Do you think large protests work?

[debbierlus]

It seems that they don't.

A bunch of people march.

The main stream media ignores us. And, they grossly underestimate the numbers of people who show up.

I think marches are good networking tools to meet like-minded people. Get energized and inspired.

How many people do we reach with protests?

Perhaps, a different tact might yield more productive results.

I think people protesting their senators, congress people, corrupt corporate leaders...having people follow them in protest 24/7 and rotating the crew might yield more attention. I don't know.

Just a thought.

[liberal43110]

1. Not in the U.S.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newyawker99]

26. Hi OBNOSIS!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Warpy]

3. The large, peaceful protests get their attention

but in this country, only the violent ones seem to cause them to change some of their policies.

MLK had dozens of huge, peaceful protests. However, until the inner cities exploded into riots and looting, change was proceeding at a glacial rate. Those riots caused the timetable to be moved ahead conseiderably.

There were dozens of peaceful antiwar protests in the 60s and 70s. It can be argued that it took violence against ROTC and draft boards to get first the draft lottery followed by the abolition of the peacetime draft.

Part of the reason for this is the size of this country. 200,000 people marching in NYC protesting the RNC dog and pony show or 1,000,000 pissed off women marching in DC against theocratic interference in their medical decisions don't particularly affect people in Des Moines at all. However, if those turn into riots with blood in the street, people in Des Moines take notice because they never know when violence is going to spread their way.

Who knows? It's just always been this way in the US.

[harpo]

4. YES they do!!! Record them yourselves and put them out there...

people will eventually come and see them. The internet is the new news media and everyone needs to contribute a little. We record all the protests we attend and put them on the internet for folks to see. If the corp. don't put it on tv so be it...even their own news shows now talk about what's happening on the internet and have special segments for it. If they don't cover it...do it yourself and BE THE MEDIA!

[Keseys Ghost]

5. I get a lot of therapy by participating

We're going to the Southern Regional March in Atlanta Saturday and I can't wait.

Maybe I can't change my government; but, it won't change me.

ONWARD!

[0007]

16. Go Keseys Ghost go.......Maybe I'll see ya in NYC

[KittyWampus]

6. Only in that they give those who might otherwise feel alienated

a chance to feel empowered and to network.

IMO, local rallies are more effective all the way around.

[Tom Joad]

7. When they have a million people like they did in Los Angeles, you bet.

[sheelz]

8. It's a right I'd like to keep...

:patriot:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Worked at the Bastille.

[paul_fromatlanta]

10. For people power to translate to real power

One of three things must occur

1. They can be effectively violent
2. They can vote together
3. They use economic influence in a large scale concerted manner

Think about how many people go to baseball games or like a popular rock band but that does not translate to real power.

The religious right does both #2 and #3 and thus they have real power.

[darkmaestro019]

23. the Religious Reich can be pretty effectively violent, too. (nt)

[paul_fromatlanta]

24. I don't know... I'm not sure any of the violence has helped them strategi

I don't know... I'm not sure any of the violence has helped them strategically. The abortion clinic bombing and the physical intimidation and the rough way they handle demonstrators shows a really bad side and shows they are not acting like real Christians.

[debbierlus]

31. That is an excellent point

I am wondering how we can best translate our efforts to greatest effect.

[Tesha]

36. The RR does their share of #1 also, blowing up clinics, etc. (NT)

[dooner]

11. I think civil disobedience is more effective

combined with the support of large peaceful crowds with the same sentiment.. it's powerful.

Before the war started, there was a very large march in San Francisco, followed the next day by
peaceful citizens getting arrested blocking targeted businesses in the financial district.
It got a lot of regional media attention. I did not participate in the civil disobedience, but
I feel that by participating in the earlier march, I showed my support and helped make the
brave people who participated in civil disobedience feel that they were not alone.

It's tough to say marches don't work.. they don't seem to change things, but I think there is
great value in knowing that there are plenty of people (old, young, radical, conservative, religious)
who feel the same way about the political situation as me. That I'm not alone/crazy/isolated in my
feelings.

But it seems to me, that until we are ALL ready to get arrested in large numbers, there will be no big
turnaround.

[paul_fromatlanta]

13. Civil disobedience is most effective when

Civil disobedience is most effective when you are trying to reach someone's conscience. The British people knew deep down they were treating the Indian people wrong just the American people knew the were treating black people badly.

The problem with using it here is that Americans they are trying to reach really believe they are in the right in limiting illegal immigration and securing the borders. That is a very non-ideal situation for civil disobedience.

[Imagevision]

12. You know Los Angeles got Rove's attention...!

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Depends on what result you want...

Large protests, or even local rallies and vigils, rarely change anything by themselves.

What they do, however, is get noticed, giving the movement a certain amount of validity amongst the fencesitters. They also bring asense of unity among the marchers-- knowing you're not alone in your feelings.

I've never been to any sort of protest expecting the protest to change anything. Every one I've gone to, large or small, has been simply on more step on the way. Call protests just a PR stunt, if you will, but PR stunts have a purpose, too.

[noamnety]

17. well said

They can work by shifting a position that's been marginalized into the mainstream, and by empowering people to take a stand, which is often the first step in becoming an activist.

Having said that, there is also a value in working within the communities to effect real change - forming community ties and bonds while actually cleaning up a neighborhood or feeding people, or what have you. Churches are great at doing that - it's why the church leaders are often considered the community leaders as well. Other civic groups mimic those successes, sometimes on a smaller scale, sometimes large like Common Ground. If you give help to a person when they need it, there's a good chance they will be loyal to you. If you rebuild a community, they will remember it. If you prove with boots on the ground that you can do something better than BushCo, they're more likely to vote you into office.

[Strawman]

30. that's a good point

and one I didn't consider until you brought it up. It's possible that public awareness of mass protests can help break the kinds of spirals of silence and intimidation that the right constantly tries to use to create mass consent for their policies.

What I wonder about is how well does the spectacle of a mass protest get through to that person who might feel like he or she is alone (or massively outnumbered) in his or her private opposition to something like the war? Are the pictures and video images of alot of people in the streets enough embolden that person on his/her own, or are they trumped by the corporate mainstream media's framing of those protests as a collection of fringe leftists? It seems like that kind of framing always inserts a silent majority of "patriotic" Americans into any protest tableaux and undermines the image that protesters are trying to present to the public at large.

[Terran1212]

15. You can't legally protest 24/7, but...

I think at the protests we should plan some kind of direct action.

I understand the FBI and Homeland (my sister works at Homeland Security) would hound us a lot more with undercovers if we did that, but then we'd probably have to act like we're in a warzone to get something accomplished that way.

It'd have greater risks and payoffs.

[aquart]

18. Yes. They give people heart.

There are many who won't stand up alone. They have to see that they will be in a crowd.

And there are others who would stand up, anyway, who get renewed strength from seeing the numbers.

We need to see, sometimes, that we aren't imagining our support.

[bluerum]

19. A lot of docile sheep just trample the grass. 100,000 people blocking

an interstate might get some attention.

[NotGivingUp]

20. I have to agree with you 100%.

That would definitely be a more effective route to go...protesting senators, etc.

[seg4527]

21. it depends

It seems that nowadays we all gear up to go to DC for a day or two each year. We get there, we march for a few hours, then we go home.

I was there in DC last september, for my first national protest. I forget how many people were there, something like 500k. It was amazing. Marching through the streets it felt like we really could have made a difference, we really could have done something. Anything we wanted. We had the numbers, we had the energy, and we had the power. And then we all went home that night. A few people stayed till monday to sit down in front of the white house.

For 3 years we've been marching the marches, holding the same signs, and chanting the same chants. All while our leaders are busy fighting the same war.

Huge demos can work great, as long as we do something besides just go home after a few hours when we feel like we've protested enough.

[linazelle]

22. Following senators and corporate crooks instead of protests?

I think somebody'd be charged with stalking and sent off to Gitmo for a nice vacation.

As for the effectiveness of protests, they work IMHO.


They work if for no other reason than the fact that Bush knows he sees them wherever he goes. That has to wear on him--and it should.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tsiyu]

27. Put yourself in **'s place

Imagine 100,000 people lined up in your neighborhood to protest against you.

Even with the best fences, attack Dobermans and security staff, you'd be scared. You'd contemplate what that crowd might do if they came close. You are forced to face some truths about yourself you may not wish to confront, even if only to admit that you are making a lot of people very unhappy.

The Corporate Whores should be disregarded in this argument They won't cover protest, so stop looking to them for any proof of effectiveness. Don't be like that kid who keeps trying to win Daddy's and Mummy's approval. Daddy's a self-centered idiot who follows the money. He is never going to pay attention to you. Mummy's too busy attending parties and shmoozing with her friends to pay you any mind.

That's why I get annoyed when people say, "The media didn't cover the protest" or "The media lied about how many numbers we had." No shit!

Protests are effective on a psychological level for the protester, for those who witness the protest, and for those who are the focus of the protest. Don't doubt this for a second.

[debbierlus]

32. My concern is how to use our time, money, and emotional investment

Most effectively...

Bush is scared. But, he is hidden beyond a literal army of defense. Much of the time, I am sure that he doesn't even see the protests.

[Tsiyu]

38. I understand where you're coming from and it's a legitimate

question you ask.

Believe me, ** knows they are out there.

And in every city where there are mass protests, local politicians know the protests are going on as they must coordinate public safety issues.

[Strawman]

28. Read this

http://www.counterpunch.org/taibbi02012003.html

[Ufomammut]

29. Don't fall for the propaganda!

OF COURSE MASS PROTESTS CAN MAKE A HUGE IMPACT!!!

That's why they're strategically downplayed and dismissed, to the point where even many DINOs and "moderates" disavow them. Trust me, thousands or hopefully millions of concerned, informed angry people taking to the streets in mass protest is a sure-fire way of getting the attention of and applying pressure to the Estab. Why else does the MSM give it such scant coverage? They don't want all the fuckwits in "TV Land" becoming aware that "something's the matter." our country will not be "reclaimed" at the ballot box, or here online, and people need to wake up to that fact.

[Iris]

34. Many people believe these kinds of protests helped get us out of Vietnam.

And, even if the press ignores them, there is something to be said for the individual being in a large crowd of like-minded people.

Probably protests are best when they are well-organized and have speakers and stick to one point.

[Dawgs]

33. Hell Yes!!

It's all part of the anti-Bush, pro-peace, anti-war, pro-Katrina victims, pro-Immigration campaign. If we do nothing then no one knows we are pissed. One protest/comment/article here or there might not make a difference, but all together they do work.

Does anyone really think that Bush would be so unpopular if Democrats and liberals weren't screaming (or showing) their outrage at every chance?

[pitohui]

35. no they don't work any more

they suck up the energy of millions, as happened in the protest leading up to the war on iraq, with apparently zero result

protests seem to have some limited effect on domestic policies in europe

they have little effect on domestic or internat'l policy in usa, which is one reason that does make me wonder if indeed our voting is rigged, since you wonder why otherwise politicos would care so little for what large groups of people think

you say--I think people protesting their senators, congress people, corrupt corporate leaders...having people follow them in protest 24/7 and rotating the crew might yield more attention. I don't know.



sort of like, let a million michael moores bloom, i suppose, it can't hurt, and digital video tech is cheap these days, so maybe all you need is the free time and access

hmm, could be good, you'd need to edit brutally, because of difficulties in getting access to the powerful, you might have thousands of hours of video for the one hour that's a gem, how dedicated are you? i like the idea but not sure how practical it will be without a mass involvement in such a film making project -- and we also have a problem of anti stalker laws being employed -- in the last 2 decades, anti-stalker laws have been increasingly used not just to protect or often not at all to protect private citizens but instead to protect celebrities

[Ufomammut]

37. I know what you're getting at, however...

I can't help thinking that sending the "protests = lame" message as resonating pitch-perfect within the whole, shifted-to-the-right American mentality that loves to be dismissive of the mass protests of the late 60s/early 70s. Nothing can replace the urgency of scores of bodies in motion against a corrupt power structure - and if such proven efforts are to be poo-poo'd, then why has the conservative estab gone to such lengths over the past three decades to ensure nothing like what happened within the counter culture ever occurs again?