On "Rage Against the War Machine"

 There is a "Wage Against the War Machine" Rally coming to Washington, DC on Sunday, 2/19/23. There's a website with all the relevant information. 

There has been some...pushback because it appears that the "left" and the "right" are "uniting" behind this event. People more astute than myself have made cases for and against participating. 

Not really going to touch this argument on the merits; people of various political beliefs can be anti-war and if they choose to join under that particular banner and such joining can bare fruit, than fine. 

My hesitation to either commend or condemn the event wholesale is due to a few factors:

1. The "left" isn't unified itself on enough issues. Whether it's those who are more socialist who disagree with the social democrats on FTV, the railroad strike debacle or funding Ukraine or those who lean more Marx versus those who lean more Trotsky, the left hasn't come to much of a consensus. Is it a requirement for protesting World War III? No; nevertheless, it would be nice to have some baseline common ground before linking up with others who are nowhere near your political spectrum. 
2. The "right" is really libertarians. There's a distinction that needs to be made because the conservative right used libertarians to bolster their number (in particularly in the late 80's and through the 90's) and to equate Ron Desantis to Ron Paul would be a mistake. Opponents to the idea are being disingenuous by acting like someone like Ted Cruz is going to show up.  
3. The main organizers are political parties. This critique is something I haven't seen too many people make: The Libertarian Party and the People's Party being a part of this isn't as bad as if it was being run by the Democrats and Republicans, but they are still political parties whose ultimate goal is to supplant/replace the two major ones, not to mention political parties are susceptible to insulating themselves from the people they are supposed to represent. Anyone who is skeptical of electoral politics should be at least cautious. 
4. The "celebrity speaker" thing is a potential distraction. It's likely that for every person who isn't going because a "certain someone" will be speaking there'll be someone making their way to see that person speak live. Everyone else who's attending could probably care less. The political influencers on TV and online are projecting their own biases. That said, the hoopla of who's going to show up saying what risks overshadowing the whole purpose of the event. As long as the crowds know when and where to go during the event, does it really need speakers? 

At the end of this interview, Scott Ritter explained his misgivings, some of which I share. He compared the back and forth over who gets to speak as showing the customer how sausage is being made, which one should avoid doing. To stretch this analogy further, we have cooks and chefs of various skill levels trying to create a three-course meals, but people are using different recipes and there's no consensus on the portion size. In short: it's promising, but messy.