Â
SA HOME
socialist action
YSA HOME
youth 4 socialist action
NEWS & VIEWS
articles, fliers, statements and opinions
THEORY
what is socialism, reading lists and study guides
LINKS
socialist, youth, activist, labor, feminist, anti-racist, and other important sites
red-baiting in the new anti-war movement
Nathan Newman's document "Using Red-baiting to Silence ANSWER's Critics," which was first circulated within the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) and has recently appeared on the internet, is an abomination.
At a time when civil liberties are under unprecedented attack, Newman, vice president of the New York City NLG chapter, chose as his target a recently adopted national Guild resolution that "opposes red-baiting and similar tactics of ideologically motivated negative labeling of sectors of the progressive movement."
The NLG resolution "categorically rejects calls to 'purge' the movement of progressive people who hold certain beliefs or who are members of particular parties, and recognizes such demands and divisive attacks as a real threat to an effective antiwar movement."
In his response to this resolution, Newman places quotation marks around the term red-baiting, indicating that he considers his attack on International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) to be in the realm of legitimate political debate rather than red-baiting. ANSWER is one of the leading groups organizing mass demonstrations against a war on Iraq.
Rabbi Michael Lerner of the Tikkun community also insists that his red-baiting rant and unsubstantiated charges of anti-Semitism against ANSWER and others in the antiwar movement fall in the category of honest debate. Both follow in lock step with The Nation magazine red-baiters David Korn, Katha Pollitt, and Marc Cooper, as well as former SDS leader Professor Todd Gitlin, as welcomed commentators, often front page and prime time, in the pro-war corporate media.
Red-baiting is an attempt to discredit one's political opponents by associating them with socialist or communist parties. During the McCarthy era and its immediate aftermath, any good cause was subject to red-baiting.
Dr. King was red-baited because the government sought to discredit the civil rights movement. The National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) was red-baited to discredit the movement for nuclear disarmament.
The NAACP was red-baited and compelled to include on its brochures a statement affirming that "the NAACP has been certified by the House Committee on Un-American Activities to be free from Communist Party and other subversive organization participation."
During the Vietnam War, the National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC), a leading national antiwar group that had organized mass demonstrations in the hundreds of thousands, was red-baited by the government as it sought to discredit the struggle against the Vietnam War.
Red-baiting reached its zenith in the legal community when the ACLU formally refused to defend those charged by government witch-hunting committees with Communist Party or other "subversive" association. The crown jewel in the ACLU's reason for being, its defense of the Bill of Rights and especially the First Amendment, was trashed in a dark period where dissent of any kind was deemed suspect by a government intent on outlawing dissent.
In each of the above instances members of the Communist Party, Socialist Workers Party, or other such groups were active participants in or supporters of the red-baited organizations.
The red-baiters know full well that a frontal attack on the real politics of rising social and political movements would only add to these movements' popularity. So an attack is launched based on associating these movements with communists and socialists and with the red-baiter's grossly distorted account of their politics.
"Beware," the red-baiters warn, "the cause you support is led by communists who are using the movement for their own subversive purposes." Nathan Newman employs the same tactic. He attacks the Workers World Party and, by association, attempts to discredit the politics of ANSWER, in which the WWP plays a leading role.
ANSWER's politics in the antiwar movement have almost exclusively focused on the single demand, "No War on Iraq!" On occasion ANSWER has added some secondary but important demands like "No Blood For Oil!" "Money for Human Needs Not War!" "Defend Civil Liberties!" or "Stop Racist Scapegoating!"
On this basis alone they have organized effective and unprecedented mass demonstrations that have been endorsed by thousands of individuals and organizations. At no time has ANSWER sought to organize a demonstration that included any of the issues that Nathan Newman mentions: Tiananmen Square, North Korea, Bosnia, and all the rest.
Let's take NION, as another example of where red-baiting has been employed. The Not in Our Name group placed a world-class ad in The New York Times that was signed by some of the country's most prominent intellectuals and social activists. The ad was subsequently reprinted in 45 newspapers in the United States and abroad, and 50,000 people have signed on.
The text rings out with a universal truth that speaks to all people of good will who cherish freedom and democratic rights while opposing oppression, racism, and intervention for profit.
One can only wonder if Nathan Newman will attack the NION effort based on the politics or affiliation of the ad's author, Clark Kissinger, (as others have already done) or the groups with which Kissinger has chosen to associate. Should Kissinger's work as a national defender of Mumia Abu-Jamal, or as a leader of Refuse and Resist! or any other organization be employed to discredit NION's ad or its mass demonstrations to "Stop the War on Iraq!"?
Similarly, will Newman open an investigation into the politics of the 200 organizations that help to lead United for Peace and Justice, the coalition that mobilized 500,000 antiwar protesters in New York on Feb. 15? Is Newman concerned that perhaps there are communists or socialists in UFPJ?
What about the politics of the four coalitions that jointly organized the San Francisco Feb. 16 mass action of 200,000? We can attest that Socialist Action, along with other socialist groups, joined and participated in the leadership of this effort. Will Newman check us out as well to discredit Feb. 16?
Newman displays too much of his hand when he echoes the red-baiters who attacked the San Francisco protest by falsely charging that Rabbi Michael Lerner had been excluded as a speaker by ANSWER. Similarly, he charges the Lawyers' Guild with adopting a statement against red-baiting that was authored by an ANSWER supporter. Guilt by association?
Newman writes: "And unfortunately, the national leaders of the Guild scurried to condemn 'redbaiting,' while really endorsing the suppression of dissent—suppression which is what real historical redbaiting was all about. Like the exclusion of Rabbi Michael Lerner from speaking at the Bay Area rally against war on February 16th and other charges of 'redbaiting' the WWP and ANSWER have leveled against their critics, this intervention of the Workers World Party into the National Lawyers Guild is part of a systematic campaign to silence those who criticize their politics and role in the antiwar movement."
Here Newman puts it all together. It's not his red-baiting that's at issue, he insists, it's the "suppression of dissent." But Michael Lerner was not excluded from speaking at the San Francisco demonstration by ANSWER. Newman's admittedly favored coalition, UFPJ, declined to recommend Lerner as a speaker.
Several weeks before Lerner 's name was even mentioned, the San Francisco unified coalition voted unanimously that none of the four constituent groups would recommend a speaker who had attacked or sought to discredit any of the other sponsoring groups.
The motion was presented by Bay Area United Against War, the group that initiated the Feb. 16 action. As with the NLG resolution, it was present ed in the context of a clear understanding that red-baiting was a critical issue for the movement as a whole.
In this context, the UFPJ component of the coalition unanimously decided that Lerner would not be recommended to the joint Program Committee. They properly distinguished between defending free speech for all and inviting red-baiters to antiwar rallies.
Lerner, however, fully aware of the above, immediately went to the media to charge that he had been excluded by ANSWER because he supported Israel. Lerner's lie became the stuff of a major media story.
To add fuel to the fire, Lerner charged that his exclusion was based on anti-Semitism and that ANSWER's practice of welcoming Palestinian speakers who were critical of Israel to its platforms was, in and of itself, anti-Semitic.
"Antiwar Anti-Semites" was the title that Lerner selected for his Wall Street Journal op-ed diatribe published a few days later. According to this article, not only was ANSWER dominated by a "communist sect;' as Lerner had earlier charged in The New York Times, but ANSWER itself was anti-Semitic.
The corporate red-baiters sensed an opening. Lerner was featured on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle and appeared on national television on the morning of Feb. 16 to air his lies. At last the red-baiters had a champion with substance. Lerner's red-baiting friends at The Nation joined in the chorus.
"The lie," as they say, runs around the world several times before truth gets to first base." But once on first, the truth about Lerner and his red-baiting pals, including Nathan Newman, took hold, Lerner's attempt to bully his way onto the speaker's platform at the San Francisco rally was rebuffed. Newman remains an isolated and pathetic voice while his organization stands strong against the new McCarthyism.
Close to a million in the U.S. took to the streets to challenge the war-makers on Feb. 15-16, a stunning statement that red-baiting is losing ground and that millions more can be expected to answer the call to stop a war on the people of Iraq.
The article above was written by Jeff Mackler, and first appeared in the March 2003 issue of Socialist Action newspaper.
