catapult magazine

a while back, grant posted something questioning the effectiveness of protests. i could not find it to respond on the appropriate thread, so i’m starting a new one because i just found an interesting, relevant article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30813-2003Mar2.html

i think protests can be ineffective when the protestors are unclear on what they are protesting and are just out there to be “countercultural.” however, i think they go a long way toward putting pressure on people in power as well as solidifying the commitment of individuals and defining a movement, as shown in the above article.

My question, though, has to do with the idea of “effect”. What specific effect does protesting have? Certainly protests are most effective in showing a sense of community and defining a movement, but I get the feeling from people I talk to who make “protesting” their life’s work that they think protesting can fix more than it really can.

Protesting should be thought of as one method of change among many. It was used effectively in movements of the sixties because these protests were designed to give voice to the voiceless. But in this particular case, the case of “the war on terrorism and the governments who support (or may one day support) them”, the protests threaten to drown out the many voices involved. Reducing complex issues to slogans and characterizing Bush’s policies as mere rhetoric prevents the opportunity for genuine dialogue about how the U.S. ought to be engaged in such conflicts now that the world seems to be operating under different rules.

So, what effect does protesting have for this situation? Bush’s administration is obviously afraid that the world’s dissenting opinion makes it harder for them to put pressure on Saddam. And if the U.S. does not engage potential threats such as Saddam in a forceful manner, what alternative do peace protestors have to offer that will fit on a 3 foot by 3 foot sign?

It often seems like the “effect” of the protests is to polarize the issue and motivate the opposition.

I think the alternative has always been “Let the inspections work.” Whether that is a viable option is of course a matter of opinion.
I think that concept of giving a voice to the voiceless still holds true in this circumstance, especially since the hawks have been saying for months “We’ll ask for your premission, but it doesn’t matter because we’ll do it anyway.” Thus it’s understandable why many people feel helpless/voiceless. I understand you have to say those kinds of things in order to put pressure on Saddam, and that’s something that has always bothered me about the doves. Bush’s tough stance/beligerence (however you see it) has, like it or not, resulted in what little progress has been made in disarming Saddam like finally allowing inspectors back in, talking with scientists, destroying these Sammud missles, etc. Obviously, we all doubt whether that’s working, but if the UN had the balls to get back into Iraq when Saddam kicked them out in the late 90’s, we may not be in this mess. I do wish the entire UN would be able to line up against Saddam, not necessarily with the US, but against Saddam so that he could be disarmed and hopefully deposed. Of course, it’s naive for the Bushies to think that the UN would get behind them, for good or ill.
Wow, I’ve argued myself into a near-hawk position. I didn’t know I had it in me. Although I am still not convinced the threat is a large as it has been made out to be an therefore the hawkish desire to do what it will, damn-the-torpedos, bothers me.

Anyway, let me ask this: what are the alternatives to protests then? And what constitutes protests? Is writing a letter to your congressman a protest? Or writing an op-ed piece? At waht point must people stop voicing their opinion for the sake of solidarity? A unifed voice would be helpful, but I’m in no way ready to give up people’s right to oppose the administation’s position.

Interesting points, Dvdschp. I think the purpose of protests is something you’ve (or someone) has already pointed out—giving or having a voice. All of the things you mentioned—rallies, letter-writing, op-ed, is a way to participate in the discourse that is going on in our nation. Why is it a protest though? Maybe (and this is just a newly-formed theory) is that there is no other means of participating. Even things like writing to the editor may not make it through censorship. Widescale movements like rallies or letter campaigns seem to be the only way to be heard. Whether or not any action is taken on it, I think people have the need to be heard. It seems to me that since our government is so far removed from “being in community” with regular people that people feel the need to protest in order to participate in the discourse.

I don’t know that I’d agree that protests are useless if they don’t accomplish their intended purpose—like stopping this war. I do think that the real purpose is just to be involved and be heard. Too simplistic?