Whew, I bet the Republicans are quaking in fear from Saturday’s protest in D.C. Surely now they’ll
1. End the war in Iraq
2. Free Mumia
3. Make love, not bombs
4. End the capitalist super hiearcrhy
5. End racism
Seriously, folks, can we get back to the real work of spreading the progressive message and end these useless noisefests?
Oliver,
Have you ever been to an anti-war rally?
Because if you had you’d realize the massive number of regular Joe people that are actually there as opposed to the few wingnuts the MSM always chooses to highlight.
Antway … here’s a photo montage of the Media’s anti-war march coverage you might enjoy.
The toppling of Saddam’s statue should have underlined how the uses of wide angle and close up shots can change the perception of what is going on. Is this a rant angainst people protests, Oliver, or the press coverage of the same?
Oliver,
The protest is not so much to scare the Republicans as to solidify the resolve of the opposition. As many as 300,000 people showed up. That will raise some eyebrows and for people who think they are alone in their views, it will show them that they have plenty of company. As the protests get more frequent and larger, they will have an affect on public opinion in that it gets people off of the fence. It will bring it more and more to the public’s attention.
You weren’t around then, but the protests during the Viet Nam war had a wearing-down effect on public support for the war. It made people research why the protesters were protesting and eventually the “great, silent majority” started speaking up. That’s what we need now, the great silent majority to start speaking up. And they are. Peaceful protests containing “regular Americans” (by that I mean people who aren’t radicals) will be harder for the Administration to dismiss as “not part of the mainstream”. It’s the mainstream that’s protesting. It scares the daylights out of congressmen when their constituants begin to protest a war they support. They know those people won’t vote for them.
Jeez, Oliver, lighten up!
Of course the protest isn’t going to result in an about face on the part of the administration and its henchmen on the hill but that doesn’t mean it was useless.
I skipped this one myself for a combination of reasons and I’m in general agreement with what I take as your point that the real work we need to do is to communicate effectively with voters who don’t quite understand how badly they’re being screwed by the republicans.
Still, I think this week-end’s activities still serves a purpose by reminding the media and the nation that there is substantial and responsible opposition to the administration at the grassroots.
Activities of this sort also serve the purpose of internal dialogue and the strengthening and updating of contyact networks. I think, too, after all we’ve been going through, our side is entitled to an invigorating pep rally.
The folks engaged in these activities (including my 90-year old father) are your friends and allies and I don’t see how getting pissy at them is helpful.
Oliver you sound like an inside the beltway snob.
It’s called participatory democracy, allowing citizens to express their emotions.
A successful protest invigorates the public and they return home to the hard work of pressuring their Federal, State & Local politicians for a change.
It take a lot of time and effort to come to a demonstration, more that it does to sit at keyboard.
Oliver,
I think I may have mentioned this before in the comments here the last time you mocked protesting, but i’ll reiterate the point anyway.
Protesting isn’t about converting anyone’s opinion. Blocking traffic and waving sometimes obscene banners and chanting super over-simplificated slogans about complex issues isn’t going to change the opinion of anyone. [And I would hope to God that screaming, “No blood for Oil” would convince anyone.] The idea of protesting is solidarity and vocalization to other dissenters.
Protesting is a very ineffective means of change because it is easy to ignore and really easy to hate. My non-political friends who live in DC hate all protests because it totally screws up travel in DC. It is better to donate to a campaign or write to your local/state/federal representatives regularly to express your dissent, but that only works if a large number of people do it.
Most people are lazy and easily intimidated. Protesting [as a political event] is about showing solidarity in dissent in the hope to embolden otherwise silent voices. I live in a very red county, in a very red part of a swing state and I find that politically like minded friends on mine rarely discuss politics outside their safe zones because they are such a minority. If they see others who are dissenting they are more likely to attempt to speak out and attempt change, more so then if they thought they were just alone.
It shouldn’t have to work this way but it does, and protesting helps gather lke minded people together in hopes of getting like minded people to be more active in dissent. It isn’t about converting people.
I was disappointed to find no actual “Free Mumia” signs at the link.
I know what we can do - we can write blogs putting down anti-war protester and other progressive things like that.
That’ll show em
Protests do not invigorate the public. They annoy them.
Political change doesn’t happen with protests. It happens at the ballot box.
Very few new people are going to these protests, its the same old people who were at the Vietnam war protests or the civil rights protests. It’s like old veterans meeting up, just the peacenik version.
Protests in America are horrible as a way of expressing political dissent (less so in other nations where there is no tradition of it), especially when everyone brings their agenda to the exclusion of the larger message.
Sound & fury signifying nothing.
You asked, “Seriously, folks, can we get back to the real work of spreading the progressive message and end these useless noisefests?”
That’s real simple: when y’all come up with a positive message, instead of just a negative “We hate Bush” one, y’all will have a chance to win elections.
I think I may have posted this before, but in case I haven’t:
Mobs of people only motivate government to do something if the mobs are either violent or armed (pitchforks and torches suffice, cool your jets you NRA guys). If the government is afraid of being dragged from their posh offices, and their mutilated corpses dragged through the streets amongst much shouting and rejoicing, that tends to get their attention.
This was the big fear during the Vietnam War. Those longhaired hippies scared the *shit* out of the establishment. They were young, loud, unpredictable, and violent. They were utterly alien to the powers that be, and they were very, very numerous.
Mom and dad marching with their baby in the stroller whilst talking on their cellphones just doesn’t have the same impact.
As Galloway said to O’Reilly, Oliver, you don’t follow the news, do you. Lots of *new* people, from many different demographics, were at that protest. Several of the stories commented on that. I didn’t make it it that one myself, but I can tell you protests are a great way to network, if nothing else. The crowds are full of activists introducing each other to each other. Often on protest days, large numbers of activists will knock on congressional office doors. It’s a simple fact, walking the walk is better than sitting the sit — face time is high bandwidth. The act of organizing a protest means the various groups have to communicate with each other. I find the smorgasbord socialist agenda of ANSWER as annoying as anyone, and if you watched CSPAN you would have seen that the endless onslaught of speakers was booed by those who didn’t just leave to start the march. Everyone agrees we need to find a way to break ANSWER’s suspicious stranglehold on DC permits. The fact that happened almost has the ring of Rovian strategy. Could it be, Oliver, you’ve been duped into hating a means of social change by whoever let ANSWER get the permits? Divide and conquer, works every time, it’s math. Don’t let them manipulate you like this dude. It’s not just you, either, I’ve heard it at other blogs like MyDD. I worry about bloggers’ disdain for simple physical action. Seems ineffective and undemocratic to me to neglect that which we all have in common.
Further, I must point out that in our American system, coalitions of people form who are like-minded on a particular issue (in this case, against the Iraq War); the people in this coalition may have different attitudes about other single, particular issues).
While I learned this from George Will… he also seems to deride coalitions of people who are against ideas that George Will thinks are good. Go figure.
Oliver,
So only local get out the vote activities change the political landscape? Hogwash.
I did my 10 years in DC, Graduated from AU and worked on the hill. I was there for some of the “big” protest in the 70’s. When people see others of like mind standing up for the same beliefs it does invigorate the public. You need to get out more, talk to some good old fashion middle class people who aren’t involved in politics an a minute to minute basis. I think you will find these events do matter.
So, Oliver,all those tens of thousands of people gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial listening to MLK tell them about his dreams… that was just annoying grandstanding by a bunch of losers?
Dana, here’s some of our positive message:
-bring our troops home
-stand up for the poor and middle class
-quality health care for all
-take government seriously: no more cronyism
-rebuild our international reputation
All of these are positive. Your problem is this stuff goes in your ears and your brain transforms it all into “hate Bush”.
I knew that was coming, it’s different today, yada yada, yada.
You and I agree about 80% of the time the “issues”, including the SKINS, and yet here we are in minor pissing contest over protesting.
Meanwhile the right wing turns out it’s people for elections buy not by appealing to their intellect but to their emotions.
So how do we fire up our people?
I was there for some of the big protest in the 70 s.
Alert: it is 2005.
I can not believe I just agreed with something Oliver wrote. I feel dirty. But he’s right, protests do nothing to help your cause. The anti-war protests of ‘03 did as much to elect Bush as choosing the most uninspiring Dem candidate in the field.
Oliver, even I think you’re wrong. While I disagree with the thrust of the protest, of course, people have got to feel like they have a voice. Why do you think pro - abortion show up at the big right - to - life day in January? They can’t hope to have the same impact as the “big parade”, but they feel like they have to be there.
If you’re opposed to the war, you can’t just go knocking on doors every two years…
You have to stand up somewhere, sometime and say. “This is what I believe.” So it wasn’t very successful. It could grow in numbers, and if it does, you can bet that people who support the war and the President (yes, they do exist) will show up, too, to say, “This is what we believe.”
And that’s as it should be.
that was just annoying grandstanding by a bunch of losers?
The civil rights marches were an unprecedented event that led to actual, real laws and a change in values in America. Today’s protests are the same people saying the same mash of things to the same people who nod and agree with them. I went to one protest in my life (March, 2003 in Cambridge, MA) and I doubt I’ll ever go to one again.
Real change in this country happens neighbor to neighbor, talking about the issues in a way people can actually relate to their real lives without you talking down to them for not jumping on a bus and prancing around D.C.
“Protests do not invigorate the public. They annoy them.
Political change doesn t happen with protests. It happens at the ballot box.”
What rubbish!
Some people didn’t get the vote until they protested. Boston Tea Party? Emmilene Pankhurst (suffragette). Bus boycotts. Ghandi.
Please say these people weren’t just annoyances Oliver.
It sort of makes my point when the last effective protest anyone can mention is from before my birth (1977 for those playing at home). Like many other things, they have ceased to be useful for anything other than mutual admiration societies.
Count me on Oliver’s side on this one. On the one hand, I can concede the protests’ effect as a rallying/networking tool. But on the flip side, I do not believe that protesting is the most efficient way to effect social or political change in today’s America.
Part of the problem, I think, is that the protests have become more or less commonplace — World Bank shows up, so do the Starbucks-hating hooligans. Political party has convention, assorted freaks and geeks infest the so-called “free speech” zone.
Extending too much credibility to the protests also carries its own sort of danger; as Oliver et. al. have noted previously, International ANSWER, a group with a questionable agenda, has managed to monopolize the protest market. Show up at one of their shindigs, and you (by association) endorse the Int’l ANSWER agenda. Endorse one of those events, and you (by extension) endorse the Int’l ANSWER platform and extend it a patina of legitimacy as the voice of (sigh) progressive politics.
But overall, I think it’s an economic problem. You’ve only got a certain amount of capital when it comes to trying to change other people’s opinions. You expend that capital, for example, with leafletting campaigns, with protests, with TV commercials, and other media actions. Each of these actions carries a different kind of effectiveness, and expends differents amounts of capital.
From what I can see, protesting in the modern environment expends an enormous amount of capital … and I don’t see that it creates a significant profit — that is, change in American opinion or in policies. If it fails to produce a poltical profit, then protesting must be considered a highly undesirable way to expend political capital.
–|PW|–
Actually, Oliver, I would argue that the Million Man March and the gay rights march in the 1990s were effective for what they were trying to accomplish. The trick, I think, is to do something that’s at least somewhat original, to have an agenda that’s cut-and-dry on the right/wrong scale, and to get a good-sized crowd.
I also can’t shake the feeling that these antiwar protests are more about protesting for its own sake than about actually effecting political change.
–|PW|–
I have never liked attending protests. I always get drawn to them (my last being at the Dem convention in LA) but I never feel comfortable at them. I don’t care how progressive the cause, the mob mentality is always right there just beneath the surface of things and it always feels way too easy, too seductive to surrender to the will of the crowd …
But getting back to Oliver’s original point it’s about focus people. Focus. The sad fact is that it takes a great degree of regimentation to put a message across, even with a million people in the street. It doesn’t help to have a protest against the war in Iraq — plus 12 other things we don’t like.
Wilbur said:
Dana, here s some of our positive message:
-bring our troops home
-stand up for the poor and middle class
-quality health care for all
-take government seriously: no more cronyism
-rebuild our international reputation
All of these are positive. Your problem is this stuff goes in your ears and your brain transforms it all into hate Bush .
Other than bringing home the troops immediately, those were the messages that Senator Kerry was trying to deliver. But the best information that we have indicates that about half of Senator Kerry’s voters were not voting for him, but against President Bush . . . and y’all still lost.
Where I think that the left fails is that it fails to realize that conservatives have the same goals; we just believe that the methods you advocate will not achieve them, and that the methods we advocate will. What the left winds up with is more of an inchoate bellow against the right, more of an argument against what conservatives advocate than an argument for what liberals believe will work.
I’m guessing that was part of what Mr Willis meant when he was complaining about the protests and the seeming lack of work in getting Democrats actually elected.
You know, Bill Clinton won in 1992, because he was campaigning as much for what he intended to do (even though I knew all along that he was lying through his teeth about a middle class tax cut) as he was against the elder President Bush. He ran a mostly positive campaign, even in the face of a mostly negative campaign by President Bush. That sure wasn’t how Senator Kerry campaigned!
If a Protest Happens in DC …
Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math … but the press doesn’t cover it, does it really matter? I think that the answer is yes. Taking a historical view, mostly by looking at the Vietnam War and its opposition, modern
I’m with Oliver, and with many others who found this protest to range from totally useless to mildly harmful.
I am not convinced that this form of political expression is effective at expanding a message or at building solidarity. If they end up on the news at all, it’s for five to fifteen seconds and it’s always presented in a negative way.
Oliver remarked that the various causes should have been set aside for the larger message. I’d amend that. If public protests and demonstrations are to have any effect, they need to have a single, focused message. One declarative sentence. Something like “withdraw from Iraq now.”
At least the protest got more than 400 people to show up, like the pro-war rally did on Sunday. The pro-war people thought they’d get 20,000. Now that’s pathetic.
Wow, two dozen more progressive voters in one of the bluest parts of an already blue state. Washington state went for Kerry, has a Democratic governor and two Democratic Senators, Seattle has a Democratic representative in the House. And this changes things, exactly how?
I think you just made Oliver’s point for him.
Dana: nowhere near half. According to gallup a little over a third of Kerry voters said they were mainly voting against Bush rather than for Kerry. In any election a large part of the vote against the incumbent will be from … people who don’t like the incumbent. I doubt this election was all that unusual in that respect.
And… this incumbent won by the smallest margin of any incumbent president in history,and his poll numbers have been falling ever since, so I’d stick that hubris of yours in the back of one of your drawers underneath those tie-die tee shirts you never wear any more if I were you.
As for “conservatives having the same goals”: maybe. It’s just that your only ideas for getting there are to cut taxes and build bigger prisons.
Oliver: the protest at least got the anti-war movement on the front pages of the three newspapers I saw today - along with the pitiful turnout for the pro-war counter demonstration. I think it’s a bit early to say that nothing will come of this, and all you’re doing by saying that is encouraging people like Mr. (Ms.?) Pico here.
I registred two dozen new voters at the Seattle protest. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Hey Tuco have you ever heard about Dino Rossi? He would have loved those votes. How many people have you registered last year tuco? I registered over a thousand and we have a Democratic governor because if it.
Rainlion, how did all those anti-war marches prior to the election work out for the democrats?
Oliver, I think you are wrong.
I was there on Saturday. I saw the spark of political dissent in brand new faces - high school kids, college students, young families - as well as some faces that looked like they’ve seen the old days, too.
Marches like the one on Saturday are not the complete solution, any more than ‘voting’ turned out to be during the last election or the one before that. On the contrary, they are sometimes the spark that ignites the imagination of people who wouldn’t ordinarily get off their butts and do anything at all except whine.
I heard a lot of angry people in the throngs on the street. I heard people discussing what they were doing in their communities, and what still needs to be done.
I didn’t hang around the Elipse to listen to the official speakers. I listened to the people. What I heard was encouraging…
Oh, and as for spreading the progressive message - what do you think is a more efficient and effective means - word of mouth spread by 100k+ folks, actively voicing their opinions… or a “closed system” of dedicated bloggers and readers of said blogs?
And I’m surprised you haven’t commented on the whole Abramhoff/Ehrlich connection as reported in todays Balt sun among other papers
Oliver, following your logic - the civil rights marches, etc were a waste of time. The evidence is to the contrary…
Arrrgh. My father is 63. Sorry about that I am seriously math-challenged.
The reaction of many leading liberal blogs to the peace march is telling. Kos sidestepped it on his main page; Atrios and Josh Marshall silent; a brief cautious endorsement on MyDD; Matt Yglesias skeptical; and Willis dismissive and mean. The march’s liberal critics say that it had a disorganized message and embarrassed itself with street theater, neither of which will play well on network TV. Worse yet we are told that the marchers alienate the mythical average voter that everyone claims to speak for when they run out of hard facts. But that may not be the bloggers real concern.
Instead I suspect it s the success of the march: 150,000 people for goodness sake! By comparison, in 1967, the first major D.C. marches against Vietnam (the ones occurring after there were some big names including Sen. William Fulbright, Cold Warrior George Kennan, and Martin Luther King, Jr., publicly opposing the war) only numbered 100,000. Unlike those events, no powerful lobby or major politician endorsed this Saturday s rally. Instead it was the work of low profile antiwar groups that get little attention and less respect from the media, mainstream and otherwise. Still they pulled off a major achievement, and that may be the big problem for Willis and liberal bloggers who agree with him.
After all, if the problem was media distortion of the march as hippies and Hezbollah sympathizers (and that s a major distortion, see Macswain s post) the same bloggers have shown their readiness to push back against such smears. They stood up for Dean to debunk the scream travesty. They worked overtime to expose the distortions on Kerry s record and to combat GOP stereotypes of him as an aging hippy peacenik lacking message discipline. No such break for the masses who marched to end the Iraq War, however.
Is it because the march had no sponsorship or connection whatsoever to the Democratic Party? Not even to its progressive wing?
It s ironic to say the least, that the same liberal bloggers who implore the Democratic leadership to catch up with public opinion on Iraq savaged Saturday s outside-the-Democratic-Party antiwar rally.
Saturday was real grassroots, not netroots. In fact, many who tout the power of the netroots as a tool for popular mobilization did what they could to discourage attendance. Instead we get Willis caricature of the march in the same culture war smear perfected by Limbaugh and co. That reaction speaks volumes on how the liberal blogosphere conceives of the progressive message that Willis asks us to spread. Progressive messaging was on parade in Washington, and the blogs missed out. If the liberal blogs turn into nothing more than a political party billboard they will die.
More irony: in the post preceding this one, Willis scolds progressives for failing to take the offensive against Bush. He slams the antiwar marchers for staging ineffectual protests that have no clue why they exist and instead demands (in a kind of shrill protesty sort of way) that progressives expose the ways that conservative ideology has gone mainstream and ruined the nation in the process. As many of the other commenters on this page show, those who marched had a very clear idea of why they did so (to stop the damn war!) and if protesting the war outside the White House doesn t qualify as an aggressive challenge to Bush s ideology, what does? When the long allowed democratic tradition of marching in Washington gets derided as ineffectual and clueless we might in fact be witnessing an example of con ideology going mainstream.
I therefore call on Oliver Willis to fight back against his inner con. While he s at it, I urge him to make love instead of war, fight racism, and combat the capitalist super hierarchy because they suck almost as much as the Iraq War.
word of mouth spread by 100k+ folks, actively voicing their opinions& or a closed system of dedicated bloggers and readers of said blogs?
There is no word of mouth at these rallies, its the same people spouting the same useless tripe. I’m a huge blog skeptic, but quite frankly blogs are a far more useful tool at reaching influencers and getting political ideas out into the real world than protests are.
the civil rights marches, etc were a waste of time
Once again: 1) the fact that you can say “civil rights marches” and make it clear that those marches were for ONE THING - civil rights, speaks to the difference between them and the mishmash that passes for protesting today. 2) It is 2005, not 1963.
JWG - you miss the my point, and the point of the protests… it is a voicing of will and opinion, I don’t think anyone expects things to change quite that quickly simply because of several “It is enough Ivan, go home” moments.
Oliver… no word of mouth? So… none of the people who attended the rally talk to others not actively involved? None of the people who “wanted to be there, but couldn’t” talk to others not actively involved/engaged?
I chose Civil rights marches as a specific example, but let me rephrase it for you Oliver so as not to provide an easy out -
Before his assasination (and even early on come to think of it) MLK’s marches embraced much more than a single cause/concept - Workers rights, Womens rights, etc. Something very true of alot of the protests and marches of the 60’s, 70’s up to today.
Yes, it is 2005 and there are alot of problems that need addressing, and alot of things that need to be spoken about. What’s your point? And conversely - what single specific progressive point should be be focusing on and how should be be spreading it? You did say “message”, does that message have a single point of focus? And if so… what about all the other things that need addressing?
Ordinarily I agree with you, Oliver, but this time I must respectfully disagree.
Protests are not something we do for Them, they are something we do for Us. They are for that feeling you get that if you don’t do something, anything, you will burst. They are a way of letting off steam so you don’t go and do something counter-productive.
And it’s only ever obvious in hindsight which ones affect the course of public policy and which ones don’t. My feeling is that in the future this one will be considered important, but we don’t really know yet.
I didn’t get to go, by the way. My 53-year-old father did, he is a Vietnam-era veteran and it was his first one. He can’t shut up about it how great it was. He did promise me a tee-shirt.
Media, you make a very good point- but it’s a chicken/egg thing IMO- the media doesn’t care because the public doesn’t care about politics.
Why does much of Europe have 5-6 weeks vacation standard? Because they took to the streets, not to mention striking, to force the government to pay attention. And a general strike forces the media to pay attention.
I’ve been very frustrated to find that more people watch reality TV than, well, engage in reality. The “ignorant masses” want to see lifestyle segments on the news, not info on bills in Congress that affect their lives every day.
Ask 10 people on the street what the “bankruptcy bill” is and you may get 2 people to tell you, and only 1 knows what its tenets are. Until Americans start demanding more from the press, we will see no change.
Y’know, there’s a reason why the right “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is written into the Bill of Rights.
That’s how we do it here, Oliver.
Rainlion:
I disagree. I don’t think that anybody here argues that no protests are effective. The argument is that in the current context, protests are ineffective.
–|PW|–
Sad to say, but I’m glad there wasn’t more MSM coverage of the protests, they would’ve undoubtedly focused on the ANSER stage… and all the irrelevant (to the war protest) side protests and issues - giving the conservatives all the ammo they need to reload and resume attacking those who dissent from the Kool-aid agenda.
PW - starting w/ Oliver’s initial comment:
“Seriously, folks, can we get back to the real work of spreading the progressive message and end these useless noisefests?”
and continuing with other comments such as JW’s:
“how did all those anti-war marches prior to the election work out for the democrats?”
I’d have to say that clearly there are those engaged in this thread that do feel that all protests are a waste.
I disagree with that, and also feel that one downside to a “big tent” approach is that the central focus is often diluted/polluted - hence my ANSER/MSM coverage of the protest(s) comment
Oh Boy Oliver,
You enrage me with this bullshit. It isn’t the protest that fails but the lack of media coverage to the event that fails.
If there was a persistent protest of the size lik ethose in the 70’s along with reporters covering said events on a daily basis interviewing people as to why and what they are doing and what they think to accomplish etc.
It is no different than what you write daily on this blog. Except the TV has way more viewers than you have readers.
Particularly if the average joe’s are proper.
Further more. I tend to remember at least one protest in modern history (within the last 10 years) in Portugal. When the government raised the toll for one bridge in Lisbon. The people rose up and blocked the bridge. There were millions on the bridge.
The government was forced to take away the toll increase.
But in Portugal, people are actually engaged in politics. Not like this country where the engaged are limited to people like you me and a bunch of geeks with keyboards and wifi access.
If the media were to cover protests they would be effective. In the same way that your writtings are.
EXCELLENT point Quaker… I love a simple, direct answer - ’nuff said.
“There is no word of mouth at these rallies, its the same people spouting the same useless tripe. I m a huge blog skeptic, but quite frankly blogs are a far more useful tool at reaching influencers and getting political ideas out into the real world than protests are.”
Useless tripe? How very freepish of you. One might argue the same of blogs, (most bloggers have a fixed, regular audience - you like preaching to your own choir I imagine), however protests are active by nature while reading blogs is quite passive.
It all is part of a process of empowering people in many different ways. You prefer to sit your ass behind a keyboard - more power to you, but don’t condescend those who are willing to put their asses on the streets and engage one on one. Sorry your one protest was a negative experience for you. Not all protests are the same.
It all adds up, your blogging and others marches, though slowly and incrementally. It all has value. So don’t be so damned pompous.
yeah, amen.
Ollie, you should know better than to go against the Leftist Convential Wisdom. At least you recognize the problem that the Democratic Party will have with its Left flank… The protests won’t play in Peoria and it’s good that you recognize that. It’s a shame that many of your readers feel that you’ve betrayed them by pointing out such political realities.
So much for open debate, eh?
Regards,
St Wendeler
Nobody said you can’t protest, I’m just saying that the value of them to our polticial discourse is nil. I’m going to write more on this later cause y’all aint getting it.
And we ain’t in Portugal.
“Nobody said you can t protest, I m just saying that the value of them to our polticial discourse is nil. ”
Correct. Nobody said that. The political value of any particular protest is certainly debatable, but in no case is it of no value. Protest is just a piece of the process.
But your point that protest is worthless is, ahem, worthless. In fact it is worse than worthless. It is harmful. It is intended to discourage people from involving themselves in a constitutionally guaranteed activity, and I find that disturbing.
I forget who said it, and I am sure I am paraphrasing it all wrong, but democracy isn’t something we have, it is something we do.
The protests may have not infulenced you, but they sure as hell influenced me, and if that has happened, then they have most certainly influenced someone else. It is too bad you are so cynical, it does not become you.
I look forward to a logical discussion about protest.
as do I…
Via Gilliard, here’s a diary from Kos that argues that participants in the protest are getting played by ANSWER.
It seems as though there are two arguments here. 1) Protests are invigorating. They introduce new blood; they raise spirits; they promote a sense of unity; they provide moral support for those who may feel unsure, intimidated, or on the fence. 2) Protests are a waste of time and energy; the same amount of effort directly applied to the electoral process would bring real, perhaps seismic change to this country. Of course, both arguments are valid. However, I have been to a fair number of protests over the past thirty years (none of the big ones), and I have to say that, to a degree that cannot be ignored, Oliver is right on the money. His position (which is for the most part mine as well) must be an integral part of any serious discussion as to the efficacy and necessity of any given protest, or as to the validity of protesting as an effective component in the movement for lasting, institutional change. And please, don’t present the effectiveness of protests of thirty, forty years ago as proof of their efficacy today. That dog don’t hunt. So, let’s address protests in terms of their real effects, that is, how exciting they are, and how empowered they make us feel; and on the flip side, how they can substitute feeling and camaraderie for truly effective political action. Not that I think that it’s that black and white, but I’ve been there, and to a distressingly large extent, it’s true. If all the people who protested in the run up to the ‘04 elections instead put the same amount of time and effort into their state and local elections, what would the makeup of their city and state governments look like today? How much money was spent on massive protests that wasn’t spent on these same local elections? Where do y’all think the red tide got its start? It sure as hell wasn’t dancing and chanting on 7th avenue. Not that there’s anything wrong with kickin’ it. We all do it, we always will. But what we have here is a serious misallocation of priorities, and the conversation that Oliver is starting is an essential one that absolutely must be had if we, as committed Progressives, expect to be taken seriously. Whether we like it or not, there is a game, and it must be played, and played effectively, if there is ever to be any real, substantial, lasting change that can save this country, and hence the world, from a very, very dark future. And the question MUST be asked, every time a protest is being mulled over, thought of, or planned: given all the factors involved, and especially given the (almost certain) negative electoral effectiveness of the protest for the last, oh, thirty years; is this the best way for Progressives to allocate their resources? And while we’re at it, let’s not contemplate this for too, too long, ’cause in case y’all haven’t noticed, this country is going down the shitter. So, now the Repugs are hitting the wall. What’re we gonna do: dance the night away, or grind them into the dust? It’s a different world, folks, and while I’ll always have time to celebrate this astounding thing we call life, now is the time for good people to focus, and apply our energies effectively, and once again, by that I mean electoral gain. That’s the only thing that counts, right now, and until we have some breathing room, we’re just going to have to make some hard choices. I don’t like it any more than anyone else, but that’s the way it is, and to insist that things HAVEN’T changed, that old behavior patterns are still viable, is, to be frank, delusional. One last thing: I am not, nor would I ever, argue that anything in life should be a grim, joyless affair. I worked on a state house campaign here in Texas last year, and it was one of the most exhilarating experiences of my life. And guess what: he won. My ideas, my thoughts, my dreams, are now represented in house district 50. And THAT is the legacy I leave my daughter, never mind the clear image she now has of how to engage in effective political action. So, hell, throw a party in the street. Invite your friends! But don’t ever, ever confuse it with on the ground, effective political action. One man’s opinion.
Oliver: Very few new people are going to these protests, its the same old people who were at the Vietnam war protests or the civil rights protests.
Oliver, I dare you to take a look at this picture, which is not carefully selected but rather just one of a grand total of two crowd pictures that I took on Saturday in San Francisco (radical SF, you know, that “left coast” town with all the hippies and radicals) and find more than ONE person who looks old enough to have demonstrated against the war in Vietnam.
konch: if you watched CSPAN you would have seen that the endless onslaught of speakers was booed by those who didn t just leave to start the march.
Horse manure. The crowd wasn’t booing the speakers, they were booing the moderator every time she announced there were still more speakers when they were anxious to start marching. This is quite common, but it has nothing to do with the speakers or what they were saying.
konch: Everyone agrees we need to find a way to break ANSWER s suspicious stranglehold on DC permits.
More horse manure. There is nothing “suspicious”; ANSWER gets permits because THEY APPLY FOR THEM. The Sept. 24 rally was CALLED by ANSWER; only much later did UfPJ first switch the date of an event they were planning to Sept. 24, and then later still join with ANSWER. ANSWER fought very hard for this permit, as they did for a permit to set up a “reviewing stand” during the last inauguration. They apply early and they know what they are doing. AND, I might add, they have a long record of organizing peaceful, legal demonstrations.
One more comment - for anyone who thinks the speeches were boring, or whatever, take a listen (or watch) some of them at today’s Democracy Now!; the fact is there were MANY EXCELLENT speeches at this rally. One I’m particularly recommending is one by Etan Thomas of the Washington Wizards, although I’m sure many out there will be simply aghast because he was talking about the realities of race and poverty in America, and didn’t even mention the word “Iraq.” The horror. Those lefties and their crazy “issues.”
On the subject of Mumia, about which I remember writing a long time ago on this blog, I’ll do it again. First of all, it’s clear Oliver has some kind of obsession on the subject since he routinely brings it up. On Saturday, to the best of my knowledge listening to speeches and reading the speakers list, Mumia’s name wasn’t even mentioned, either in DC or in SF where I was; nevertheless, Oliver brings it up.
If Mumia’s name HAD been mentioned, however, here’s what most likely would have been the case, because this is what has happened at some rallies I’ve been at in the past. Someone has read a speech that Mumia has written from prison, and guess what, the subject of that speech was Iraq. It so happens that Mumia Abu-Jamal is one of the most eloquent and knowledgeable writers on the left today, as you can find out for yourself by reading his published books or reading his weekly columns in a variety of left publications.
Mumia is also most likely an innocent man, railroaded to a guilty verdict by a racist system (judge: “I’m going to help them fry that nigger”). He also happens to be possibly weeks or months away from execution. When would be an appropriate time to talk about him, exactly? When he’s dead?
Where is it written that protesting versus organizing for elections is a zero-sum game?
My argument for protesting is that it keeps me sane. I volunteer for campaigns, too. Both are fun, both have their place.
I think ft may be right, this may be an inside/outside thing. Those of us who live our lives outside the beltway have no illusions that parlimentary procedure alone can bring about change. Passion is necessary. It may not be sufficient but it is necessary.
I don’t argue it as a zero-sum game at all. And I might be wrong. Maybe the only way to get lefties going is with a party. But I stand my ground when I say, with a fair bit of experience, that much too much time and energy has gone into largely ineffectual protests. Not every protest, not all the time, but on average, over time, without a doubt. I would be very surprised if many who protest regularly didn’t work on campaigns. I will also guarantee that if 50%, hell, 10% of the time and energy that’s gone into protesting went into state and local campaigns, this would be a very different country. I also maintain, somewhat obviously, I think, that now just might be the time to rethink just how important a good party really is, and what percentage of our energy should be allocated to getting our rocks off. This won’t last forever (if it does, I’m outta here). And I don’t even advocate, if you read my words closely, some kind of parliamentary death march. I just know, again from experience, that far, far too many equate and substitue protesting with and for effective political action. And for the most part, it’s not. I don’t want to argue this into the ground; it’s not worth it. And to be honest, I think Oliver should lighten up. But he’s right. Passion is great, even (especially) just for the hell of it. But protesting has definitely become, to a considerable degree, an enervated activity whose energy could be sorely used on the ground. How healthy is your local county Democratic office? Do you know? (I use the collective ‘you’). If the best a big chunk of the left can do is dance in the streets, then it’s better than nothing. But, and I know this is anathema to many, maybe now is the time to find another source of passion, another way to be motivated, keeping the big picture in mind, and give our collective party animal just a bit of a rest. Maybe the big picture, in this case, outweighs our personal needs just a tad. And think of the deep satisfaction from seeing the Repugs completely clueless in the face of an animal that scares the sh** outta them. Jesus, gives me the willies just thinking about it.
Large marches/rallies do serve a positive purpose in that they get like-minded people in contact with each other so that they can make connections and organize in the future. Kind of like those big conventions they hold in major cities, except that there’s no registration fee.
However, as a tool of political influence, they are outmoded. The early marches worked because they were unprecedented. Nowadays, any old group can conjure up 20,000+ people to march on Washington. A well organized interest group can get more than 100,000 with sufficient advanced planning.
There are other means of creating “buzz” in order to advance your cause in the public sphere. The Republican method has been to plant form-letters in newspapers that all start with “As a lifelong Democrat…” and have their talking heads chant the same set of right-wing talking points in unison on pundit shows.
Liberals of all stripes need to find a means of getting their message out to the general public. Petitions and protest marches are passe and don’t create the necessary amount of public attention because they are organized so easily. Other creative solutions to this problem are welcome.
So, “any old group can conjure up 20,000+ people…” So, why did the pro-war rally top out at 400?
Here’s a newsflash for y’all: the elections system isn’t working. By all means, write to your ‘local’ paper (probably owned by an absentee Republican). Offer some other ‘creative’ solution.
Or go back to the future. If demonstrations and petitions are overthrowing governments from the Ukraine to Bolivia, they ain’t dead yet.
There’s a lot of stuff that doesn’t work in the U.S. as well as it does in the rest of the world. Could be more of a problem with the U.S. than it is with the stuff.
Enjoy your youth, Oliver, some day you will realize that 2005 was just another year.
Oliver Says:
“its the same old people who were at the Vietnam war protests or the civil rights protests.”
Um…I was two years old during the Vietnam protests. I’d never gone to a protest before. Neither had my husband, nor my friend who accompanied us. Your superior sniffing that none of us are doing anything besides protesting, and the endless bitching I’ve seen at other sites at how stupid and outdated and smelly all protesters are, is getting really old.
My favorite quote from the rally? (Not exact quote, but paraphrase… towards the end of the rally)
“We need to have a unified movement to overturn this Bush war machine!! We have to fight for a free Palestine! Let’s fight for Social and Economic equality, not only here in the US, but also around the world! We have to fight to protect leaders like Hugo Chavez from Bush and his CIA henchmen! We have to fight against intolerant, anti-women and anti-gay governments - not only in the Middle East, but also in the White House! Free MUMIA!”
It’s tough to be unified with so many balkanizing issues… Does it make for great theater? Sure… is it effective in persuading others to join you? Not likely…
“The early marches worked because they were unprecedented.”
I disagree. First of all, it’s hard to understand what you are calling “the early marches” since there have been marches for as long as there has been government in need of correction. Maybe you are talking about the Indians under the British in the 1930’s? As Jawaharlal Nehru explained their rationale for marching, it was because “nothing is more irritating and, in the final analysis, harmful to a government than to have to deal with people who will not bend to its will, whatever the consequences.”
Or maybe you mean the March to the Winter Palace in 1905. When czarist troops fired on the protestors it set off a wave of strikes, eventually paralyzing the government and forcing it to make major concessions.
No, I maintain that the “early marches” were effective simply because they were “early,” i.e. we tend to forget all the flops and failures over time, only the successful ones endure in the history books and popular memory.
What’t interesting to me is this breakdown between the pro and anti-protesting camp. I think it maybe the difference between pundits and peasants. Kos, and Oliver, too, are pundits. They are our pundits of course and we love them, but they are pundits. What this means is that they have some experience of having influence with their voices alone. So for them, this is a reasonable expectation.
But for the rest of us, we are peasants. We have no illusions that we can influence public events with our solitary voices. It’s only when we join together and speak in one voice that we have a chance of being heard.
stwendeler: I won’t go over the exact wording of the quote you provided. But I suspect the point that was being made is this, and I’ll try to make it better than that speaker: You can’t have a movement against the war in Iraq with people who don’t also object to a war against Iran, or Syria, or North Korea, or Venezuela, or Cuba, all of which are either being contemplated or, in one form or another short of invasion, are already being carried out. The right-wing agenda is ONE agenda and it has to be fought IN ITS ENTIRETY, not piece by piece.
Yeah, I know wendy, what can I say? The goose step just doesn’t come as naturally to some of us as it does to others.
Back in the mid-eighties, the NY Times did a pretty good piece on the emerging right, and what they found (of course ignoring the vast sums of money that were fueling much of the neo-conservative “movement”) was how the right was aiming at local and state offices, such as school boards. What do we have now? Twenty years later, creationism as an official doctrine. The hard, dirty work of actual, institutional change is not glamorous. It is incremental, cumulative, and progressive, and the only political ideology that has made any institutional progress in getting values (remember: it’s all about allocation of values, not adrenaline rushes) promoted for the last twenty-five years is….the Repugs. The elections system is damaged. But it’s always been that way. Ask any veteran campaigner, they’ll tell you: both sides do it (the Bushies, however, as we all know, have taken it, and so much else, to a whole new level). But if the rise of the right over the last forty years has any single lesson to teach, it is that long-term, concerted effort PAYS OFF. So what if we don’t get exactly what we want this time. We pull back, regroup, and try again. And again. And again. Romantic? Only in the vaguest sense. Effective? Undoubtedly. To point at the defects of the electoral system at any given time as a rationale to not use it to our advantage is to have ceded the battle. They have won. Honestly, isn’t anyone paying attention to the overall ineffectiveness of constant protesting? Note that I say constant, please. And again, to compare the U.S. of today to the Ukraine, or any other time or place, is to beg the question of a) why it is so ineffective here, now, and, b) how to take that incredible energy, and direct it so that in this country, at this time, it will have a lasting, institutional effect. Finally, while I think Oliver brought the “out of touch pundit” tag on himself, it remains a cheap way of not dealing with the fact-the readily observable fact-that protesting in the last twenty years has not achieved, to my knowledge, any significant gains where it counts, in the power of elected representation. When the left stops trying to hit a game-winning home run every time it steps on the field, and instead gets down to the unglamorous, un-rockstar work of accruing electoral power over the long haul, then we will see, over time, the changes we really want, and not before. You want politicians who are closer to your views? So do I. So find a state rep who’s running in your state, who is adamant about independent redistricting, who sees the wisdom of proportional representation, and get him or her elected. And if it doesn’t work the first time, do it again. Even if it does work the first time, do it again. And again. Or, run for office your own damn self. Didn’t anybody lea