Letters to the Editor

• Che

  [Read the article: Lewis Libby owes his freedom to our corrupt political elite]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I believe you believe your point of view, and I'm fine with it on an individual level, but when you try to expand it to generalize about public protest, I think you're going way too far. Yours is in my opinion a pernicious point of view that ensures the security of the status quo. Perhaps that's your objective. I don't know.

  Your reference to "angry mobs" indicates you are pretty darned clueless to what was going on in the sustained protests that led to the demise of so many repressive regimes not so very long ago.

  ***

  You also didn't like the organizing entities, the Dreaded Giant Puppets, the "lack of focus" in the events. Psst. Whom, exactly, do you think A.N.S.W.E.R. answers to? And what, dare I say it, do you think was their r e a l objective? Could it be they, like the apparent provocateurs in Seattle, had a job to do? Ya think? Ya think maybe they actually did their job? Just asking.

  OK, Che, I was willing to take you seriously until this. My point of view is rendered "clueless" because I used two words you found objectionable - then you insinuate that I might be one of these mysterious provocateurs you seem to see everywhere, including in the ANSWER coalition itself. Forgive me if I don't put a whole lot of energy into rebutting you anymore.

  It may shock you, but I am definitely in agreement with Lish, above. The bottom line for me, and my point from the start, is that protests and marches - particularly highly disruptive and theatrical ones - often do more harm than good to the movement animating the protest if a very key element is not present: a credible and organized threat to the establishment's economic, political, or physical well-being. This is the common feature of every successful grassroots movement, and if you have any doubts about its glaring absence from the current activism, just witness the Democratic Party's very telling lassitude.

  Instead, what I see repeatedly in blog comments these days is just random, frustrated calls to "take it to the streets" or whatever. Yeah, that'll show 'em. This may be satisfying on a personal level, but without some degree of organization and a credible threat of economic or political disruption, it is a waste of effort and may in fact backfire. It also might be satisfying to one's sense of purity to condemn attempts at persuasion or more subtle institutional change, and insist instead on nothing other than immediate "action."

  One of the most trying aspects of being an organizer for various causes, I found, was dealing with such self-righteous purity warriors. The ones who absolutely refused to understand any need for tactical focus or concrete organizational purpose, but instead joined the movement to satisfy a gaping emptiness of purpose in their hearts.

  I don't come here to score points with any self-styled, purer-than-thou scold, and I have an absolutely unshakable sense of my role in restoring a modicum of this country's dignity and honor. Or maybe I'm a covert, morale-deflating agent from Karl Rove's shadowy army - after all, I dared to criticize the self-satisfied potpourri that passes for activism these days.

  Happy Independence Day to you as well.

  Permalink Wednesday, July 4, 2007 05:02 PM

• ondelette

  [Read the article: Lewis Libby owes his freedom to our corrupt political elite]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Here's my final word before I go watch things go boom (dear NSA: I meant fireworks).

  Thanks for trying to resolve this little spat - you are absolutely right. Yes, symbolism in democracies matters, of course this is true. What I am saying is that I've seen a lot of reasonable people completely turned off by not only the fatuous theatrics that have come to dominate contemporary American protest, but particularly the awful bedfellows protest organizers often make with some rather questionable factions.

  I am also saying that America has become unique in several respects, most importantly media consolidation/corporate control and the overwhelming military and police power that our government holds over the citizenry. Now, quite unlike many examples from the past and abroad, for even a movement of hundreds of thousands to make an observable and lasting impact requires that movement to be able to demonstrate that it is willing to back its words up with very real economic or electoral consequences.

  Efforts need to be more local and focused on particular members of Congress, and need to be coupled with credible threats that the politician could be unseated if he or she does not respond. Simultaneously, legal and institutional elements need to work structural change on electoral obstacles to democratic influence. Also simultaneously, the media must be constantly challenged to honestly perform its constitutional role. It is simply not enough to "take to the streets" in some amorphous way. Also, armed revolution is simply not an option - we are too complacent a society, they have the bigger toys, and there are far more effective means that will not result in bloodshed.

  If people expect real results, they need to make real plans, or join someone else's real plans. That is all.

  Thanks again for your words, ondelette.

  Permalink Wednesday, July 4, 2007 05:58 PM