Considering the absurdity and pointlessness of some lefty protests I’ve seen, I’ve never been sure. But a friend of mine sent me this article from the New York Times on the subject, which in its left wing absurdity (domestic terrorist Bernardine Dohrn contributes) got me re-thinking that question in terms of the Town Hall/Tea Party protests going on now around the country.
In the US, as anywhere, it all boils down to incentives. If protests and protesters don’t threaten the folks in power, either with violence (heaven forbid) or votes, they won’t matter. When they do, they will.
~~~
First, you have to read the NYT article. It’s an unintentional parody of itself. I’m highly amused by the uniformity of the most radical of leftism contained in the panel (Bernardine Dohrn? Howard Zinn? Are you kidding me? Was Raul Castro too busy when they asked him?), as well as their laughably poor grasp of history. Anyone who thinks that Reagan changed his foreign policy as a result of the anti-nuclear protesters in Europe a) hasn’t read Reagan’s many speeches on that topic from the 70s forward, and b) has to ignore the near-unanimous election of 1984. The only thing those protesters accomplished was to further our dependence on foreign oil and dirty coal by styming the domestic nuclear power industry. But I digress…
~~~
There is a vast difference between a handful of college hippies dressed like ragamuffins with a face full of fishing tackle (who don’t matter) and 60,000 legitimately pissed off (former) AARP members (who do). If the protester has to be paid just to show up (SEIU, ACORN), that’s not going to have the same impact as the small business owner who is taking time off from work and so is actually sacrificing by his protest rather than directly profiting from it. (That’s why actual civil disobedience works – someone willing to non-violently sit in a jail cell over injustice (MLK) matters far more than the whiny hippies who wants to “stop globalization” by throwing rocks through a Starbucks window (WTO riots) and then complains that he shouldn’t be arrested because “civil disobedience” is his “right.”)
For all the vaunted massive anti-war hippy protests of the 60s, at the end of the day they were overwhelmingly repudiated, along with their massively liberal standard bearer George McGovern, in 1972. They gained no power until Nixon relinquished it himself by his own stupid, criminal actions. Protests against Bush had no impact on his prosecution of the war – it was the economy and dissatisfaction among conservatives who stayed home (a less dramatic, but far more impactful form of protest in and of itself) which led to the GOP ousters in 06 and 08. For those who doubt that conclusion, consider Obama’s lack of worry over his political base as he continues Bush policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The one unintended effect not mentioned by anyone on that panel (not surprisingly) is that ironically, anti-war protests of that type increase the length of wars, because guerilla fighters are encouraged by displays of “paper tiger-ism” and a lack of commitment back home. The Vietnamese communists later openly acknowledged this crucial plank in their strategy, as have top members of al Qaeda.
~~~
Today’s townhall protests are extremely effective, because they represent people who are activated and are willing to sacrifice their time and money to express themselves. Once that investment is made, those same people will certainly vote and work to get their friends to do the same. They have put the brakes on health care “reform”, rightfully so, with the leaderless and as yet still feckless GOP trying to catch up to the movement. Their force multiplier has, ironically, been the haughty and dismissive responses by elitist pols – Exhibit A being Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee talking on her cell phone while a constituent was trying to talk to her – which only motivates more layers of voters.
Their impact has been immediate and dramatic, because Dems in more conservative districts are scared of losing power, and Republicans see a chance to consolidate and expand THEIR power by taping into an increasingly effective and self-organizing popular revolt. (If they were really “astroturf”, nobody would be paying any attention to them at all.) Again – it’s all about whether the people pulling the levers of power have anything to gain or lose as a result of the protests.
~~~
One of the few mentions of the anti-Obamacare protests in that NYT piece was a dismissive, offhand comment about how today’s tea partiers are sacrificing significantly less than the 18th Century patriots who inspire them. But whether today’s protesters risk the gallows rather misses the point. “Effectiveness” is not so much about what protesters have to lose as what the targets of the protests do.
Boycotts work against private companies because it hits them in their bottom line – profits. For most politicians, power – and the votes of the people necessary to sustain it – is their bottom line. When protesters can turn their angst into the votes needed to impact just who stays in power, they matter a great deal indeed. That ultimate goal needs to never be forgotten by conservatives as they continue to justifiably agitate for their principles.
I would nitpick some details here. Nixon, in 1972, was also running on a platform to end the war. McGovern’s problems were far bigger than his policy on Vietnam (which may have been the only thing voters liked about him).
In the end, I completely agree that the efficacy of a protest is in what the protesters will do when they leave the streets. I would argue that a protest is little more than an opinion poll.
When the Vietnam protesters were no longer just long-haired hippies, but also began to include working-class Americans (and, more famously, Cronkite’s editorial) the political leadership knew that the war was untenable.
A group of senior citizens is no more “effective” at protesting than a group of twenty-somethings. It is almost certainly a fact, however, the the senior citizens are going to vote for candidates based on that issue. They’re probably also writing letters and making contributions. The twenty-somethings are unlikely to even vote.
Ah, but the difference was that Nixon was running to end the war by WINNING it, and his efforts over the prior four years met with approval of the people in the next election – fully drowning out the wishes of the protesters. No sane person wants to prolong a war for its own sake, after all. It’s not like the various anti-war movements we divided in their support for the two presidential candidates that year.
Cronkite’s famous remarks took place in 1968, and were way, WAY overestimated in their impact – evidenced by the electoral results later that year. If the protesters had any impact that year, it was to divide the Dems after the excesses of the Chicago riots – not exactly the impact they intended.
In your last paragraph, I think you contradict yourself a bit. The fact that the older folks are more likely to vote, write letters, open their checkbooks, and get others to do the same whereas the younger people aren’t is EXACTLY what makes the previous group far more “effective.” They’re a more reliable voting bloc in any event, and when they’re motivated to take to the streets, their reps had best take notice.
If I contradicted myself, it is because I didn’t make my point clearly enough at the start. Which is that a protest is merely polling and lobbying by other means. A protest makes known that group X believes in Y.
It isn’t that the elderly are superior at the act of protesting; as if they have better chants or superior signs. Because, in and of itself, a protest means nothing at all. Like a letter to the editor or a bumper sticker.
A protest gains its effectiveness (along with polls, letters, and everything else) from tying it to a block of voters. The unique angle of a protest is that it “forces” its message upon the public in a way that few other methods can achieve.
I would argue this makes protests best suited for new issues, or issues with new arguments. Abortion protests (pro or con) are rather pointless. The School of the Americas was all but unknown in the US public, despite a fifty-year history, until an organized protest movement appeared (I’m not arguing for or against the school, merely that the protesters succeeded in moving the matter into public debate).
—–
I know that Coronkie’s remarks were in ’68. The point was that it, like protests, served as a notice of what the public believed. It is noteworthy that the political situation became about ending the war after that point.
The Democrats anointed Humprey over popular party opinion. McGovern was so unpopular that many major Democrats actually endorsed Nixon. The point being that the Vietnam protesters weren’t dragging down the Democrats in those elections, they’d already shot themselves quite effectively.
Besides which, I don’t see why I need to listen to you lecture me on Vietnam. You weren’t even born until AFTER Saigon fell. Damn kids. Get off my lawn.
Well, we don’t really disagree. Except about ‘Nam, man, since I know you were about 5 months old. For some reason, your comment reminded me of this…
I listen to a talk show host in Houston who clowns Queen Sheila almost daily. He creates these hilarious parodies about her that he plays on his show. Everybody I know listens to them and forwards the link for others to hear. They are friggin awesome.
I don’t know how long he will keep them up, but you can hear them by going to: http://www.ktrh.com/pages/michaelberry.html
Funny stuff. We here in Houston have been watching Sheila and her silliness for years. You’re only now finding out how bad she can be.