Get Mad. Act Out. Re-Elect George bush

[welshTerrier2]

The editorial referenced below argues that violent protests in NYC will help elect bush ... i agree ...

There are many good things that can result from involving people deeply enough in protests that they are willing to risk their safety ... when people are "touched to their core", they often deepen their commitments and their efforts to the cause they're fighting for ... so, real "activism of the streets" can provide a strong push to those wanting to build a revolution ... it creates a sort of "band of brothers" in the protest movement ...

But such protests do not come without a very high price tag ... in both Chicago 1968 and in NYC this year, the short-term electoral implications of violent protest were, and will be, devastating ... to those with a very long-term view of the political process, these protests can make at least a little sense ... but the price is much too high this year ... many of us "far lefties" have jumped on the Kerry bandwagon in spite of deep differences with Kerry over his position on Iraq ... I hated Kerry's IWR vote but I'm behind him 110% ... why? because bush has got to go ...

Kerry is a critically important step on the road to progress ... I voted for Kucinich in the primary; I don't believe Kucinich would be competitive against bush ... Kerry's the man we need right now ... it's pragmatism pure and simple ... i appreciate the idealism of those who want to overthrow the evil empire and I appreciate the idealism of the Greens as well ... but this is not the time to reach too far ... if we set an unattainable goal, we will lose everything ... the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step; one small step for mankind ...

check out this excellent article from the Village Voice on the subject of violent protest ...

Title: Get Mad. Act Out. Re-Elect George bush
source: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0825-15.htm

<snip>

Then, as now: hovering, ruthless Republican presidential campaign operatives ready to seize on any advantage to win, who suspect that arrant attempts to frame the election as a choice between George W. Bush and "chaos in the streets" will be enough, for some small margin of voters, to inch themselves to victory.

<snip>

Compare the plans of this year's A31 coalition, which promises, on Tuesday, August 31, to "converge on Madison Square Garden"—to "risk the streets," which is where "real democracy begins. . . . If we are asked to move, we will sit down and refuse." In 1968, provoked by defiance on the weekend, afforded an excuse on a weekday, cops moved out in phalanxes and started clubbing at random. Demonstrators chanted, "The whole world is watching." The reason they chanted it: They thought they had won a public relations victory.

<snip>

History never truly repeats itself. Prognostication is inherently unreliable. But what history can provide is a set of guidelines to wisdom—guidelines many protesters refuse even to consider. Not all protesters. But enough protesters. All it takes is a few people to begin a chain reaction that could lead to disaster.

Like many, Lew Koch suspects the spark might come from someone working for the Republicans.

<snip>

To ask this is not to reject protest; it is just an invitation to strategize—to think about politics. Hedemann deflects it. "We need to do what we think is right to do, and not so much worry about, ah, 'Well, what if this? What if that?' I think we need to do what our conscience tells us is important to do, as long as it doesn't harm other people."

[Goldom]

1. There's nothing you can do that they won't spin against you.

You protest? They say it looks bad for your side. You don't protest? "Great, see, look how no one is against us."

[welshTerrier2]

3. different methods of protest

the intent of my post was not to suggest that no one should protest the horrors of the bush administration ...

my post, and the editorial i cited, tried to highlight the importance of considering "the spin" ...

it's certainly true that everything we do will be spun against us ... if fear of all spin guided our actions, Kerry should stop campaigning completely ...

but there are those actions we take that, when spun, are given credibility by those yet to decide and there are those actions that, when spun, reflect badly on the spinners ...

the intent of my post was to ask protesters to consider these differences ... violent protest and senseless property damage are not very hard to spin ... peaceful protests, intelligent signage, eloquent speeches and press conferences and even a folk singer or two all give us a chance to get our message out ... yes, everything will be spun but this does not excuse conduct that hurts us more than helps us ...

[Renew Deal]

2. This is a good read.

I saw it here yesterday. It makes some good points. The problem is, how do you make progress without action? I got the feeling that even protesting was bad. I am not advocating violence. The contrasts made in the article are important.

[welshTerrier2]

4. i think there should be protests

but, as pointed out in the article, the goal is winning an election ... at least that's my goal ...

rove would like nothing better than to tie Kerry to the violent "Jane Fonda" protests of the Vietnam era ... demonstrators must not be so idealistic in their "we're going to overthrow this government" that they ignore the political pragmatisms of protest (sorry, perhaps a little too much alliteration) ...

[Renew Deal]

7. I agree with you

and I share your goal. I do not seek to overthrow the gov't, but that is the picture that will be seen.

[Quahog]

5. The nature of the protests will make or break us

If we can have protests like we had before the Iraq invasion, with a broad spectrum of American citizens marching peacefully and carrying issues-oriented signs, then if the numbers of protesters are high enough this could all work to our advantage.

Of course the media will focus on the guy with the green mohawk carrying a bush* mannequin hung in effigy. They'll focus on any gays who show up in drag or kiss for the nice cameraman. They'll focus on the environmentalist who shows up dressed as a baby harp seal. They will make absolutely every effort to make any protests look like some collection of freaks, to frighten the crap out of the middle-American soccer moms. This might work, might not.

But the second that windows are broken or cars are overturned or fires are set, it's all over for us. If the protests turn violent and the news is filled with images of rioting liberals/Marxists/hippies/gays/anarchists/whatever surrounded by plumes of tear gas, we are truly screwed. We will lose the hearts and minds of the undecideds, and we also run the risk of demotivating some of our own base.

The rethugs know this, and if they see an opportunity to start violence, they will take it. Have no doubt about that.

[demnan]

6. I think the climate in the country is different

than it was in 1968. 1968 was like this country will be with another four years of Bush. The anger isn't as intense now. Yes there are people who are angry but mostly it's a constructive anger. In 1968 people were so disheartened with the assassinations of Martin L. King and Bobby Kennedy, Vietnam and racism that the country sort of collectively went nuts for a while. There were riots in the streets, kids having racial battles in school, etc. People who voted for Nixon were the same people who moved to the suburbs when their white kids were attacked by angry black kids in school. I know. I was there. Those were my parents. The racial tensions in this country were so high at this time no one was thinking straight.

We've made progress on the racial front over the years. Things aren't perfect but more black people have good jobs, the kids are going to school together in the suburbs, there is some understanding between black and white.

I don't think New York is going to be like Chicago, at least I hope not.