold the positions they do because they represent in some way (through condensation, to use a Poulantzas concept) real sectors of the population whose values and opinions can’t be ruled out.

 

I firmly criticize leaders on both sides of the divide on this issue who lashed out against those on the other side. Denouncing and even mocking groups like Code Pink, Veterans for Peace and Answer for refusing to participate is nothing short of sectarian. I am equally critical of those who labeled the organizers of the rally unprincipled. The left in this country can’t afford to go at each other’s throat. There are many issues on the left which in my mind are fairly black and white, but this is not one of them.