Dear rn, This is a difficult posting for me. I know some will misunderstand and misinterperet no matter what, but I'll do my best. The message at the bottom is from what we would call a 'right wing' list. Before I explain why I'm bringing this to your attention, let me review a concept we call 'web weaving'... This list is brought to you by "Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance" (CDR). We've had exactly one face-face gathering which was in the summer of '98 in Bear River, Nova Scotia. Besides myself and Jan, there were Bruna Nota (current President of Womens International League for Peace and Freedom), and about a half dozen others. One of the things we talked about was the problem of divisiveness in the activist community, and how a broad-based movement might be encouraged in the face of divisiveness. In our "Invitation", which is a kind of manifesto located on our website, we have the following language: The opportunity offered by this crisis is for these various resistance efforts to coalesce into a single grass-roots global movement -- a movement aimed at bringing sanity to economic arrangements and to international affairs, a movement to lay claim to our democratic institutions and to reassert sovereignty over giant corporations. We discussed a 'web' as a model for movement development. The spokes of the web are different 'causes' ('resistance efforts'), and the circular strands of the web are bridges, or connections, that communicate between individual causes. 'Web weaving' is the task of building these circular strands - of building dialog and communication between different causes. The mission of the rn-list is to facilitate 'web weaving', by providing a forum in which people with differing focuses of concern can talk together. Jan, I think, is to be commended for her web-weaving efforts. For one reason or another, most of the people on this list seem to be from a political region I would characterize as 'left-green-internationalist'. We do have disagreement among ourselves, but for the most part we seem to share a great many values and assumptions. We are all aware of excessive corporate power, of environmental degradation, of unfairness to the third world, of the drawbacks of free-trade treaties - and we all see these (and some others) as being front-burner issues. At least that's the sense I get from things that people send in to the list. With respect the UN, most of us would agree that it has its problems, but most of us would say it's basically a good thing - that it facilitates international communication and collaboration. What I would like to do is to introduce a question for us to consider. That question is "What should our attitude be toward that political region that can be characterized as 'right-nationalist'?" There are some knee-jerk reactions that may occur to some of you. You might think 'they are the enemy', and that our job, in terms of political correctness, is to shout them down. Or you might think that 'they are deluded', and our job is to convert them. Here are a couple short exchanges with Chris, the fellow who inspired my little "Ode to Marxism" ditty. In the first exchange, Chris said: You have mentioned several times that it's unfortunate that the left and right don't talk. What is there to talk about? To think that any common ground could ever be reached bewtween the two is to ignore the class content of the politics reflected in the terms left and right. The capitalist class will never see eye to eye with the working class. To this I responded: I do not consider the capitalist class to be 'the right'. The capitalist class is a very tiny minority, whereas 'the right' is a large number of deluded people, though not any more deluded than 'liberals' are... the 'right'opposes abortion, while the 'left' supports abortion-rights. The capitalist class cares nothing about abortion, but is happy to exploit the social divisiveness that the abortion issue leads to... Much of the 'working class' is today part of 'the right'. Chris then said: I agree that many working people have accepted right-wing ideology and that we on the left have to try to get them back. I would _guess at this point that most of you would tend to agree with Chris - that dialog with the right might be benficial, and that our 'message' to them should be to think like us. We are on to the correct answers and they aren't; our job should be to help them see the light. I would like to suggest a different attitude. The fact is that we _aren't going to get people on the right to think like us; it just isn't going to happen. I've talked to plenty of them, and they (at the risk of over-generalizing) just see the world from a different perspective. It is very easy to get into arguments - all you need to do is bring up one of the many divisive issues, from Bible in schools, to police & crime, to the UN. But I've found ways to talk to such people productively. It begins by listening, and by asking them "why", and getting to the root of some of their concerns. The next step is to look for values that are shared in common, and to develop areas where agreement is possible. After developing some modicum of rapport, it is possible to discuss issues productively which would have been divisive earlier in the conversation. In the end, one learns that they are real people, who care about many of the same things we do. Back in the sixties, I always felt the biggest failing of the New Left was that it didn't link up effectively with the labor movement. That could have led to some powerful politics. Similarly, back at the turn of the century, the Agrarian Populists were limited by the failure to link up with discontented urban populations. In both cases there was a cultural assumption that the two groups couldn't be allies - but if you analyze the primary issues of the day, an alliance would have made political sense. Today I think the failure of the left and right to communicate is the single greatest obstacle preventing the development of a substantial movement for systemic change. We are both suffering from the degradation of our physical and social environments, and it would serve our mutual interest to collaborate together in doing something about it. I subscribe to some right-wing lists, in order to keep in touch with the kind of issues they talk about. What I find most interesting is that left and right seem to be concerned with totally separate issues. It's less that they argue two sides of the same issue than that they are focusing on different things altogether. While we're concerned about the enviornment, you might say, they're concerened about shadiness in Clinton's background. Since we're always talking about different topics, the illusion is maintained that we have nothing in common. The posting below was from one of those lists, and it is concerned with the following three issues: 1) privacy, including efforts to require Americans to have a national ID; 2) presidential executive orders and the erosion of the Constitution; 3) the United Nations and the erosion of national sovereignty. Basically, this is an annoucement of an activist effort, around those issues, describing a mechanism they've developed by which they hope to achieve results. They are talking about a 'spoke' on a movement web, but the question is whether that spoke could be part of our own web - whether web-weaving would in this case be a desirable objective. I'll join you again after you've looked at the posting itself... rkm ============================================================================ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 02:31:17 -0700 From: APFN - American Patriots Freedom Network <•••@••.•••> Organization: APFN http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb77532 To: APFN ONELIST <•••@••.•••> Subject: Cyberwarfare is on.....THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY Cyberwarfare is on. FRIDAY OCTOBER 15 1999 THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY Can Internet curb Clinton power? 'We're not surrendering, we're fighting back,' congressman vows By Sarah Foster © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com Inspired in part by the successful use of the Internet in derailing the "Know Your Customer" regulation promulgated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Agency, a group of 14 congressmen and eight constitutional Attorneys plan to take the fight for American liberties and national sovereignty to cyberspace. The Liberty Study Committee, organized by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, will focus on three interrelated issues: privacy, including efforts to require Americans to have a national ID; presidential executive orders; and the United Nations. "I am sorry and dismayed that our liberty is indeed being taken," Paul says, explaining the mission of the committee. "However, regret and disappointment are not the same as surrender. We are not surrendering, we are fighting back." And they are doing so with determination. According to Kent Snyder, the group's executive director, the Liberty Study Committee is not a think tank or research foundation, but an "action-oriented organization" that will enable Americans to make their voices heard in Congress. "Everything we do is to advance the legislative remedy to a problem," Snyder told WorldNetDaily. "That's priority one for the Liberty Study Committee. There are plenty of organizations that do research, and we encourage that, but our primary focus is not education but the legislative solution. Everything we do must advance the solution -- a specific piece of legislation. And we will use the Internet to do it." Although it's a new group, the Liberty Study Committee has already made its presence felt on Capitol Hill. Earlier this year they set up a website, NoNationalID.com. With a click of a mouse, people could write what they thought about national IDs and e-mail the message directly to their representative and the two senators from their state. On Oct. 1, the House passed the Omnibus Transportation Bill, which included a rider by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., repealing a section of a statute passed in 1996 requiring that, as of Oct. 1, 2000, Americans would be forced to carry a national ID. Under provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act, without an ID no one would be allowed to board a commercial flight, purchase a handgun, receive federal benefits or take a new, private sector job. Although the repeal language survived the House Appropriations Committee, there was concern that it might be deleted on the floors of the House and possibly the Senate. That didn't happen. The repeal language was kept by both houses -- thanks in large part to public response flooding congressional offices with e-mails, faxes and letters. "This is a great moment for all Americans," said Paul, who led the fight in the House. "We have succeeded in defeating a program that would have deprived Americans of constitutional liberties, while imposing a massive federal bureaucracy to monitor their every step from cradle to grave." Snyder detailed the victory to WorldNetDaily. "We had a lot of people going to the site, a lot of people sending messages at the very last minute," Snyder said. "Sources who were involved in the process admitted that our presence was definitely felt." Although elated, Snyder cautioned that "the issue isn't going to go away." "The committee must remain alert for any push for any form of a national ID card," he said. "We know that the forces that want a national ID will continue to work for it, and we'll continue to fight it." With one victory to their credit, the Liberty Study Committee is turning attention to other areas of concern. "The 72-hour effort was a practice run for a much larger effort," said Snyder. "The effort to stop the national ID within a 72-hour period was a success ... so we are taking that success and using it as a first step towards a similar effort on executive orders, the United Nations, and the other issues related to a national ID. We have the model, we have activists nationwide who have used it, we are becoming better known by liberty- minded individuals throughout the country." At present, the Committee is focusing on the president's practice of issuing executive orders to expand presidential power and set policy agendas, something Paul and his colleagues find particularly egregious. "By using executive orders and declarations of emergency, President Clinton is vastly increasing the power of the national government over us," says Paul. "He is also concentrating more power in his hands alone by taking the legislative power that rightfully belongs to the 535 men and women of the United States Congress. With each stroke of his pen, he is effectively rewriting our Constitution." Paul cites as examples: Presidential Decision Directive 25 enables the U.S. military to be moved under U.N. command without congressional Approval. Executive Order 12919 directs cabinet officials to take over all aspects of the economy during a declared state of emergency. It effectively puts the entire United States under the control of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Currently, the U.S. operates under 14 states of emergency. Executive Order 13133, titled "Working Group on Unlawful Conduct on the Internet," was issued Aug. 7, 1999, stipulating that a group of agency heads will define "unlawful conduct." President Clinton has signed over 300 executive orders since assuming office in January 1993. The number doesn't include the presidential directives (which are kept secret), the various initiatives -- such as the Clean Water Initiative -- that also provide a way for the administration to make end runs around Congress and justify federal intervention in state and local governments. "We'd need a lifespan of 300 years to fight all the executive orders and initiatives if we take them on one at a time," said Snyder. "If we attack the orders in a piecemeal way, we'd be going round and round like gerbils in a cage. "The only solution is a comprehensive bill -- right now that's Rep. Paul's HR 2655 -- the Separation of Powers Restoration Act." Paul introduced HR 2655 this July, with co-author Jack Metcalf, R- Wash. It builds on House Concurrent Resolution 30 which Metcalf introduced in March, but which failed to get out of committee. HR 2655 is far broader than its predecessor. If enacted, HR 2655 would: Repeal the War Powers Resolution and end all states of national emergency. Require that treaties and executive agreements purporting to assign powers not amongst those specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution would be non- binding. Require that the president, in issuing executive orders, cite the specific congressional enactment and the constitutional authority on which it's based. Prohibit delegation of power to a foreign government or international body when no such delegating authority exists under the Constitution. Grant legal standing to individual members of Congress, state officials and private citizens who believe a presidential executive order is unconstitutional. As it did to fight the national ID law, the Liberty Study Committee has set up a special website, executiveorders.org with information about executive orders -- what they are, how they work, what they do, as well as a bibliography about executive orders and emergency powers for people who want to explore the issue in depth. "At this juncture, we want to make the public aware of the subject of executive orders and the abuses," said Snyder. "There will be an endless list of abuses -- examples of the usurpation by the president of congressional powers. They represent the total breakdown of the separation between the presidency and the Congress. Our first step is to throw some light on this subject." Asked what people should do about the problem, Snyder urged that they use the website, just as they did to oppose the national ID. "I'd advise them to go to our site to read about executive orders -- then find out online if their representative is a co-sponsor of HR 2655. If they are not, then send them a message urging them to become a co- sponsor. Currently we have eight. There are a lot that have not signed on. If they are co-sponsors, then send a message of thanks. "We're involving the public step by step in the legislative process. It's very simple: Here's the issue, here's the remedy. They must urge their representatives to take a stand on the issue of presidential executive orders by supporting HR 2655." © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Capital Directory http://legislators.com/congressorg2/capdir.html HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - Capitol Hill number is (202) 224-3121 Call Congress on 1-800-504-0031 http://www.house.gov House Of Representatives (EMAIL) http://www.house.gov/writerep/ HOUSE AS THE SPEAKER http://speakernews.house.gov/asknewt/ QUICK SEARCH TEXT OF BILLS 105th CONGRESS: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html?66,9 DOWNLOADING BILL TEXT http://thomas.loc.gov/home/billdwnloadhelp.html "NORFOLK, Va. - Defense Secretary William Cohen established a new military command here Thursday that will direct troops and equipment in response to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil." Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncsthu05.htm ============================================================================ rkm, cont... There are many attitudes above which I don't go along with, such as their characterization of the Clean Water Initiative as being, more or less, a federal plot to subvert states' rights. More important, I don't share their underlying attitude that the UN is a bad thing altogether. But on their main three points I'm mostly in agreement. (1) Governemnts _are intruding increasingly on privacy, and that _is a vitally important civil-liberties issue. (2) Power in the US _is being dangerously centralized in the federal executive, and the erosion of the Constitution does move the US closer to what could be called an 'imperial' system. In Canada you have a similar problem with power being shifted increasingly from the provinces to Ottawa. And in the EU the same shift is happening toward Brussels. (3) Transfer of national sovereignty to international organizations, whether it be the UN or the WTO, _is a bad thing, even if we would disagree over the reasons why. 'They' think its a 'liberal' conspiracy, while I see it as corporate-elite conspiracy, but we can agree that keeping sovereignty closer to home, closer to the electorate, gives us more hope of exercising democratic control over our destinies. A breakthrough occured some years back in Northern Ireland when some women got together from the Catholic and Protestant communities. Their united voice had a political weight to it that neither side could ignore. Their efforts were a kind of web weaving, and they contributed significantly toward the building of the momentum that led to the current peace process. My intuition tells me that if there began to be grass-roots connections between groups from left and right backgrounds, and if they began to identify areas of consensus, that the result could be politically electric. I hope some of you are still reading, and if so, I'd be interested in seeing some discussion about this left-right divide, and the possibility of productive web weaving. solidarity, rkm ======================================================================== an activist discussion forum - •••@••.••• To subscribe, send any message to •••@••.••• A public service of Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance •••@••.••• http://cyberjournal.org **--> Non-commercial reposting is encouraged, but please include the sig up through this paragraph and retain any internal credits and copyright notices. Copyrighted materials are posted under "fair-use". Help create the Movement for a Democratic Rensaissance To review renaissance-network archives, send a blank message to: •••@••.••• To subscribe to the the cj list, which is a larger list and a more general political discussion, send a blank message to: •••@••.••• To sample the book-in-progress, "Achieving a Livable World", see: http://cyberjournal.org/cdr/alpw/alpw.html A community will evolve only when the people control their means of communication. -- Frantz Fanon Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead