It's Time Anti-War Activists Go Back to School
Activists protesting the war at last week's Democratic National Convention have come and gone. Banners were unfurled. Protesters marched and chanted. Puppets of Bush and company provided comic relief. But looking back at the conference, there is no clear sign that any of these efforts have gotten us any closer to ending the war. Activists certainly have good reason to protest the DNC. The Democratic majority in Congress has repeatedly failed to stand up to the Bush Administration, has refused to [impeach][1] Bush and Cheney for gross violations of the constitution and international law, and has refused to take a stand on any of the other pressing moral issues of the day, from illegal wire-tapping to torture to the suspension of habeas corpus. On top of all this, despite Barack Obama now firmly established as the candidate of "change", Obama still has no plan to get us out of Iraq. He only has a plan to downsize it.With so much to decry, it is incredulous to me that protesters, when given the chance to advance their message to the media and the people unaware at home, would have nothing more insightful to say than "Fuck corporate media!" and "Fuck FOX news!" You would think activists might have a more disciplined message prepared for the media, but this was exactly the response a reporter from FOX News got from several people after asking them why they were protesting at the DNC last week. On its face, it is somewhat of an anomaly, given that FOX News is usually known for loaded questions, partisan attacks, and vicious smears against any left-leaning, progressive, or liberal groups. But here was a reporter genuinely appearing to seek out a more in-depth perspective on the march beyond the banner slogans and sayings, offering them a chance to say whatever they want on live TV, and "Fuck FOX news!" was their only rallying cry. One man was able to reiterate the marches common theme: "Stop the torture. Stop the war." But soon after, the crowd drowned out the reporter chanting "Fuck FOX news", flipping off the camera until you see the reporter disappear into the crowd, cutting back to the anchor. Watch the scene here: What did these kids think they were accomplishing? Unfortunately, this response may sound all-too familiar to us, and it is in part a clue to the long standing ineffectiveness of modern protests and the anti-war movement in general. The famous community organizer of the 20th century, Saul D. Alinsky, makes it clear. "The failure of many of our younger activists to understand the art of communication has been disastrous". There are basic rules to affecting social change, not the least of which is effective communication. It is an understanding of these rules, he writes in "Rules for Radicals", "that makes the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one." A rhetorical activist, he says, are those "who [use] the tired old words and slogans, calls the police "pig" : or "motherfucker" and has so stereotyped himself that others react by saying, "Oh, he's one of those," and then promptly turn off". This is no doubt what many of the viewers watching that FOX News broadcast thought and did, which is unfortunate, because those are precisely the people "beyond the choir" that the anti-war movement needs to reach.Speaking in the first person, Alinsky drives the point home. "Lacking communication I am in reality silent; throughout history silence has been regarded as assent in this case assent to the system". This is exactly what I thought when I saw those protesters react to this news reporter with such predictability. These scenes of protesters "sticking it to the man" have become so common to us they have become cliche. They no longer draw thoughtful attention. It's as if protesters and riot police go together and are as common to everyday life as government and taxes. It is at this point that these protesters no longer pose a challenge to the status quo. They are just another part of it. If we are going to affect truly radical and realistic change, we must first gain a knowledge and understanding of the basic rules of [activist strategy][2]. One of these rules is, always "appear more reasonable than your opponents." If your opponent is cool and collected while you're off spouting unintelligible profanities, even if your side is morally right, it's going to be difficult for anyone but the converted to find much sympathy. As Robert Bray writes in "Spin Works! A Media Guidebook for Communicating Values and Shaping Opinion, "it may feel cathartic to call the bad guy a "nazi fascist," but that language will probably alienate people and certainly does not communicate a strategic message. We can express anger in the press, but channel and convert that rage into a message that moves people to awareness and action on your issues". Now, it is essential that we understand this, because we can be sure that our opposition has learned it, including FOX News. It is more than likely that this reporter did interview some people that had something more articulate to say, but chose not to air it, choosing instead to go into a crowd where it is likely that they would be insulted and made to look like the good guys. This is the kind of manipulative tactic FOX News is famous for, which is no doubt part of the reason these protesters reacted the way they did. Nonetheless, if this was truly deliberate, they fell right into the trap, giving FOX the sound bites they needed to discredit us to their viewers and convince them that we have nothing important to say.As we all know, [FOX is not a legitimate news organization][3]. The Rupert Murdoch owned FOX news has unapologetically served as the propaganda arm of the Bush Administration and the neo-conservative agenda for the last eight years. They have consistently spread misinformation and lies on everything from global warming to the false connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Leading up to the war in Iraq, their boisterous cheerleading of the war helped insure its inevitability, promoting the Pentagon's talking points and censoring or smearing opposing views. Because of all this, an article by ZP Heller that appeared on [Alternet.org][4] contended that these "anti-war protesters have every right to say 'Fuck FOX news'", and I agree. They do have every right to say what they did, and to react with such anger but will the viewers of FOX news get it? Is this enough to enlighten or change anyone's mind? No. Ultimately, yelling profanities at FOX may make us feel good, but it accomplishes nothing. Historically, the whole point of the protest tactic has been to get positive coverage of your issue from the media. This puts pressure on the opposition and builds public support. In combination with other tactics, this provides the leverage necessary to get the opposition to accede to your group's demands. If we stonewall the media or communicate with them poorly when they attempt to interview us, then we have no leverage. Our protest has no teeth. In this case, the protest reverts back to a symbolic gesture only, and we find ourselves no closer to achieving our goal than before.This is the essential point. No matter what tactics we use to achieve our goals, we cannot ignore the pivotal role strategic communication plays in all of them. Failing to communicate effectively has been a cardinal mistake that activists have been making for decades. It is what has been keeping the anti-war movement from gaining traction. We can see this clearly when we look at the essential role that the [mainstream media][5] has played in shaping public opinion and determining [how easy it is][6] for an administration to go to war. Countless pro-war think tanks, PR agencies, hired "experts" and embedded military journalists contribute to the saturation of a pro-war climate in this country. It has been our opposition's successful use of communication that has got us into a war with Iraq, and which now puts us close to a war with Iran. If we are to mount an effective campaign to stop this, we must organize an effective communication strategy of our own. [1]: http://www.filmsforaction.org/films/default.aspx?Subject=42 [2]: http://www.casagordita.com/tools.htm [3]: http://www.filmsforaction.org/films/default.aspx?Search=FOX [4]: http://www.alternet.org [5]: http://www.filmsforaction.org/films/default.aspx?Subject=36 [6]: http://www.filmsforaction.org/films/default.aspx?Subject=8
Comments
Bethany Jones 14 years, 9 months ago
If war protests were so effective, would it really take half a decade to "end the war"?
DOTDOT 14 years, 9 months ago
"If we are to mount an effective campaign to stop this, we must organize an effective communication strategy of our own."Here is where it gets tricky. See, I just heard a "Fuck You" in there. Don't get me started on propaganda, but you can't be seriously saying that we are all stupid and would be better off if only your propaganda was as good as "theirs"?Seriously, the Conservatives have Fox News and AM radio, and all the rest of the ether has leaned left forever. What more do you want?
14 years, 9 months ago
"The problem with a lot of modern protestors is that they do not want to suffer for their cause - let alone go to jail for it."It's a fun thing to do on a Sunday afternoon, though in all fairness I have seen a couple protests (e.g. WTO in Seattle) where people were arrested and came back and got arrested again. While they didn't receive the abuse blacks did in Selma and Montgomery, they weren't simply kids out for a good time - they were serious.But the major difference I see - and the reason I think the Civil Rights protests were effective (to the limited extent that they were) - is that MLK was appealing to middle America, not spiting it. If you look at pictures of the March on Washington, what do you see? Men in suits and ties, women in dresses. They were showing power, but they were also symbolizing that they deserved to be part of America. They came to politely yet forcefully claim their rightful place at the table. They were appealing to America to let them in and trying to show themselves worthy of that.Now go to an Anti-war protest or a gay rights protest or a code pink protest or a KFC protest. You see the opposite, and it's not uncommon to see signs that say, "Fuck the Middle Class," to run across people in dress (or lack of dress) that demonstrates the attitude. Rather than 'let us in,' the prevailing attitude is 'up yours.' You see anger. You see rage. You see middle fingers and yelling and hell-raising. They demand, they do not request.Of course, the angry naked protesters - the Rhetorical Radicals that Alinski mentions - will say, "Hey man, we have every right to do that." Hell yeah you do. Go for it. But when you purposely alienate the people you need if you want to get what you say you want - and make no mistake, that's what half-naked men in dog collars and bushitlerco puppets do - don't be surprised when those people conclude that you're just jerking off.Realistic radicals I think make a mistake in thinking that the Rhetoricals simply lack a message to channel their anger. They may wish to consider the idea that the anger is all the message a certain percentage of their fellow marchers have, and that the protest of X is for them not about X at all - it is a way for them to publicly say "Fuck you, Fox," though it might as easily be "Fuck you" to anyone else nearby. Because that may impact in serious ways how realistic radicals go about getting their own message out.
14 years, 9 months ago
"You just generalized how people view that event vs. Joyce's perspective.."Yes, I did. Duplenty informed me that "Generalizing doesn't do anyone any good," so I gave a specific example that illustrated the point I had generalized - the powerful thing to her, as a protester, was not what was said - that stuff was decided on by committee beforehand and she had heard it before. What she remembered most was how she felt looking over the crowd, and it made her feel part of something special and inspired her to do more.What's more, if one wishes to take measurement of other protests - especially the vast majority that are far smaller and lead to precisely nothing - we can find the same pattern. Bet me.So that being the case, how many specifics do we need before we can safely generalize that protests are held not to "do something" but to make those marching in circles yelling "hey hey ho ho" feel like they are part of something? "my mixed race tells me more about what that march meant that Joyce's entire life."Because you have used the march to symbolize the results of a movement that began generations earlier than when the march took place and carried on after it. That's exactly what I mean when I say that people today think protests are more powerful than they were. It's not a question of what the march "meant" but a question of what it caused. The results of the civil rights movement can perhaps be symbolized by the March on Washington, by they cannot be explained by it.
14 years, 9 months ago
"What did these kids think they were accomplishing? "They were having a good time. They were feeling important. They were 'doing something.'The problem with protesting - and this goes back to Alinski's generation as well - is not that whatever protesters are protesting for is not important or worth having, it's that protests are basically narcissistic screaming contests. Protesters protest because they like to hear themselves yell, they like to be involved, it makes them feel good. In other words, it's not about the object of the protest, it's about them. That's why you'll see the same two dozen, half-naked, tiredass, smelly hippies at any protest, whether it's against KFC or against the war. Protesting is their way of "doing something" without actually doing anything. It is the very nature of the crowd, the mob, to be unthinking. How can the unthinking communicate anything more complicated than "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho!"?
14 years, 9 months ago
"Um, wasn't the March on Washington some forty years ago a protest?"It sure was, and as Joyce Ladner said of the march: "The passage of time reshapes our images and interpretations of events. I think that is true when it comes to the March." I think it does as well, and modern protesters who use that as a standard are constantly trying to regain a glory that is largely mythological.She recalls the backstage politics, the arguments about what people were going to be allowed to say, how some people were going to show up or not depending upon what others said, and Malcolm X calling the whole thing "the Farce on Washington". And she says, "I do not remember thinking that Dr. King's speech was the most important thing that occurred that day." And yet today, we seem to think that King's speech was the ONLY thing that happened. Such is our modern mythology.The thing she remembers most (her exact words), however, "is standing on the podium looking out at the 250,000 people. It was a sight to behold. One had to see it to believe it. Despite the conflict over John's speech, I felt emboldened because of the large number of people who came. I didn't feel so isolated anymore."http://www.crmvet.org/info/mowjoyce.htmIf what people remember most is their own feelings, well, what do you call that?
Terry Bush 14 years, 9 months ago
OK - I'll give away my age. Having graduated from highschool in 1971, I lived through and vividly recall the anti-war protests against the Vietnam war. I also recall race riots at some local high-schools. So, even though I am now officially "old," I get to speak (a little) from personal experience.The fact that there were people - a few or a lot - screaming and marching was not what got wars stopped or laws changed. What got things done and changed was the agreement or decisions of those in power. And some amount and types of civil disobedience can influence such decision makers.For the record, MLK adopted Ghandi's rules on such actions. Meaning he not only allowed and expected to be jailed because of his civil disobedience, he welcomed it. Because it is only when good people suffer bad things b/c of a bad law or situation that the policy makers start to re-think things. The problem with a lot of modern protestors is that they do not want to suffer for their cause - let alone go to jail for it. That completely undermines the value and outcome of protests.
md_pinks 14 years, 9 months ago
Going to roll with duplenty on this one.And despite what Joyce has to say about it, King's speech out lasted everything else that happened that day because it made the biggest impact on our society (other than the march itself). Of course, if the crowds of "narcissistic screaming contestants" hadn't been there to hear it, would that speech have made such an impact? Scratch that, would the march be in our history books if they had decided to just sit at home and whine about it instead of maybe opening a few minds?Another thing is that Joyce is speaking more from the perspective of actually being there, not what everyone else could see through a TV, heard on a radio, or read in a book. Her view is just another side of the coin...
md_pinks 14 years, 9 months ago
"No, but Dr. Ladner is one very specific voice who was there, was involved from the very beginning, was involved afterward, and knows far more about it, what it meant at the time, and what it means now, than everyone here put together. Since generalizing doesn't do any good, that was a specific"You gotta be kidding me. You just generalized how people view that event vs. Joyce's perspective. Furthermore, my mixed race tells me more about what that march meant that Joyce's entire life.And under your stipulations, would this entire debate make Joyce part of this so called "narcissistic screaming contest" that apparently doesn't do any good? Seems to me like you just put your foot in your mouth.
14 years, 9 months ago
"So Joyce Ladner is the be all, end all of discussion of this historic event?"No, but Dr. Ladner is one very specific voice who was there, was involved from the very beginning, was involved afterward, and knows far more about it, what it meant at the time, and what it means now, than everyone here put together. Since generalizing doesn't do any good, that was a specific."I get that there's two sides to every protest or action, but calling every protest a "narcissistic screaming contest" is a bit beyond the pale."Perhaps, but if those promoting today's protests wonder why they do not seem to have the same effects today as they had then, I would suggest that they were not as powerful then as we today think they were. I suspect the main reason we think they were so powerful then is because the people who write about them today were a part of them and remember how powerful they felt.
DOTDOT 14 years, 9 months ago
Huh, I won't capitalize god but I just capitalized Conservative. What is happening to me? Have I been Palined?
14 years, 9 months ago
Don't worry about being argumentative or even picking nits. It's through us working this through that others will reach a conclusion that may agree with either of us."If you claim that it does, and I find one person who takes the opposite view, where does that leave us?"Thus the problem with dealing in language and not mathematics. A rhetorical generalization does not demand such literalism, and if I say, "The Chiefs won it all in 1969" it does not mean they won every coin toss all season, it means that in a general and overwhelming sense, they won the things worth winning. I don't mean to be condescending, but I'm just claiming that in a general sense, protesters protest because of how it makes them feel, not because of what it accomplishes, which is usually either nothing or something as insubstantial as "raising awareness." Fair enough?However, maybe we shall have to take a different tack. What are the reasons one might protest? I Googled reasons to protest, just to see what I'd find. According to the first list 2 of the 5 reasons(a sense of solidarity and energizing) are specifically geared toward emotions of the participants, not the issue. Another is functional and social - meeting others to link up with. The top two are the "normal" reasons, to demonstrate power and to raise awareness.http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/tp/Why-Protest.htmThe second list is even more in the same direction, including again to salve your feelings and to fire you up.http://home.earthlink.net/~jamiranda/whyprotest.htmlNow, one could argue that all protests are primarily to raise awareness and to demonstrate power. And that's fine. But I submit to you that MOST protests a) do not demonstrate power because they are small, and b) do not raise awareness because they are mostly ignored. I could be wrong on either of these, each person will have to jog their memory to see if I have generalized correctly.If I have, then the reason to protest, and therefore the reasons most protests are held, are for narcissistic (inwardly-looking and ego-driven) reasons. If there are two sides of a protest, and they are screaming at each other, then what we have is a narcissistic screaming contest.Perhaps not a QED, but it's I think a fair generalization of the protesters that I have encountered from Toronto Ontario to Pittsburg Kansas.
measles 14 years, 9 months ago
"The failure of many of our younger activists to understand the art of communication has been disastrous". Thank you!! for pointing out the real issue here. This is why I got fed up with a certain younger-activist-led ploticial movement on campus, and probably why nobody knows it exists, until you remind them that it's those radical hippies standing on Wescoe beach yelling about how the federal reserve has enslaved us all. I remember feeling so great when I began to look around me and see that people my age and younger are beginning to care about politics and actually DO something about it, and then I realized they just don't have any tact. And to the people out in front of Strong Hall last week with the two-story billboard displaying images of aborted babies, same goes for you. You're not sending a message, you're just grossing people out. That's just one of the things that's sad about the state of political discourse in this country today--the people who actually have something to say don't know how to say it in a way that their oponents can stomach listening to.As the blogger notes, one group of people has mastered the art of communication: the pro-North American Union reptilian neocons who have enslaved us and our media and are probably hiding the truth about Area 51, too. Oh yeah, and 9-11 is your fault.
md_pinks 14 years, 9 months ago
And DOT, I believe mtoplikar is correct. It is a bit more complicated than political stances....try pocketbooks.
md_pinks 14 years, 9 months ago
"It's not a question of what the march "meant" but a question of what it caused"Once again, it took generations of people being enslaved, held down, held back, and pushed into a corner that made people protest. It also made (forced) those in that position get educated and into the system to be heard and respected. MLK, Malcolm, these people were smart enough, and extremely brave enough, to be the ones to put on the suits and walk among those who hold them back. And I doubt they would have been able to do such a task without having people who were extremely passionate (like...PROTESTERS) to back them.Furthermore, it seems obvious that the longer the smaller protests go on for a cause (say, civil rights) the bigger and bigger they become until they must be heard. Why would that be?You gotta start some where, but for some reason you can't see the big picture.Of course, I'm not saying that those wearing chicken suits outside of a KFC are going to lead a million people to march to Louisville, Kentucky. But they may influence a group of people to wear the suits and get their protest heard in a manner to make change.
Matt Toplikar 14 years, 9 months ago
Excellent post Tim. Of course we've had this conversation before, but I really can't agree more. It's hard to convince anyone to listen to new ideas if they sound like they're coming from a crazy/ignorant person. I followed a march of a few thousand people while I was in Denver and tried to talk to a few of the protesters. Unfortunately, all I got was mindless chanting. I guess it's the herd mentality that takes over at most protests that usually turns my stomach. Not that there wasn't mindless chanting once I got inside Invesco Field (where Obama spoke). Inside the DNC delegates were chanting "Eight is enough", and "Yes, we can".Outside the protesters were chanting "Obama's skin is black, but his heart is white as crack"Now I'm not saying "Eight is enough" is necessarily thought provoking, but you're you're gonna turn a lot more people off with a dick-head line like "Obama's skin..."As far as DOTDOT's comment about most of the media being liberal, all I can say is that's it's a bit more complicated than that, and when it comes down to it, most journalists care more about their jobs than their political beliefs.
DOTDOT 14 years, 9 months ago
Ahh, I am but a simple man. I forgot that the accusation of a biased media is part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Terry Bush 14 years, 9 months ago
There are several ways to "win" any battle. One is by force. The bigger, or more powerful, can overpower the smaller or weaker. A second is by persuasion - being civil but logical and persistently making good points can win over lots of people. The first way is what a lot of protesters are trying to utilized, without sufficient power. The second is looked down upon as manipulative or lacking in passion. So the third method is a mix. Be logical and civil, but passionate and persistent. Get enough people persuaded you are correct and you can sway outcomes the way you want. Most people aren't persuaded to see things a new way by being beat over the head about it. It is more helpful to appeal to their self interest. E.g. many white people who decided MLK might have a point still did not want Blacks living next door - they just wanted to have peace and quiet (and some proabably felt badly about all the nice kids that were being locked up). I typically look for facts - trying to discern fact from fiction is very difficult these days, in part b/c everyone seems to have their own version of facts and do not want to see or say or hear anything that does not agree with their pre-accepted beliefs. We have become a nation where opinions are taken as fact, and facts are viewed as flexible enough to be stretched to fit a desired mold. Marching or protesting is a good way to make your point. If anyone cares what you do or think. . Absent anyone caring about your point of view, I recommend playing "the game" long enough and well enough to make your voices heard - and by that I do not mean keep on beating your head against a wall that does not care. I mean instead of yelling at "the man" - become "the man." That's what MLK and Ghandi did. They risked (and paid) their lives to help make heard voices that previously had no power. That price paid off and the voices were heard. They obtained power they did not orginally have by persuading a lot of people that their causes were just. Their peaceful civil disobedience method attracted millions and changed minds. But just going out with signs, anger and maybe a nice picnic lunch is not going to make anyone's mind change. Unless your anger has the power to change someone's mind, you are hurting your cause by showing it off in public!
Commenting has been disabled for this item.