The Protest Problem

A few days ago, I forwarded this Mahablog post on rules for protesting to my colleague Generik, who wrote about his own experiences  with protests.  One might also see this polemic by Scott Ritter.  The long and the short of it is that the serious fringe element who attend pretty much any protest of any kind to push their own agenda (as of the date of this writing, International ANSWER LA is making plans to show up at the next immigration march) make it easy to ridicule those of us who are actually opposed to preemptive colonial adventurism. 

For the record, I think that Mumia and Leonard probably did get a raw deal, the Israelis are colonizing the Palestinians, absurdist street theater can be amusing, and you have a perfect right to paint yourself with woad, stiffen your hair with lime, and charge down the street naked in search of legionnaires to fight.  But I don't want you at my war protest if you want to push any of those methods or causes.  Barbara O'Brien has explained in great detail why, and she's absolutely right.

The question this leads one to ask is "Why are International ANSWER and the fringies always in front of the cameras at every damn protest?"  I  had a conversation about this exact problem with a friend of mine a few months ago, without reaching a conclusion.  After a couple months of not really thinking about, I realized that the reason is really simple:  It's because these people are fanatics.  They protest everything, all the time.  They have the most practice at organizing these things, and so when something comes along where protests might be more mainstream, they're johnny-on-the-spot with the organizing, and charge the attention of the protesters to their micro-issues as the organizing fee.

There is no alternative infrastructure for anti-war organizing.  There just isn't, at least in part because the consensus is that some wars are actually necessary evils.  So when there's a war like Iraq and the one that the Bush Administration is teeing up for Iran, there's nobody to step up and turn anti-war protests into something that non-Yippies can take seriously.

Maybe the traditional civil rights organizations could be dragooned into it, or a union like the SEIU.  They know how to throw a protest.  Maybe you could even talk some rave organizers into it.  But before you can have reasonable and effective anti-war protests (maybe where everyone walks silently down the street wearing suits, or the security tosses you out on your ear), you have to have a new organizing infrastructure.

Comments

[eRobin]

It's because these people are fanatics. They protest everything, all the time. They have the most practice at organizing these things, and so when something comes along where protests might be more mainstream, they're johnny-on-the-spot with the organizing,

I agree that these people are good at what they do, which is organize mass mobilizations.

and charge the attention of the protesters to their micro-issues as the organizing fee.

I think this is on the verge of becoming a RW myth that we internalize, if it hasn't already passed the tipping point. The corporate media does its level best not to cover protests on the left - or really the right for that matter. But when protests are covered, I don't see the damaging emphasis on fringe causes that you and Barbara are seeing. But the best way to combat that is to show up at the events instead of using the kid with the green hair as an excuse to stay home. I think we hear that excuse a lot because it sounds more principled to the person saying it than "I didn't want to drag myself all the way into the city on a weekend." And "I'm afraid to stick my neck out for a cause I believe in."

But before you can have reasonable and effective anti-war protests (maybe where everyone walks silently down the street wearing suits, or the security tosses you out on your ear)

Holy god. I'd join the protest against that protest. We're going to toss people who don't meet the dress code? I'm pretty sure the Walk for Freedom had rules like that.

Also, I don't think it's fair to call the anti-war protests we have had ineffective. The turning of public opinion against the war and this administration isn't only due to the limited coverage of the wars most Americans get on television and in the papers. And it's in spite of the considerable propaganda from the RW Noise Machine - mostly on radio. I'd say that the protests - from the sparsely attended to the ones that get 400K people - have been very effective. I'm proud to have been part of every one I was able to join.

I understand the value of looking bland and everymannish to the national audience, but I also know that no matter what uniform is chosen to be appropriate protest garb, (I would love to be in on that meeting, by the way.) the establishment would find ways to discredit the event and the participants. And then there would be the agent provacateurs who would show up to help that effort along.

Building a new organizing infrastructure is a good idea but if it's going to start by condemning the "fanatics" then it's doomed to fail. The fact is that you're a fanatic for writing this blog. I'm a fanatic for showing up at every rally I can get to. My butcher thinks I'm a fanatic because I asked a question about how the pigs are raised by a meat supplier his store carries and I wear a button that says "Opposed to the Bush Agenda." It's getting to the point where people who vote in primary elections in my county could statistically be considered fanatics.

The very second we start buying into the hate the Right and the establishment spew about the left, we're sunk. Working on the infrastructure you were talking about, organizing more protests and engaging the groups whose styles differ are all part of improving the message machine, not dress codes and security forces.

I wrote about protest politics at The American Street last year.

[paperwight]

eRob -

I think this is an agree to disagree place. The simple fact is that International ANSWER will continue to be the organizers of these things (their name is on almost every flyer I see in the Bay Area, anyway), and the fringies will continue to turn up, so in that sense, it's all moot.

I also disagree that thinking that niche players are harmful to the cause, not helpful, is buying into the right-wing crap about the anti-war movement. It's saying that the Yippie street theater and vulgarities and side issues are counterproductive. I don't have any interest in showing up to hear how the Palestinians are being railroaded, and how the US is the center of a grand imperialist conspiracy and those are the people who often speak at the various rallies, at least on the West Coast. And the streat theater people are in the photographs in every damn newspaper in the SF Bay area whenever there's a protest, because they're colorful and attention-grabbing.

So for me, showing up at those events, when the fringie speakers and organizers are taking credit for it actually validates the rightwing hate, rather than debunking it.

The fact that you think that's an excuse on my part is interesting, but wrong. I have been living in "let your freak flag fly" territory for years now, and I just think it's counterproductive.

[eRobin]

The fact that you think that's an excuse on my part is interesting, but wrong.

I didn't mean you. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

So for me, showing up at those events, when the fringie speakers and organizers are taking credit for it actually validates the rightwing hate, rather than debunking it.

My point is that there is nothing we can do to debunk it and if we did, they'd find another something to use against us. We'd be better off embracing it somehow. We're smart enough to figure out how to do that. This time I mean you ;)

[eRobin]

Did you see the stories about the immigration marches/rallies planned for May 1? You can bet that they will be focused on a single message. The fringe element will be near zero. But watch them get hammered anyway. The marches are too big and intimidating. They have too many Mexican flags. They have too many American flags and they don't respect them sufficiently. They have too many flags from other countries, which dilutes the message. The don't have enough flags from other countries and so there's no coherence to the message. Where were the Asians? If they don't show then there's no unity in the movement. If the Asians show then they won't be the right ones. And where were the Africans? The marches shut down the city and that was economic terrorism. The kids skipped school, which means they don't value education and if their parents let them get away with that, it's child abuse. Not enough whites showed up. This is racially motivated. Too many whites showed up. The problem isn't real and is only ginned up by dilletantes.

The very act of public assembly is threatening to the establishment. Most people consider themselves part of the establishment. Setting aside violence, it doesn't matter what happens at that assembly, the people exercising their right to assemble peacefully cannot win the establishment PR battle. It's not a good idea to turn on ourselves in an attempt to win a rigged game.