Do protest really work, anymore? Have they in the past?
booie
Protests Don’t Work
By Brian Knapp
Public protest is one of the oldest political expressions and has a
long tradition in U.S. politics. But has it finally run its course?
March 5, 2009 ShareThisBuzz up!Protesting is a physical presence and
demonstration of some ideological or political viewpoint. Its intent
is to attract the awareness of the general public to that idea or to
act as a grievence upon an institution to influence change in the
current policy or standard.
Image Credit: swyngarden’s photostreamProtesting most often involves
sit-ins, fasts, chants, signs, speeches, and any number of peaceful
expressions. Public protest is, in fact, one of the oldest means of
American political expression and has a long tradition in the U.S.
political system that pre-dates the Revolution. Part of this
tradition was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution itself. In American
law, the First Amendment has been long recognized as the best tool to
protect the rights of Americans to protest. It reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Public protest has been present at nearly every important crossroad in
this nation’s history: the Revolution, slavery, suffrage, and the
Civil Rights Movement were all affected in a very significant way by
protest.
But does that mean that protest should be practiced for the sake of
protest? What if it just doesn’t work like it used to?
Gregory Rodriguez tackled this in an opinion piece in the LA Times
nearly a year ago when speaking about immigrant protests:
Mass street demonstrations are a high-risk political strategy that
quickly reaches the point of diminishing returns. Organizers should
ask themselves whether they’re really trying to appeal to the goodwill
of the general public — and Congress, as it debates immigration reform
— or simply grandstanding.
Rodriguez is simply asking here, “What’s the point?” If the protest
is not likely to draw support for policy change and is more likely to
detract and harm the cause of the organizers, is it worth the
trouble? He doesn’t seem convinced. He also cites the tendency of
protesters to turn violent as one such major detractions. Michelle
Malkin has also previously noted this trend.
Professor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit noted how outdated Iraq anti-
war protests were by simply stating “It’s not 1968.” In this
instance, he questioned the point of protesting a war that was
supported by a majority of congress as well as the public. To prove
it, President Bush was elected with even a greater margin of the vote
in 2004 - well after the Iraq war was underway. More importantly, in
referring to the protests of the Vietnam war in 1968, there was no
draft. All of the service people were volunteers.
Dr. James Joyner at Outside the Beltway also questions the point of
the recent “Tea Party” protests where protesters are demonstrating
against President Obama’s economic stimulus package.
But here’s the thing: The original Boston Tea Party was a protest
against taxation without representation. We now have representation.
The people who passed the stimulus — the Democrats in the House and
Senate and President Obama — were duly elected under the
Constitution. For that matter, it’s not like something like this
massive stimulus wasn’t discussed in the fall election campaign that
put these people in charge. What they’re doing is not unprecedented
nor unconstitutional in any current understanding.
What exactly is the point of these rallies?
Devilstower at Daily Kos thinks recent Tea Party protests are merely
staged news:
If this article is correct, then CNBC has staged the news, not just a
single incident, but a whole string of discussions and programs that
have been at the center of CNBC’s programming since Santelli’s staged
rant.
This is where we get into the meat and potatoes of the argument
against protests. Given that nearly everyone in the United States has
access to the Internet via libraries, work, home service, phone, or
cafes; and given that media is available on the internet from
innumerable sources in print, audio, and other visual means; and given
that most American households also have access to cable television or
free digital service or print media; was/is there any awareness to be
gained by Iraq war protests or Tea Party protests? Was/is there some
grievence that hasn’t been addressed?
No.
The Kansas Meadowlark informed us of the Tea Party protest outside
Congressman Dennis Moore’s office in Overland Park, KS in late
February. Despite driving within a relatively close proximity that
day of this location, I became aware of it not from the 750
protesters, but from internet blogs.
There are better ways of affecting change and creating awareness
without creating public nuisance and without the threat of
violence.So, what is the point of protesting in the age of digital
media? There is none, really, except perhaps in the creation of news
as stated earlier.
Another problem with public protests is that fact that they are
generally annoying. Protests, rallies, and other outdoor events that
are organized to accomodate large swaths of people also must
accomodate their bathroom breaks. They also tend to eat up civic
resources with an additional police presence, trash pickup, and the
occasional cleanup of graffiti or fixing of broken windows. Then,
there are traffic congestion issues and the impedence of free travel
by uninterested parties. This is all besides the fact that passers by
often are subject to ridicule, humiliation and intimidation.
All of this is easily avoided with the new digital media revolution.
Where large mainstream media networks once held a monopoly on what
people learned of and became aware to, individuals have a much easier
time sharing ideas and commenting quickly and quite effectively now
with the advent of blogs, tweeting, text messaging, social networking
sites and email.
So no longer are protests needed and thusly, no longer do protests
work. There are better ways of affecting change and creating
awareness without creating public nuissance and without the threat of
violence. The internet is a quick and decisive way to make a real
change in real time in a big way and against all odds. Somebody
should write a book about it.
bbb writes:
With all the protest that are around, I was just wondering if they do
any good. Have they done any good in the past. Sure it is a eway to
let people know where you stand. And others that have the same
thoughts.
Any examples?
booie............
Edwin Hurwitz
<0c50050e-bba0-4c61...@h11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
booie <ba_ba...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Do protest really work, anymore? Have they in the past?
>
> Protests Don�t Work
>
> By Brian Knapp
> Public protest is one of the oldest political expressions and has a
> long tradition in U.S. politics. But has it finally run its course?
Protest has lost momentum because it's lost its teeth. Real protesting
happens when it has economic impact where it's also known as a strike.
Back in the 60s what was seen in the news was a lot of student protests.
A lot of times they were not only protesting, but also occupying their
administration buildings and walking out of class. Unions have bargained
away their rights to strike and Reagan put his foot down for the
government and for big business when he fired the air traffic
controllers.
Protests were better in the 60s and 70s because they got shit down. Now
it's just a bunch of people hanging around being ignored by the people
who are supposed to be hearing the message.
Edwin