More proof as to why behavior is vitally important during protests

I have been getting slammed because I have complaints about the way our liberal protests become too unfocused and how a few of us vandalize, burn U.S. flags, tease police, etc. The point to protesting is to change minds and make people think, and we aren't going to succeed if we continue down the low road. I know many of you have had wonderful experiences lately with their protests and I congratulate you.

DISCLAIMER: I HAVE BEEN TO PROTESTS MYSELF, SO DON'T POST SAYING I JUST SIT AT HOME ALL DAY.

I just want to provide an instance where a protest can backfire. Luckily, this time, it backfired on the religious right. I just want to let this news snippet just be another bit of proof as to why it is important for us to stay on the high road.



Florida Democratic State Sen. Larcenia Bullard, seen here in debate over the Schiavo bill, considered backing it but voted "no," slamming the tactics of demonstrators who yelled insults at lawmakers. (Photo: AP)


Source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/politics/main682619_popup0_2.shtml

If we want to be more effective than our opposition, we need to learn this skill better than they do.

I never saw what the point was in vandalizing property, starting fights with the cops and generally raising hell at a protest. I know that such things are of the minority but perceptions are many times more real to people at large then realities. So when people do these things they end up making the group as a whole look like nothing more than a bunch of thugs or hooligans and thereby damaging the cause.

A few examples, Jesus, Dr. Martin Luther King. Yea they cared about humanity more than their own lives. But no one ever advanced their agendas more than these two did in their lives. Violence just begats more violence. Shouldn't even be considered an option. Peace.:)

That's the biggest problem with your theory.

I guess it depends on who's doing the misbehaving

As I said in your other thread, there are two major anti-war organizers, the UFPJ who are sort of liberal, and ANSWER/IAC/WWP/Bring the Troops Home Now Coaltion who are very far-left. The UFPJ protests have never had those tactics, and even the ANSWER protests almost never have those tactics, although the ANSWER protests are not exercises in trying to convince the general public but just far left preaching to the choir ("support the iraqi resistance/free mumia/support the cuban five etc.")

One thing I recognize is that the ANSWER authoritarian far left has its own agenda which is different than that of the UFPJ folks. ANSWER will have its rallies no matter what, they are so far out of the mainstream that they are marching to the beat of their own drummer. And they'll say and do whatever they want, your reasoning will not work with them.

The UFPJ protests are different - they are ones DU people probably like better or might be involved in. The only problem with these is while 100% of ANSWER people are committed to doing work, that is the case with only a fraction of the UFPJ marches. Thus UFPJ marches last year were focused on electing Kerry to some degree - now that he's lost they're not that interested in doing much, letting ANSWER take over as the anti-war leaders. UFPJ is much more open to Democrat (and even DLC) calls to call off protests. They're much more easily moved by news reports of "democracy breaking out in the Middle East". I know a bit about Iraq and Lebanon, and the idea democracy is breaking out in either of them is ludicrous in my mind, especially considering Bush closed down the Iraq trade union headquarters and has continued some of Saddam's anti-union policies. I'm less familiar with Egypt so I don't know what's going on there although I'm a bit skeptical.

Anyhow, what I'm basically saying is as mainstream people withdraw from working against bringing the troops home, they leave leadership open to the wingnut organizations. So fingers can be pointed in both directions. I myself seek the best in both groups, the commitment and backbone of the wingnuts, and the potential mass popularity of the UFPJ, liberal groups.