Open Letter to Ed Marshall, The Progressive Populist Reform People's Party (in repsonse to his criticism of the Inaugural Protests and the Voter March)


I find the two emails you sent somewhat difficult to follow, but if I understand them correctly (and correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation), you seem to be suggesting that the whole Voter March is just not dramatic or radical enough in its intention and/or strategical implementation, or political implications. Your concern seems to be that if the movement is not based a rigorous response to the egregious breaching of democracy and the law in the last s-election, that the movement will be characterized as "sour grapes" and "sore Loserman."

If this is indeed what you are saying, and if the movement were indeed what you say, I would agree with you. As it is, however, I think that your characterization is inaccurate. (I believe that the rightwing has attempted to characterize the movement as sour grapes and sore loserman, etc., but that the impetus behind the movement would never have sustained itself given such a premise).

The premise of the movement, as I see it, and as we in the CLG see it (see IS in fact a response to treason, fraud, judicial injustice, systemic and apparently intentional disenfranchisment. There is simply no way that a continued, ongoing pro-democracy movement could have been sustained on the mere basis of being upset about "losing." The fact is, everyone involved knows that election was stolen, that probably 200,000 in Florida alone were disenfranchised, and that politicos, paid G.O.P. party operatives, demogogues, jurists and propagandists colluded in an orchestration of a coup d'etat.

You suggest that the Democratic party, given its ready abdication of effective opposition, has been complicit in the coup. This is a characterization, in fact, shared by many (BUT NOT ALL) in the march and pro-democracy movement. Yet, you seem to associate the March with this "official" Democratic (supine) position. You seem to suggest that the March, in not condemning Democrats, is equally complicit. Obviously, this is not the case. If this WERE the case, the march would amount to a feel-good "healing" and mass therapy session to mend the 'wounds' caused by the take-over. After all, that was the "official" party line. But, that line was never accepted by the movement.

Rather, what this movement represents is a groundswell of grassroots activism. As The Nation editorialist put it this week, "popular agitation must build fires under them [Democrats], too." This, I would argue, is the very premise of the March itself, and the movement is feeding into this popular agitation. We are not complicit in the coup; we are not adopting the official Democratic party line; we are multi-partisan. If you disagree with my characterizations of your position, the March, and its relationship to the coup, please apprise.


Michael Rectenwald

Citizens for Legitimate Government (