Do we need to take it to the streets? Really?

Once in awhile I run into someone I admire who disagrees with my position that we need to start street protests. They have some excellent arguments, not sure I agree with all of them but still, food for thought.

Those of us who lived through the 60s remember the "spectacle" of the protests. Some were beautiful but some other protests were street theater that didn't play well in "middle" America. I thought for years that it didn't matter because we protesters ended the war in Vietnam. Now I realize it was not the marches that did it. And the worst part was that while we were "taking it to the streets" our "opposition" (the GOP) was taking it to the ballot box; getting people elected, organizing GOTV efforts, building a formidable political machine which has long out lasted our marches. Part of their success was that they were able to play on the fear of some that the protesters were an ugly mob and anarchy would result.

I agree that some of the marches served dual purposes which made them more valuable. The civil rights marches helped us be unafraid, for instance.

But whenever I hear someone cry for protest marches I wonder how much of it is nostalgia for something that can never be again (Janis is dead). There are probably better ways or at the very least, that can't be the only way. (also, you're not gonna have 'em without a draft...imho.)

but this march in DC is only one of many, they are planning many for tomorrow throughout the states, one thing I wish that our state legislators would put forward an impeachment resolution.

That certainly is the trend. Which leaves us with nothing but hope, which isn't much.

If we think blogs will save the day, we're in a lot of trouble.

Who wrote a brilliant book: One Dimensional Man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man which pretty much laid out this problem in quite a bit of detail.

Artificial? How is this artificial?

Via the net/blogs, people learned about Libby/Plame aLOT earlier than the "real" world (MSM) -- and spread the word.

Via the net/blogs, the dems took over Congress

Via the net/blogs, election integrity is being pursued relentlessly, even though it's all but absent in the MSM.

Via the net/blogs, actual information about the Iraq war (and events leading up to it) were made available to us.

How the hell is that artificial?

INFORMATION IS POWER

Isolated atomized individuals linked in artificial cyber-communities are a poor substitute for real communities.

and you need to be physically present to engage in the particular sport.

For intellectual/knowledge-based pursuits, I find it not only acceptable, but superior, because I can tap into the precise demographic that suits my purpose, which is highly unlikely in my physical environment.

It still is not a substitute for the real world. Cyberspace is a parallel and interconnected social reality. We still haven't fully figured out the dynamics between the two realms. However, the simple point here is that blogging most certainly does not replace public political demonstrations.

It's artificial because I have no idea who you are.

The Democrats taking control of Congress is hardly realistic. Each member "represents" hundreds of thousands or millions of people at the same time.

"Via the net/blogs, actual information about the Iraq war (and events leading up to it) were made available to us."

Where are the troops at this time? Even though we have the information, we have no power to do much with it, since we live in a top down reality, a large scale reality, a specialized reality(plus we're all still paying taxes that fund the war because nobody wants a centralized authority to put them in jail).

I'm not saying don't use the net/blogs to do whatever you need to do. Just that in the big picture, expect to be ignored by those with actual power. Nobody here is an actual threat to the system. Try not paying those taxes that fund the war machine. Try surviving after you quit your job to protest. You want things to change, we need to pay a price for it. Nothing comes for free. We don't get to have the cake, eat it, throw it up, repackage it, and sell it at 12 times the value.

...and those agendas are often so off-the-wall (as far as middle America is concerned) that the effectiveness of the protest is diluted or negated. That's really why I got tired of going to them; they aren't internally policed in any way to keep such fringe elements from co-opting the event.

The horror! The shame!

Every time a big protest march gets going we have your complaint. Yes sure the Free Mumia crowd will be there, the Peta folks will be demanding that we stop eating sentient creatures, the dreaded ANSWER folks will be carrying on, as will thousands of street theater individuals and groups from code pink to billionaires for bush, the puppet people will be there, it will be a huge anarchic celebration! The shame the horror the internally un-policed mob of people will be out in the streets expressing the full cacophony of dissidence.


"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution" - Emma Goldman, anarchist, feminist, mentor to us all.

If all you want to do is have a big fucking party, then have it. But if you want to have a serious and effective anti-war protest, it only makes sense to stick to the issue at hand. Bush is goddamned serious, and we need to be as well.

People don't like to think that they're going to have to get into bed with what they may see as the lunatic fringe just because they're against the Iraq War. The anti-war movement needs friends, it doesn't need to alienate people. That's just common sense, seems to me.

But do tell me exactly how you would have UFPJ police the message. Should they have sign monitors? What should they do with us dissidents who wont stay on message? Have us arrested? Exactly which messages are allowed? Who decides?

If 500,000 people show up, that is the message. You aren't going I suppose, and that in your own isolated way is your message.

and put aside their more personal causes for a day. But they care more about their primary agendas than they do about stopping the War, so they selfishly piggyback on the anti-war movement because it provides them with a venue. Barnacles on the hull of a ship slow it down, so too do these groups slow down the anti-war movement. At least that's how I see it.

Well good for you. At least you won't be adding to the horror of independent thought out in the streets. One less off message individual to wreck things.

Free Mumia, yes--Hell, yes! But never PETA.

This is such a lame and predictable complaint. Instant rational for apathy. Besides, I don't eat sentient creatures much.

wouldn't be misunderstood

La dee da dee da.

n/t

that not doing it is more painfull than doing it. That's how I feel.

took every cent we had and explained to the wife it was something I had to do. I had to feel I at least stood up and was counted and if necessary joined my friends in an NSA database somewhere. Hanging together or seperately and all that stuff.

We're not taking it to the streets because we're taking to the Internet-- a much bigger street, HMO. The revolution is happening online and it's beautiful.

Lisby

:hippie:

When I worked in TV news, the KEY question you asked yourself every day, every hour, while working on EVERY story: "What do we SEE?"

Probably because much of America processes information visually, that's really, really important to keep in mind. They need to SEE stuff. More of our citizens are "dumbed down" by spending too much time watching TV and not reading. Reading quickie "McPapers" like "USA Today" that discourages extensive reading and long think pieces. Books? Ummm...

Then, there's the audible side. Ever hear a local radio newscast? Quick soundbites, quick, encapsulated, Cliffs Notes-type reports? Stories "covered" in one or two sentences? When I worked at AP Radio, the standard output from any reporter was a wrap (40 seconds, voice with a soundbite insert) and/or a voicer (35 seconds - voice only, no soundbites), and some audio cuts (strictly soundbites - 20 seconds or so MAXIMUM, shorter being preferred). As time went on, the policy adjusted such that reporters were encouraged to do 20-second capsules, "mini reports" I guess you'd call 'em, that turned THEM into a soundbite. As you shorten stuff, you leave details out. And that's where the devil is. So you don't get the full picture. You don't get the details. You don't get the nuance or the fine-tuning or the color or perspective. That's all for the longer think-pieces or produced specials and stuff that nobody has time for anymore (OR room for on the radio).

And for TV, the only longform information programming has to be somewhat titillating. WHY does MSNBC, for example, run this HUGE "doc block" - LAVISHING literal HOURS of prime time EVERY night of the week on all this lurid inside-prison shit? 'Cause it's lurid, visual, titillating, and people will watch that. America doesn't like to spend time reading or thinking, but it sure loves a quick drive by of a trainwreck.

And it hasn't REALLY changed all that much, either, at least in the last fairly many years. I mean, in 1989, while covering entertainment for AP Radio, my daily reports on the Zsa Zsa Gabor cop-slapping trial trumped nearly EVERYTHING ELSE that was happening in the news, around the world. Around the WORLD. We snickered and grimaced about that, but even the hardest hard-ass hard news guys at the supervisor's desk in Washington begrudgingly conceded this. Every time I'd call in from the courthouse with some ridiculous statement or turn of events in the Zsa Zsa trial, I remember this one guy on the desk in DC who'd always do the "oh for Pete's sakes, HER again" but he'd send me straight over to a tape room to file stuff, so they could get it on the air immediately. Pretty much no matter what else was happening. He once told me that the Zsa Zsa trial was what more of our member stations consistently called in about, asking for more information or refeeds of earlier reports or soundbites. They hungered for it. NOBODY at the desk in DC got any respite from this. We ALL agreed it was ridiculous. Even a little embarrassing. But that's what they wanted out there for the folks at home. So that's what we were expected to deliver. Today's version? Britney Spears and friends and the jerks-du-jour on "American Idol."

At any rate, the activity on the internet isn't really something you can see or listen to, other than somebody taking a shot over somebody else's shoulder at their computer screen to see some blog they have on there. Not good visuals. HUGE CROWDS OF PROTESTORS OR MARCHERS - that's good visuals. That makes an impression and has an impact. That makes the next day's watercooler talk. Seeing is believing.

So, LONGwinded way of saying - YES. We probably DO need to take it to the streets. Well-behaved as we do. But it's something that has to meet the good VISUALS requirement. And action, rather than static shots and no movement.

And that's the way it is...

the Iraq war.

Is it possible that as a nation, we are just too soft? We intellectualize our position in front of a computer screen, but seldom take it to the street.

Having been a veteran of the streets in the late 60's early 70's I can attest to the fact that no amount of phone calling or letter writing captured the attention of the nation and politicos like the demonstrations did........with the exception of Kent State.

(I am excluding DU'ers), someone told me once, Our bellies are too full, too many luxuries and toys we have, once those toys and luxuries are taken away, we will do something.

How many more need to die?

How old are the posters to this thread?

I will soon be 63.

I marched in February of 2003 while cars at intersetions honked and flipped the bird.

that getting out of vietnam was preferable to dealing with domestic unrest.

"Now I realize it was not the marches that did it." well what exactly was it then? Why did they end the draft? Huh? And having ended the draft, there was no real choice left but to get out of Vietnam.

Not only was it the marches, it was the demonstrations, the disruption of everyday life, the entire atmosphere of subversion and outright rebellion. Not only was it the marches, it was the fighting in the streets. Yeah we didn't win over archie bunker, big fucking deal. Yes sure Nixon beat McGovern, but an openly liberal leftist democratic socialist peace candidate ran on the top of the Democratic Party ticket - and that scared the living shit out of The Kleptocracy that had worked so hard to put all that populist New Deal democratic socialism stuff carefully back into the box that FDR and Truman had let it out of.

We GOTV in 2006, but half of our 'opposition party' is ready and willing to go along with another two years of war and corruption. You suggest we wait patiently for these idiots to do the right thing? When have they ever done that on their own?

Nostalgia for the 60s? The history of progressive movements around the planet for the last 200 years or so has always included direct action as an essential ingredient in changing the way things are. Were the people of the Ukraine 'nostalgic for the 60s' when they took down that government by refusing to go home just a few years ago? The coup against Chavez in 2002 failed because the people of Venezuela took to the streets of Caracas and made it perfectly clear that the oligarchy could capture Chavez, but they could no longer rule. Were they too just nostalgic for the 60's?

We people have two little interrelated bits of sovereign power: we have our vote, and these days for many reasons, that is a dubious quantity, and we have our feet. It is only our willingness to use our feet that gives our vote any power at all. Unless we are willing to rebel 'they' will continue to ignore our vote.

either!

That's a bit of a narrow perspective.

streets to get the vote.

Your perspective is narrow......expand your vision and it will be amazing what you will discover.

The union movement with Walter Ruether took to the streets.

Many others did as well.

since time immemorial. It is hardly just a phenomena of the 1960's.

That was my point.

am sad that the concept of citizen soldiers taking to their feet has to be sold.

Elie Wiesel said, "There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.”

many more along with you.

BushCo has gone great lengths to muzzle protests and make people afraid to protest. He's
done this because this administration knows how effective protests are. They spotlight
America's anger. They validate feelings. They provide an epicenter from which bigger
movements grow and people gather to make change.

Do we really wonder why the police have changed so much during BushCo--and why they arrive
in intimidating riot gear? It's suppression. It's to discourage the powerful force of
protests. If we're afraid---we're inside our homes, we don't talk to our neighbors about
our anger as much. We allow Fascism to grow.

Visible protests show the world that many, many people are upset and angry with this
administration. Protests encourage people to speak their mind and they validate peoples'
feelings. This sparks further anti-war sentiment and larger protests---and this snowball
effect is what created major change on the Vietnam war. The government didn't stop
the war. The people did. And they did it with protests.

We must protest. Blogs are highly important--but they can never an organized mass of
people who demonstrate their opinions. Blogs must be used to get peoples' butts
into the street. The Vietnam protesters had no Internet, and look what they did. We
must harness the same energy of the 1960's and get this entire nation to rise up
against this administration and show them that we will no longer tolerate their sick
policies.

But they are not a replacement for public protest. How silly that some think that they are.

news coverage of soldiers' funerals, caskets being brought back to Dover AFB, the wounded in the war, or ANY of the rest of it? Why has it been only more recently that people have been allowed to see and hear about the daily death toll, coverage of helicopter crashes in Iraq that kill 20-plus of our troops, violence in Baghdad and elsewhere, explosions, roadside bombs, fires and disruption and chaos and wreckage in the streets? And only lately, with that, has come the bleeting and the whining from various quarters that we don't get to see any of the "good" news from Iraq. And it's no accident that, with the more extensive coverage of the "bad" news from Iraq, opposition goes up.

During Vietnam, the daily woes from the combat zones were on full display as you ate your dinner every night. No escape. That's the lesson the bush people took away from that era: curtail the coverage of what really happens during war, so people won't see it, and out of sight - out of mind. Seeing is believing, and if they don't see it, they're much more apt to take your word for it if you say we are winning in Iraq and things are just going swimmingly. If they don't see it, there's no evidence to rebut or challenge those assertions, and no evidence to prove that the truth is completely different. You control the message and the communication, and you're more than halfway home to Happyland. Where ignorance is bliss. And war is peace. And never is heard a discouraging word.

THANK GOD we've finally begun to break through that Embargo from Hell!!!

And the blogs can help. That's because they're so prevalent that they really can't be ignored anymore. You can't pretend they don't exist because so many people anymore know about them or visit them or participate in them. But there's very little to SEE. SEEING is believing. We're a visually-oriented nation, for the most part. THAT is the condition that MUST be met and must NEVER be overlooked if you're gonna get a message out.

Anybody remember the anecdote that CBS's Leslie Stahl has told about that effect in all its glory? As I recall, it was a report she had done for - I think - the CBS Evening News, during the Reagan era. She said it was some negative report about the latest unemployment stats or the whole "and the rich get richer/poor get poorer" thing or some such thing she'd covered that day. Her voice track and her stand-up was all about that. But the B-roll - the footage you see on camera WITH that critical voice-over accounting was anything BUT critical. All they used were multiple shots of Reagan doing his nice, ol', friendly, benign, avuncular old uncle schtick. You saw him waving and smiling from the top step going into Air Force One. You saw him smiling and waving on the stump somewhere, or from behind some podium somewhere, or maybe giving a speech from some presidential-looking presidential setting, and so forth. Mind you, her report while you saw these shots glide by was all about the latest shitty repercussions of Reagan's economic policies and how more and more people were getting screwed and the numbers weren't adding up well for anybody's benefit who really needed it. So after the broadcast, Stahl said, she got this phone call from I believe David Gergen, a White House media expert and communications advisor who was one of Reagan's men back then. David Gergen was in a good mood. She said this was astounding to her. He'd called her specifically to compliment her - "hey, that was a really nice report you ran about the president. Really good! Thanks!" And he was being sincere. She was astonished by this, and questioned him - "but didn't you hear the report? Didn't you hear what it was about? There wasn't any good news in there for Reagan, and the report was all about that." Didn't mean squat to David Gergen. What she SAID didn't matter. She could have reported that Reagan was fucking dogs and barbecuing small children in his spare time. Gergen and company wouldn't have cared. What they DID care about were all those nice, benign, positive visuals of Reagan that accompanied the adverse report. And Gergen said so. IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHAT WAS SAID. IT'S WHAT WAS SHOWN. IT'S WHAT YOU SAW IN THE REPORT, NOT WHAT YOU HEARD. And all you saw was pleasant, utterly harmless, and therefore, positive stuff. So THAT was what made the impression. The nice pictures blunted all the not-so-pleasant verbiage.

Just something to keep in mind.

You've got it exactly right, Calimary (love your DU name!). This administration learned the
lessons of Vietnam. It's like they sat down in a room and formulated an Iraq-war strategy that
would perpetuate the war--long enough for them to quell protest and move forward with their
next phase (Iran).

You're so right about Vietnam being on television and the unrest this created. People knew the
truth about Vietnam--because they were shown the awful pictures and they witnessed the carnage--
through their televisions. Now, we have "embedded reporters" who are controlled by our government, and
don't report the raw truth.

You're also right about the caskets. What a joke that this administration got away with that! However,
the result was that the reality of war was hidden from Americans.

And the protesters----as we've said--this administration has done so many things to quell dissent and to
stave off protesters. The media downplays big protests. The police and government attempt to intimidate
people from protesting, and what about these "Free Speech Zones".

In my opinion, if we can get the protests larger--that will have a snowball effect--and it will change
everything about this war.

I totally agree, POWER IN NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It works.

Most are comfortable with their lives and if the war hasn't touched them directly, they just don't care. Some people care but are just too over burdened trying to earn a living, pay their bills and raise their children. Some are just too poor to take time off or spend any money on travel to a protest. Some people are too poor and have health problems and cannot travel, march distances or be exposed to outdoor conditions without food and rest areas.

I feel that protests are very necessary to change the direction of this country. I don't know how to get everyone involved that aren't interested. And I don't know how to overcome the problems of having no funds or the health to get to a protest.

That is the world we seem to want though. We're not changing it, so, it does seem as though we want it.

However, there is a price to pay for everything. It seems this is the price to be paid to live in a large scale, specialized society.

The blogs have power to influence the media- if something's being discussed all over the blogosphere, the knowledge becomes commonplace, and the media has to report on it to stay with the game. And if they refuse to, then the word spreads from person to person.

But that will never replace the power of people in the streets. A lot of people here seem to think it will but they're wrong. And we don't have the same numbers this time because there isn't a draft. The masses trying to save their own asses aren't going to help us this time around. But we still have all the people who truly care, and there are still enough of us to make a difference.

One of the things that's changed is that the civil disobedience has become way, way, way too civil. Ten thousand people getting a city permit and marching down the street one Saturday afternoon doesn't have the same effect as a dozen people with signs blocking off a gate or a road or having a sit-in. We've lost our sense of rebellion.

Maybe something like this: Ten go and stand in front of one of the gates to the White House. If they get arrested, one makes a call from their cell phone to where ten more are waiting. Half an hour or so after those ten get arrested, ten more show up. And so on. If there are a thousand people willing to go to a march, maybe there would be a hundred willing to really get in the way. That makes ten groups of ten. Is that still feasible in this day and age, or is it just nostalgia talking?

The blogosphere is NOT the new revolution. Nothing is anything without sunlight.

... and take to the streets by the millions in non-violent civil disobedience, provoking the use of deadly force by this fascist regime, then it'll get worse and worse. Why? Because it proves that most people just don't care enough - while others are losing life and limb in service to us, We The People.

The "Buck" does NOT stop at the desk of a president; it's stops in the lap of the People of a democracy. Use it or lose it!

There are not enough people personally affected by the effects of this Iraq occupation . It was part of the design by only sending in a realtively small amount of troops and doing this attack on the cheap . Even though this should never have been done at all however it was because of the fear factor and the lies about this attack .

We see no coffins coming back , we see rerun safe footage of Iraq and as all know the media evades the issues and are biased .

Also as always no one really sees the wounded troops in their daily life , the ones walking about with replacement arms and legs , same thing with all the wars we have created .

The personal impact on the majority of the population is only a narrow view of the true realities of these horrors and losses .

Yes we have protest marches that are not covered in prime time pre-emp new spots as would be the case of the OJ trial .

Even with Katrina the reality was avoided at the time it happened and still this remains the case .

Now here we are many consumed with the 2008 elections , move right on ahead at a rapid pace , everything goes right down the memory hole . on to the next thing .

I had the hope that this DC protest would be a protest of anger and outrage , no longer a peacful setting , however the anger is not at the boiling point .

If people show up with the normal signs and banners then this will be a replay of a form of passive futility . I hope this is not the case but so far this has been the case so how can one reach any other conclusion ?

Vietnam spurred anger. People were outraged.

I truly think that many people are so traumatized by the Bush administration, that
they are stunned into immobilization. This administration is frightening. Clearly,
they are torturers, and they intimidate people every chance they get. People see the
heavy-handed police tactics, they hear this administration position protesters as "traitors"
or even sympathetic with the terrorists.

I think people are afraid of this perverse administration, and they are frightened about
what might happen to them if they protest.

Protesting in the 1960's was socially accepted. Protesters were thought of as youthful,
socially aware and conscientious. Right-wing radio has continually positioned protesters
(and anyone who disagrees with this administration) as unpatriotic.

People are afraid. They haven't even gotten to anger yet.

That's why--I think--that protests are so critical right now. Protests show people
that it's ok to feel angry and upset by this administration. Protests validate
feelings in others--and this may lead people to overcome their fears, join future
protests and affect change.

I think this entire nation has PTSD. Protesters help people to bust out of their
own fear and isolation.

I also agree protests relieve much of the fear with numbers holding together creating a sense of safety and a common goal .

I feel there would be many more out in DC protesting if they could get there or afford to go there .

In the 60's the youth were the primary numbers of protestors so getting there and staying there was not such a concern as it is now .

The media also did cover this then and the draft certainly had a huge affect on the youth , this is a major element missing today , the personal threat of ending up fighting on the battle ground . Not saying I am for a draft , I am just stating the difference .

there's no doubt about that. Agreed.

I want to protest now before there is a draft even instituted.

These monsters must be stopped. And we have to make our presence known to this regime and those sitting on Capitol Hill.

It's not blogs vs. streets. That is artificial. Fact is, we need BOTH virtual and actual. Look how the blogosphere supported Cindy Sheehan down in Crawford. It was a synergistic effort. The battle is fought on many fronts. There are those whose contribution will be more on the net and those whose anti-war efforts will be in protests, and some will have the time and energy to do both. All of it is important.

Street protests are inspiring and strenghtening. It takes someone with guts and determination to physically BE in the same space as our Rethug government hijackers, who believe they control us. When I saw (on C-span) those 10,000 protestors in the streets at Inauguration 2004 it was galvanizing. My efforts have been in other directions, but I was spurred on by that sight of so many people in the freezing cold, booing loud enough for the distant cameras to pick up quite well, waving their hand-made signs. NEVER think that this does not have an effect.

On the other hand, the relentless efforts of those who stick primarily to the internet have brought results too. This has given us access to information, multiple voices and a continuity we would never have otherwise, esp if it were left to the MSM, which has thwarted the voices of dissent against this war in countless ways. It has also helped us keep our sanity in these terrible times. It is connection. A critical form of connection, not to be underestimated.

No right or wrong way. Synergy. To those actually going to DC tomorrow, you have the support of millions. Many of us will be following it on the nets.

:patriot: :grouphug: :patriot: :grouphug: :patriot: :patriot: :grouphug: :patriot: :grouphug: :patriot::patriot::patriot: