To: JohnM who wrote (75579 ) 2/20/2003 12:04:20 AM From: Nadine Carroll Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500 Well, we apparently have different conceptions as to what mass public demonstrations are capable of doing. I don't see them as able to engage in policy nuances. Rather, it seems to me you can only organize great masses of humans with straightforward messages such as stop this or start that I would agree that it is not the job of the demonstrations to formulate policy; that is the job of the political wing of whatever movement the demonstrators are following. It is that political wing that has not done its job. There is just no serious answer available to the question, "So, what do you propose to do about Saddam?" This makes it difficult for the movement to gain mass support, in America anyway, since Americans are convinced that Saddam is a problem. In Europe it's a different story as the Europeans seem to be largely pacifist - better any evil should be tolerated rather than have a war. As the President of Latvia remarked acidly the other day, it's so much easier to tolerate a dictator when he's dictating over someone else's life, not yours. The first is a distinction between what you've termed the "far left" and other folk to your left. Chomsky's political influence, whether one likes it or not, is less than minimal. Hardly worth discussing except for the right to use to caricature the left John, could you explain in a single sentence the position of the non-radical left on the Afghan war in October 2001? As I recall, they had no coherent policy, leaving the opposition to Chomskyites and other blame-America-firsters. I don't know how numerous this crowd is, but they sure are noisy. They are also good at organizing demonstrations, so they get their message out. In effect they use the masses of less-radical folk as an amplifier.