Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1992, Page 33
The Role of Middle-Level Leadership
After the WDU’s dissolution, three ex-members (including myself) who had been in leadership
wrote a document in an effort to describe to the former membership exactly what went on in
leadership circles. The following excerpts clarify the role of those in middle-level leadership
and, once again, highlight the destructive behavior so typical to the WDU.
There was a shared view [among those in leadership] that only the militants in
leadership could understand about Baxter’s craziness and thus we had to hide this
from everyone else. We saw ourselves not as more malleable but as more mature
and more committed. Our role was to make her guidance palatable and political,
instead of the name-calling and incoherence that it started as. We kept Baxter away
from the rest of the party and interpreted her actions. There was conscious collusion
in keeping the secret. In our minds, though, it was the militants who were the
problem, not Baxter’s behavior. ...
There were several inner rings surrounding the inner circle. Leadership of work
units or Branches saw their job as forging unity not generating decision making. This
emanated from Baxter, but the middle level took their little positions and enforced
this with a vengeance. We cannot remember a leader-ship meeting where it was seen
as a good thing to have a healthy debate. Rather individual members and their ideas
were picked apart to be dismissed or brought into line. Recalcitrant leadership or
those who tried to defend militants were quickly denounced, made fun of, and/or
removed as leadership.
There was gossip and incredible disrespect shown toward militants when they were
being discussed in leadership meetings (or casual conversation). In preparation for
Branch criticisms the most irrelevant mistake would be made into a case against an
individual. Collective attitudes were adopted based on off-the-cuff or informal
reflecting comments by Baxter or other top leader-ship these attitudes would then
lead people to being disrespected or kept down for long periods of time. With a mere
phrase you would know the correct attitude toward “X” militant.
The most intimate things about militants were discussed jokingly, pejoratively, and
with utter contempt. Personality quirks, health problems, a desire to have children,
whether you were liked by or “got along with” Baxter or other upper-level leader-
ship, or an error from years past were held against people and re-raised without fail if
someone in leadership suggested the “wrong” militant for an assignment. Militants
were boxed into stereotypes for years: Don’t ever give “A” any leadership, Baxter
can’t stand her. “B” is good at numbers, let her stay there, she’s no good anywhere
else. Baxter hates x about “Y,” don’t ever let him do anything again. “Z” is valuable to
us, therefore keep his wife happy and out of the way. Promotions, demotions, and
assignments were based on subjective judgments, prejudices, and favoritism.
There was an overall attitude that leadership was more competent than the
militants. Militants were blamed often for problems. Any so-called consulting with the
membership, if done at all, was perfunctory. ...
Our role as middle-level leadership was to serve Baxter or the next level above us,
to drop everything at a moment’s notice to run here or there for some ad hoc
meeting, to sit for hours on end in revolving leadership bodies. Never was our
primary role to really serve “the struggle” or even really lead or develop militants in a
political way. Rather our role was to keep militants in line, to report on them, or to
convince them on some new change in line or new campaign. Militants who perhaps
started out showing genuine initiative or asking political questions were seen as
threats or control problems. ...
The Role of Middle-Level Leadership
After the WDU’s dissolution, three ex-members (including myself) who had been in leadership
wrote a document in an effort to describe to the former membership exactly what went on in
leadership circles. The following excerpts clarify the role of those in middle-level leadership
and, once again, highlight the destructive behavior so typical to the WDU.
There was a shared view [among those in leadership] that only the militants in
leadership could understand about Baxter’s craziness and thus we had to hide this
from everyone else. We saw ourselves not as more malleable but as more mature
and more committed. Our role was to make her guidance palatable and political,
instead of the name-calling and incoherence that it started as. We kept Baxter away
from the rest of the party and interpreted her actions. There was conscious collusion
in keeping the secret. In our minds, though, it was the militants who were the
problem, not Baxter’s behavior. ...
There were several inner rings surrounding the inner circle. Leadership of work
units or Branches saw their job as forging unity not generating decision making. This
emanated from Baxter, but the middle level took their little positions and enforced
this with a vengeance. We cannot remember a leader-ship meeting where it was seen
as a good thing to have a healthy debate. Rather individual members and their ideas
were picked apart to be dismissed or brought into line. Recalcitrant leadership or
those who tried to defend militants were quickly denounced, made fun of, and/or
removed as leadership.
There was gossip and incredible disrespect shown toward militants when they were
being discussed in leadership meetings (or casual conversation). In preparation for
Branch criticisms the most irrelevant mistake would be made into a case against an
individual. Collective attitudes were adopted based on off-the-cuff or informal
reflecting comments by Baxter or other top leader-ship these attitudes would then
lead people to being disrespected or kept down for long periods of time. With a mere
phrase you would know the correct attitude toward “X” militant.
The most intimate things about militants were discussed jokingly, pejoratively, and
with utter contempt. Personality quirks, health problems, a desire to have children,
whether you were liked by or “got along with” Baxter or other upper-level leader-
ship, or an error from years past were held against people and re-raised without fail if
someone in leadership suggested the “wrong” militant for an assignment. Militants
were boxed into stereotypes for years: Don’t ever give “A” any leadership, Baxter
can’t stand her. “B” is good at numbers, let her stay there, she’s no good anywhere
else. Baxter hates x about “Y,” don’t ever let him do anything again. “Z” is valuable to
us, therefore keep his wife happy and out of the way. Promotions, demotions, and
assignments were based on subjective judgments, prejudices, and favoritism.
There was an overall attitude that leadership was more competent than the
militants. Militants were blamed often for problems. Any so-called consulting with the
membership, if done at all, was perfunctory. ...
Our role as middle-level leadership was to serve Baxter or the next level above us,
to drop everything at a moment’s notice to run here or there for some ad hoc
meeting, to sit for hours on end in revolving leadership bodies. Never was our
primary role to really serve “the struggle” or even really lead or develop militants in a
political way. Rather our role was to keep militants in line, to report on them, or to
convince them on some new change in line or new campaign. Militants who perhaps
started out showing genuine initiative or asking political questions were seen as
threats or control problems. ...
