Three Massive Days of Nothing

Is there a place in 2005 America for marching as a constructive and effective form of protest?

We're fast approaching the "new" March on Washington, a three day anti-war march and rally in DC next weekend, which includes a "Peace and Justice Festival," "Operation Ceasefire Concert," and "Training for Mass Nonviolent Civil Disobedience." The event is primarily organized by two anti-war groups, United for Peace & Justice and A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now To Stop War and End Racism), though many other organizations are involved. On the UPJ website, the event is billed as "Three Massive Days of Action."

While the March is intended primarily to send the message that the U.S. needs to get out of Iraq, in classic progressive fashion, there appears to be no real effort to "stay on" said message, or to even stick with one message. Thus while the overriding "demand" of the demonstration is to withdraw immediately from Iraq, A.N.S.W.E.R. lists a series of other "demands" as well, including: "Stop the threats against Iran," "U.S. out of the Phillipines," and "bring all troops home now."

Rigggght. Why don't they just add "Invite Kanye West to the White House" and "Make Tom Coburn Perform an Abortion" for good measure?

Let's deal with this event first, and then with some broader thoughts on "marches":

This whole Peaceapalooza seems like a pretty cynical affair to me. My hunch is that the organizers believe, at least subconsciously, that they have no power to create any kind of change or persuade anybody who doesn't already agree with them, so instead of staging an event whose major goal is to shift public opinion, they're mostly just venting and showing off their "anti-authoritarian" muscle. (Quotes because usually people who pride themselves on being anti-authoritarian are about as authoritarian as they come. "We don't like those in power and you must do exactly as we say to get them out!").

There is a sizable portion of America right now that feels we should either withdraw from Iraq or at least set a goal for withdrawl. Mobilizing those people is a worthy and necessary goal. If that was the sole purpose of the event--to get the American troops in Iraq home safely and now--it seems the organizers might have the potential for support from a large cross-section of Americans. Instead, these additional "demands" alienate anyone who doesn't agree with all of them.

It's not that those who want "all troops home now" shouldn't express their beliefs. And A.N.S.W.E.R. is right to make connections between the U.S. government's adventure in Iraq and other misguided foreign policies. But there are sizable numbers of Americans who aren't normally politically active who very much dislike this war. The goal should be to bring those people into the dialogue. America is, after all, kind of a democracy. Strength really does come in numbers.

Of course, as with many events like this, part of the purpose is for progressive groups to show just how progressive they really are. But just as real veterans, like Chuck Hagel and John McCain, don't need to run around in a flight suit to show how "tough" they are, real "radicals," those with truly revolutionary ideas about re-making society, don't need to wear their radicalism on their sleeves.

So is there ever a reason to stage a "march" in America today? I doubt it. Much of what was effective about the protests, sit-ins, etc. of the civil rights movement was that the people who were being oppressed were also the people doing the marching, sitting at the lunch counters, speaking at the rallies. Cindy Sheehan's August protest in Crawford resonated with people for that reason. As Maureen Dowd wrote at the time: "the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." This woman was directly affected by Bush's crazy policies. And yes, her voice carries more weight than yours.

Look, if you're not allowed to sit at a lunch counter because you're black, and then you do it, it's a bold, political act. There is risk involved. If you are allowed to protest your government and then you do it, well, so what? Bottom line: these organizers aren't taking any real risks. If they get rowdy, maybe some tear gas, maybe some arrests. Their eyes will recover and they'll get bailed out.

A first step would be thinking about some proposed solutions to the problems critics assert will form if we leave Iraq in the immediate future. A real risk would be engaging with people who don't agree with everything you have to say, building coalitions with people who don't look like you, and don't always think like you.

But, let's face it, being loud and irrelevant and never having to create good ideas, only destroy bad ones, is so much more fun.

*

Speaking of marches, the UPJ/A.N.S.W.E.R. event comes on the heels of another superb creation, the America Supports You Freedom Walk, a pro-troop (who is anti-troop?) event in DC last weekend, staged on September 11. For a play-by-play, I turn you to Mr. Pike and Co.