- This is the site where Carl Davidson has been commenting about this "letter;" which, along with Davidson's comments and others, is available via this link:
Davidson claims he could have been a signer or a target of the "letter"--- well, Carl, which is it?
Carl Davidson Also, to be clear, I have no problem discussing the letter. I've done so on Kasama, and will here and elsewhere. It's discussions with Maki that are a big waste of time, since they're laden with so many falsehoods that you'd need to hire a team to counter them all. And if you ever get on his lists, he refuses to take you off, and just dumps invective. So I block him from my sites and pages.
8 hours ago ·
Alan L. Maki
Yes, Davidson--- you block me; that's why you always respond... lol! To you facts are "invective." You attacked everyone and anyone who wouldn't buy into your demanding support for Obama then you complain when someone actually challenges you with facts.
The bottom line is now you are on the defensive with Obama standing as exposed as the emperor with no clothes... and Hayden's pathetic response is an indication of the quandary you are in.
I made it very clear on my own blogs--- for the very reason Daniel has stated--- that I signed on to this letter VERY reluctantly. But, the one thing, in my opinion that this letter does is encourage a dialog, discussion and debate where you and your "Progressives for Obama" did everything possible to try to discourage--- there is an issue of your honesty and integrity here (not you personally [and you do take everything very personally which creates a problem for anyone attempting to engage you in discussion], but Progressives for Obama collectively) because you with-held a very critical piece of Obama's writing from your "membership" and "the millions" you claim to be communicating with and that very crucial article appeared in the July 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine in which Obama very clearly articulates his support for Wall Street's imperialist agenda of wars and occupations abroad and austerity at home in the name of "renewing America's leadership in the world." Certainly you are intelligent and educated enough to comprehend what even I can read from this piece:
http://wallstreetsfriend.b
logspot.com/
This is what really needs to be addressed by the Progressives for Obama seeing as how all of Obama's actions fall into what he laid out here in his very own words.
Without liberal, progressive and left support Obama never would have won the Primary... for sure had he honestly stated his intentions he never would have won the Primary... if you have been reaching out "to millions" as you claim you had a responsibility to at least post this article Obama had penned for Foreign Affairs Magazine and invited discussion... instead, you wouldn't even allow me to post it under comments to your site not to mention the many other points I raised concerning the truthfulness and accuracy of articles you were posting--- including the one regarding the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant that everyone, including the original writer now admits contains a number of false and very inaccurate statements--- an article that sowed sharp divisions within the UAW Local involved.
I still have ALL the communications between us for many years--- I would note my communications with you began with no personal animosities at all, they were very issue oriented and you chose to respond in the most attacking manner--- completely evading any discussion of the issues with vile invectives used by you as a substitute for communication and dialog.
Now you use my support--- reluctant support at that--- as a reason for not responding to a letter that has been signed by thousands of activists including some of those you have on your FaceBook friend's list.
Do you not understand that as involved as you are with the "Progressives for Obama," by implication this letter is directed at you, too? And, furthermore, no matter how badly--- or wrongly--- this letter is worded, the fact remains that a whole lot of liberals, progressives and leftists are telling you that they are not happy with what you have done. It is the epitome of very narrow-minded arrogance that you refuse to respond. And you compound your arrogance by stating that Tom Hayden has responded but at the same time you imply Hayden is not speaking for you. Well, let us hear your detailed response to this letter--- certainly you must glean the essence of this letter even if you disagree with the approach taken in how this letter was written.
At least have the courtesy of posting a link to where you say you are discussing this letter.
Here is the letter letter from Tom Hayden and a brief introductory comment by Doug Henwood as it appears on his blog:
http://lbo-news.com/2010/12/11/tom-hayden-doesn%E2%80%99t-like-that-letter/
Tom Hayden didn’t like that open letter to him et al. His response—sent to John Halle, organizer of the letter, but not as I erroneously said at first addressed to him in the polite “Dear John” salutational sense—follows. (The subject heading of the email was, inexplicably, “Weirdness.”) Gotta say, this is a beaut: “I supported Barack Obama for president in 2008, and am glad I did so. At the time I also said progressives should disagree with him on Afghanistan, NAFTA, global warming and Wall Street….” Well, what’s left to support, Cde Hayden?
So I started reading this letter which sounded pretty good and it looked like I signed it, so I read further and discovered that it was to as a member of a group I didn’t know I belonged to called the “Left Establishment.” As I kept reading, it was a vile, toxic diatribe ending with a demand that I, along with the rest of the “Left Establishment”, endorse a demonstration this week in Washington featuring civil disobedience at the White House fence.
To whomever sent the letter, I have to say I’m sorry that I just don’t respond positively to nasty invitations. I hope you can understand. Calm down and tell me who you are before the conspiracy theories mushroom.
Actually, I thought the Dec. 16 action seemed somewhat justifiable in light of current events – the WikiLeaks releases and erupting divisions within the Democratic Party. And I love the people who plan to get arrested. Maybe a big crowd will show up, but not because it was a smart idea to begin with. Mid-December is not the best time to turn out masses of people. But stuff happens, and now many people are boiling.
My personal best to those who are being arrested. They include a former Pentagon official, former CIA agent, a former New York Times reporter, and a mother who lost a son to war and was radicalized as a result. The lesson for me is that people can change from hawks to doves, from spies to whistleblowers, if organizers organize and events reshape their perceptions. That’s the lesson of WikiLeaks, that folk on the inside sometimes come find their situation intolerable and break away from old thinking.
Civil disobedience is a moral expression, and can be a personal healing. Sometimes it ignites a larger movement, or inspires other individuals to step up. We need more of it.
But I also think we need an outside/inside strategy that shifts public opinion more and more against the war. We need to persuade the undecided, not simply to create images of dissent. The peace movement will grow steadily in the months ahead, on its own, but also in its relation to other compelling causes, among them: Wall Street regulation, clean energy/green jobs, and the steady shift towards an unfettered market philosophy over our lives. Civil disobedience can light a flame, but the case for thoroughgoing radical reform must be made on our streets, our workplaces, our religious institutions, and yes, within the Democratic Party – whose overwhelming majority support progressive objectives. Members of the Progressive Democrats of America, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus, are vital elements of our movement.
I would like every person who signed this letter to read it again, and be kind enough to retract their signatures or explain why.
This is not the time to inflict internal damage on a community which is already weak enough. It’s important to get a grip.
The peace and justice community is a fragile form of social ecology, with diversity being an essential quality. Everyone is entitled to a different approach, but there also is an essential unity that can be achieved, unless a malign force is introduced.
I have been working every day since 2002 to end these wars. I will never stop. I supported Barack Obama for president in 2008, and am glad I did so. At the time I also said progressives should disagree with him on Afghanistan, NAFTA, global warming and Wall Street, and I have pursued progressive alternatives every day. I have been so busy on the WikiLeaks crisis since August that I just haven’t had time to drop by the White House and pick up my marching orders.
TOM HAYDEN
Director
Peace and Justice Resource Center
This is the site where Carl Davidson has been commenting about this letter which, along with Davidson's comments and others is available via this link:
Sunday, December 12, 2010
A discussion with Carl Davidson concerning the "letter from the left"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment