I think the police will do whatever they are told to do. Kent State was an aberration although the Chicago Cops were pretty brutal in the Dem. Convention. It would be a mistake to think things have improved. If you protested now you could get hurt.*-
I thought about this for a day and I do believe you;re missing a huge point. We have no business, no moral right, to intervene in another sovereign nations politics to determine what kind of government they ought to have. With that in mind we never should have been in Vietnam to begin with and there was no victory for us to win.
Same in Iraq. It’s not for us to use military intervention and occupation to force the citizens of another nation to accept the type of government that we think they should have.
Back to the OP-- can a peace movement influence a government? Answer-- yes. See Viet Nam. Cite? I was there. Gonzomax too, I guess.
The “peace movement” (sigh-- so much to say, so difficult to condense) was more than just a bunch of hippies marching and throwing flowers. It was also Viet Nam Veterans Against The War. And some politicians with both sense and bravery (including Bobby Kennedy). And an awful lot of TV coverage. Note that Bush doesn’t allow pictures of the returning dead from Iraq. During Nam, the planes unloading body bags were on the news every single night. Press wasn’t “embeded” with our troops. Press came and went as they wished, according to its own agenda, and brought back almost-real-time pictures of the reality of the war.
Protests like the Democratic Convention weren’t isolated incidents, blown out of proportion for TV. They were recurring, both wholesale and retail, across the country in a variety of venues on a weekly if not always daily basis.
The anti-war movement was also conflated with larger societal issues including civil rights for minorities (color and gender). And with issues of personal liberty (sex, drugs, rock and roll). And even with the very core issue of the right to protest, peacefully or violently, in response to government actions.
LBJ withdrew from his re-election bid as a direct result of the generalized societal chaos that the anti-war movement was a major part of. Nixon was elected with a promise to end the war. The fact that he took his own sweet time to do so after the election doesn’t change the fact that his was the opposition candidacy, and he publicly proclaimed his ability to extricate us “with honor”-- this part being a sop to those who remained convinced of the righteousness of the war.
The scars of Viet Nam right here at home are not healed even today. The lines drawn in the sand, the personal positions taken, are very real to many from that era.
(BTW, Jane Fonda never apologized for her involvement in the anti-war movement. She did sort of apologize for her trip to North Viet Nam and for allowing herself to be photographed consorting with “the enemy”, laughing and climbing around on anti-aircraft guns. Most of us peace-niks thought that was over the top, even then.)
So, yes, indeed, anti war activism can change the country’s understanding, its collective attitute, and ultimately its actions. But it was a horrific process then, and not likely to be recapitulated now. The scars are still too fresh. Those of us who participated then are much less likely to do so in the same way again. And frankly, we’re older now. It’s your turn.
That’s now how Geekmustnotdie (Vietnamese) tells it here.