Noble, But Empty, Gestures
When driving home last night, I saw a small group of people holding signs that said “Healthcare, Not Warfare”. Quite a bold stance to take in Southern California five years after the war started. Now if only President Bush would take the Lake Ave offramp from the 210 East, then we might get closer to ending the war. If the war
Then again, while I’m on the subject, the futility of righteous protests is nothing compared to the self-congratulatory horseshit that came from former war supporters all week. I had to look at my calendar just to make sure there wasn’t a “My Bad!” holiday or something. It goes to show you that the rot of incompetence is so complete within the punditry that five years after helping push the country into war, the egomaniacs in the media spent a week congratulating themselves for finally figuring out that invading Iraq was a bad idea. I’d think that being right when it really mattered would eventually been seen as a good thing, but apparently they’re grading on a curve.
4 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I’m not sure I understand your disdain for “Healthcare, not Warfare” signs. The point is obviously not to influence voters, not Bush. Perhaps you’ve noticed that we have an upcoming Presidential election? One in which the two Democratic candidates have proposals for national health care, and the Republican candidate is the most enthusiastic supporter of the indefinite occupation of Iraq?
I find your disdain especially puzzling from someone who writes so many posts about the national politics and the election. Are you under the impression that many superdelegates are reading your blog? I mean, no offense, I do enjoy your blog, but I’m not sure you’re that much more influential than these guys with the signs.
Comment by Autumnal Harvest — March 24, 2008 @ 5:48 am
I do kind of agree that taking pot-shots at protestors is a bit unfair, especially the insinuation that these gestures are “empty.” Protest can be effective and can take many different forms, and Autumnal Harvest is right–Bush may not be rolling down the 210 exit in Pasadena, but plenty of potential voters are, as well as potential letter writers, emailers, Congress-callers, and even heads of local government, who can and often do listen and fill in the blanks when Federal government fails. It’s true that the media has avoided coverage of rallies and protests in the last decade or so, but isn’t it better to at least try to persuade public opinion than to give up entirely? I admire these folks with the signs, even if they don’t have a direct line to the president. And remember also, many of these folks have been on the streets since 2003.
Comment by orangehairboy — March 24, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
If the point is to influence voters, why not be more specific? I know “McCain Supports Endless War” doesn’t rhyme, but it might actually draw the contrasts necessary to help voters make an informed decision about where candidates stand. I know it’s dismissive to refer to a small war protest as an “empty gesture”, but how is it going to be a more effective form of persuasion than a yellow ribbon magnet or an American flag lapel pin?
It’s funny that you mention 2003, because in my mind, if the largest protests in our nation’s history aren’t enough to stop a war before it happened, I dunno what the hell a half dozen people standing on a street corner on a Thursday afternoon is supposed to do. I think their hearts are in the right place, but if their protests aren’t going to actually accomplish anything, perhaps their time would be better spent making more direct appeals to “potential voters…potential letter writers, emailers, Congress-callers, and even heads of local government”.
No, but they’re probably reading this one.
Moreover, I’ve never harbored any illusions that my blogging is doing anything more than preaching to a larger choir that I would if I were just emailing these rants to my friends, which is what led me to start blogging five years ago (!) in the first place. I think there are some crucial differences between the relative mediums of a protest march and a weblog.
1) The of my audience dependent on the strength of my writing. If people like it, they send a link to their friends, quote it, etc. If nobody cares about the things I have to say, the post will just sit there unread. A protest, on the other hand, is an inherently intrusive, demanding the attention of anyone who happens to pass by. While it my fire up those who already agree, a protest also runs a much higher risk of alienating those who disagree with you. Which is a problem because…
2) Protests tend to make their arguments in sound bytes. Obviously there’s a damn good case to be made that the real reason that Iraq was invaded was because Saddam Hussein was sitting on top of one of the world’s largest oil reserves and that Bush and Cheney’s corporate cronies were itching at a chance to get their hands on it. That said, when the media is in a frenzy talking about Saddam’s supposed ties to 9/11 and his desire to get his hands on a nuclear weapon, shouting “No Blood For Oil” is a pretty ineffective way to make your case.
3) Protests have little message control. It’s not uncommon to see larger protests plagued with people who want to piggyback on the occasion to tout their own pet issues, whether they’re anti-consumerist pleas or trying to spread environmental awareness. While these issues are valid in their own right, they tend to tarnish the event as a whole (especially to people on the outside) by implying that issue X is inherently related to issues Y and Z.
Comment by greg — March 24, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Greg, you make good points that protests have many deficiencies—your point about piggybacked messages is true, and one I also find annoying. But virtually every political tactic that I can imagine has deficiencies, and no tactic, on it’s own is going to change anything. Incidentally, the point of my comparison with your blog was not to say that both are entirely ineffective, but that both are only incrementally effective, in different ways. You complain that protests in 2003 didn’t stop the war, but in 2003 there were also letter-writing campaigns, calls to legislators, and detailed policy arguments against the war—have you concluded that all these things, too, are pointless?
You’re right that a small war protest is basically just a sound bite, or advertistement, rather than a detailed policy argument. That’s fine. Advertisements can be effective. Logically, a poster on someone’s lawn that says “Obama,” or a content-free advertisement about how a Lexus will make you happy should have no influence on voters or consumers. But they invariably do, or else politicians and companies would not spend so much money on them. A protest is more effective than a ribbon magnet for the same reasons that a content-free 30 second commercial for Obama is more effective than a billboard that says “Obama,” which is in turn more effective than an Obama sign on someone’s lawn. And, yes, it’s at least somewhat intrusive, just as a T.V. commercial can be somewhat intrusive; advertisements generally are. If all the left-wing had were protests and advertisements, that would probably be pointless, but I don’t see why you don’t think such things are useful as one of a number of tools.
I’m skeptical of your claim that a protest is going to alienate those who support the war. Obviously if the protesters throw blood on your car, you’re going to be pretty pissed. But I don’t see how seeing some people with anti-war signs is going to alienate anyone who doesn’t already hate the DFH’s (dirty fucking hippies).
Comment by Autumnal Harvest — March 26, 2008 @ 9:45 am