Organized protest: Civil obedience
Ever seen those fundamentalist evangelical christian fanatics
gathered at gay parades and abortion clinics?
They gather up a good group of like minded people, they have signs, slogans,
chants.
Has seeing them ever made you think maybe gays really are going to hell, or
that abortion really is worse than murder? Even a little bit? Even for a
moment?
My guess is no. You look at them, and think they are idiots, you are disturbed
that they feel something so disgusting with enough conviction to even be there.
You wonder why they care so much about issues which don't even directly affect
them.
And yet, so many of us feel that, when it is ourselves holding the signs,
saying the chants, that we are somehow influencing people, changing peoples
minds, raising awareness perhaps.
Anyone who is still unaware, doesn't care. Anyone who is on the other side,
just thinks poorly of the protesters, they aren't going to have a change of
heart based on a chant or a slogan. Perhaps a long, in depth dialog, showing
facts they may have been unaware of, demonstrating the logical fallacies of
their assumptions, on so on, but not a chant.
Those people who do things like "honk" a horn in support, they were
already on our side to begin with.
Then there is the idea that it will somehow influence politicians.
An elected official either gets your vote, or they don't. If you approve of
them 51%, they have no reason to care if that increases to 99%, because you
will already vote for them. That increase would cause a corresponding drop in
some other demographics' vote. Like wise, if you like them 49%, they just as
well may alienate you all the way, as they have already lost you.
(Hence "non-binding resolutions", get just enough support, without
any political backlash)
Unless you have a city wide general strike, chances are any protest, however
large, is actually composed of a fairly small subset of the population.
Outside of actual voting, why should they be concerned with the will of the
citizens? Because they get there power from the fact that we choose to give it
to them. They make the laws, but if the entire society, or a significant
portion of it, doesn't follow one of them, it becomes meaningless. It is extremely
unlikely at this particular point in time in this country, but the possibility
of a coop always exists.
So the question becomes, how strongly do the citizens object to the actions of
their leaders? What are they willing to risk, or sacrifice?
In the case of a protest, basically nothing. The individuals involved have very
little risk from being there. It costs only a few hours of time, and having to
stand or walk.
And, it seems most protests, anything short of the majority of a population,
has little or no real effect.
Compare to those actions which have had the intended effect.
Ghandi taught not only to be peaceful, but also civil DISobedience. The
negotiations began only after he led hundreds of people to publicly break one
of the laws they objected to (that being a law against making your own salt
direct from the sea, instead of buying it)
The protests against segregation included Rosa Parks' riding in the white
section of a bus, and dozens of people sitting at white only lunch counters.
People were protesting Vietnam
for years, but much of the country supported it - the protests became a good
deal more meaningful, more relevant to the government, when people began
publicly burning their draft cards.
There are only so many people who can be arrested. If enough people start
breaking the law - risking jail, police beatings, a permanent record - the
government gets closer and closer to losing control.
That power is by our consent; breaking the laws they impose is a withdrawal of
that consent. So that scares them.
The writers of the constitution built support from citizens by building in
freedoms and safe guards. But like any leader, they wanted to remain in power,
and ensure that mostly elites held that power in the future. So, saying bad
things about the government is legal, but words which might encourage (even
implicitly) revolution or law braking have been outlawed by congress and upheld
by the supreme court throughout American history, especially during war time (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionSedition
). There may be a reason why they don't mind peaceful, law abiding protests.
Even the military, which is largely exempt from the constitution and the bill
of rights, (no right to jury trial, for example), allows civil protests.
-
Not that it does any harm either. But we are deluding ourselves if we tell
ourselves that we are really accomplishing something significant. If we really
feel strong, we need to start breaking some laws. Interrupting the smooth
running of business in America.
Rile the people and scare the government. If we are not quite ready for that, I
at least, choose to use my free time doing something fun.
When MoveOn is circulating methods of guerrilla warfare, someone let me know; of
course, they can't really do that, because they would get shut down in an hour
if they did. I'm not really blaming them. I just wonder where the spirit I hear
about from 50 years ago went to.
