Shouting for Attention

Burning up the blogosphere is a post and discussion on Michael J Totten's site about the "Workers World Party and International ANSWeR":http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000131.html. He calls them "the new skinheads" (huh?), but his critique of these organizations and the "unconditional support" they give to anti-U.S. fascists the world over is valid. As a pacifist it's often a tough balancing act to try to remain a steady voice for peace: this spring we were trying to simultaneously critiquing both Saddam Hussein and U.S. war plans against iraq. Both left and right denounce pacifists for this insistence on consistency, but that's okay: it is these times when nonviolent activists have the most to contribute to the larger societal debate. But hard-left groups like International ANSWeR refuse to draw the line and refuse to condemn the very real evil that exists in the world. International ANSWeR has sponsored big anti-war rallies over the last year, but anti-war is not necessarily pro-nonviolence. Many of the participants at the rallies would never support International ANSWeR's larger agenda, but go because it's a peace rally, shrugging off the politics of the sponsoring group. I suspect that International ANSWeR's support base would disappear pretty quickly if they started rallying on other issues. International ANSWeR just had another rally last weekend but you didn't see it listed here on Nonviolence.org. Other peace groups co-sponsored it, echoing the All-caps/exclamation style of organizing. It's very strange to go the site of "United for peace," a coalition of peace groups, and look down the list of its next three events: "Stop the Wall!," "Stop the FTAA!, "Shut Down the School of the Americas" When did pacifism become shouting for attention alongside the Workers World Party? Why are we all about stopping this and shutting down that?