This is probably going to be rather long-winded, but ultimately (I hope) debatable.
My father is an old fashioned, pacifist non-violent resistance type of liberal. During the 60’s he was quite active in the Vietnam War protests as well as the Civil Rights movement. That being said, and given that his politics have not changed in the passing years; he is rather active in opposing the looming Iraq war.
We were speaking the other night, and I contended that the tactics that were used during the 60’s are not relevant today and that if his goal was to create political change that he and his fellow protestors would need to adopt different tactics.
So, now we come to the question; assuming that you disagree with the policies of the current administration, and further assuming that you wished to take an activist role in changing those policies, what would you do?
Sigh… I wish I had something really creative to add.
The critical difference that I see between Iraq and Vietnam is that we now have a volunteer army. There seem to be plenty of people willing to fight this war. And if the US casualties remain low and victory comes swiftly, it seems to me that the US citenzry is willing support a war almost anywhere on any pretext.
If the war drags out and there are significant casualties, then the 60’s tactics may prove effective. Otherwise, I’m not sure what can be done.
Sorry, I guess that I could have been clearer. Here is the situation: Basically, what is going on at this point is that he and in the neighborhood of 150 of his friends are going out every Wednesday and (on busy streets) holding up anti-war signs. They then get indignant that the media isn’t reporting this. In other words, the same basic strategies (protest marches, catchy chanting and songs) that were used during the Vietnam Era.
The question is (assuming that the above strategy is lame), what can be done by a liberal minded person to bring about political change (including preventing a war)?
I hardly think the strategy is lame, nor do I think that your dad and his friends are alone in their treatment by the media. Two months ago today, there was a protest of some 150,000 people against the war in a march that literally surrounded the White House. The New York Times and the Washington Post drastically underreported the whole event, being so vague as to say “tens of thousands” of people marched.
That having been said, however, he shouldn’t be too concerned about getting media coverage. He should be more concerned about building his weekly demonstrations so that the numbers swell beyond 150. The chants and the signs and the singing are a great way to boost the confidence of people already at the events, but he and his friends should make serious efforts to bring new people into it as well.
I don’t mean this to sound snide, but provide viable alternate solutions besides war and the status quo. In addition, stop mouthing the same old platitudes about how this is a “war for oil” or “he’s doing it for daddy”- I’ve heard them countless times and (to me) don’t hold water.
So just because they don’t hold water for you, we should stop using them? Sorry, that don’t fly. If it can be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that neither oil nor the alleged assassination attempt on GHWB have anything to do with the war on Iraq, then yeah, I’d agree we should dump the arguments and move on. But that, as yet, has not happened.
Perhaps the term “lame” may be a bit on the charged side, and so not the best word for what I was trying to say.
I guess what I mean is that I do not think that the chanting/bumper stickers are effective. That is to say that (and this could just be my inner cynic), it seems to me that it is very difficult indeed to get people to change their minds about anything. A quick look around the threads in this very forum will show that. Rather, if one is really interested in preventing this war or changing policy I think that a different tactic is needed. This is what I am interested in discussing.
I pretty much take it as a given that this will not be accomplished through swaying public opinion, and I absolutely agree that the treatment that my father is receiving at the hands of the media is not isolated.
That said, what non-violent means of influencing policy exist that are independent of both the media and public opinion?
None, I’m afraid. Public opinion can be swayed (the Vietnam war is an excellent example of this) and, moreover, it should be. Public opinion, when loud enough and strong enough, can sway the media and ultimately effect changes in public policy.
Another thing to chew on here; the quote that prompted this response is exactly what I am talking about. My perception is that the average American feels much the same way.
Somehow, the Left has been branded as disseminating misinformation while the Right is holding the high ground (baselessly, IMHO). I am more interested in thoughts on how the Left can successfully change tactics in such a way as to effectively reach their political goals.
Well, the protests should be backed up by serious one-on-one (or two or three) discussions of the issue, for one thing. Thus not only will people new to participating be able to clearly articulate why they’re involved, but go on to argue the case to other people and get them involved as well.
Compare the casualties from Vietnam and the Gulf War, and then consider that vietnam had a draft (involuntary service) whereas the gulf war and any impending new war with iraq will be entirely fought by voluntary servicemen and women, and you’ll realize there is absolutely nothing to be protesting about. Go get a starbucks decaf, have some kava kava, and go play checkers or something.
Not to be rude here, but the intent of this thread was not to ask the peanut gallery if protesting this action was worthwhile. Rather, the debate is the following: Given that one accepts that the current strategies for achieving a liberal moving change in the current administration are not effective, and further assuming that one wishes to engage in activities that would effectively help to implement more liberal policies; what are some alternative strategies?
So now the burden of proof is on me, eh? Not only do they not hold water for me, I don’t think they hold water for others and they wind up alienating a lot of people who might otherwise support you. The topic of this thread is how to improve “lefty” protest tactics and I’m telling you that the message being sent out now isn’t working. “One-on-one disucussion groups” aren’t going to change that.
Look, I don’t get the “Saddam is a bad man and something needs to be done about him” vibe from the left. Here’s a guy who kills dissenters, tortures political opponents, pays the families of suicide bombers while claiming that sanctions are killing his people, etc… I think the left really needs to acknowledge this and provide some sort of solution if they really want the antiwar protests to gain steam.
Meaning that any war that is waged by voluntary servicemen and women is justifiable? I think your criterion is insufficient to justify a war and the killing of people.
if there were only 140 or so american casualties (all of which were non-drafted/voluntary servicepeople) in the vietnam war, I honestly do not believe there would have been any serious protests against the vietnam war. Sure, there’d be a few “war is bad” picketers here and there, but nothing like the massive demonstrations which we saw during the vietnam era. Maybe I’m just naive, though.
I’m sure this time around we’d have even less casualties (better weapons, more experience, presumably more preparedness on our part). I think it would be worth a few dozen american lives to get rid of saddam, liberate the people of Iraq, and take all that oil for ourselves. Think of the caribou we’d save by not having to drill in ANWR. Surely that alone is worth a few dozen american lives.
Yeah…I didn’t understand Kalt’s point either. Even if you assume that U.S. casualties in a war in Iraq will be low in comparison to Vietnam (which I think is a good assumption…although they may be somewhat higher than the Gulf War given the nature of the task), this does not mean that the war is justified or that it will be effective in bringing about the desired objectives of a safer world and a more stability in the region, etc.
If Kalt is trying only to say that the task of getting people very upset with a war that doesn’t result in high casualties will be more difficult than was true for the case of Vietnam, then I think this is a good point (although his post was an poor communication of that point).
All right then, overthrowing a hostile regime / human rights for the native population / cheaper oil are somewhat more cogent reasons than “none of us will die, all soldiers are volunteers, let’s go kill some Iraqis!”
Of course the first two reasons would apply to many other countries in the world, which is why cynics think that the third part is a main motivation. And which is why I personally oppose a war against Iraq.
In order to maintain what little faith in humanity I have left at this point, I am going to assume that this is some sort of joke and that I am being whooshed. Otherwise, I think that I may vomit.
One last request: I really do not want this thread to be hijacked in to a “should we bomb Iraq” discussion. I am sure that we can all find many other threads in this very forum that are doing that. What I am interested in (again) is talking about alternative activist strategies to the tactics currently in use by the Left.
jshore: yeah that’s the basic gist of my point, coupled with the fact that protests don’t accomplish anything if they’re only made up of a few people. If protests are going to accomplish anything, they’re going to need lots of extremely passionate protesters. With no draft and the prospect for extremely low casualties (low being a relative term, but we can make it objective by comparing the number to that of the vietnam war), I don’t see how anyone is going to organize massive, passionate anti-war protests. That being the case, what’s the point?
binarydrone: it was a wee bit tongue-in-cheek. Only a wee bit, though.