I was reading this simple article in the Bangor Daily News just now, and I was thinking about the futility of protest. Engaging in acts of civil disobedience or waving signs won't change any politician's mind, and history has shown that it ends up repelling the people that protesters most need to attract to their cause. Maybe a few TV reporters show up, or a picture and an article about a protest makes the daily newspaper somewhere well below the fold. But that's it.
It's easy to forget what a huge impact anti-Vietnam protests had in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s, at least according to what I read and what people who lived through that period tell me. Lots of people realized that their viewpoints were not being represented in the political system, and they only way they could get themselves heard was by taking their message out into the streets. They succeeded in creating an impression that the war was unpopular, and they forced mainstream culture and the mass media to confront the fact there was mobilized opposition to the war.
And yet, if you read the political literature that surveys the period, more people were concerned about the cultural impact of the protestors (drugs, nontraditional lifestyles, feminism, homosexuality, lawlessness) than were worried about the way the war was going. "Law and Order," which invoked images of both urban riots and the counter-culture, was a recurring, high-profile issue in presidential campaigns as late as 1988 or 1992. And, if you judge attitudes on both Vietnam and Iraq according to polls, the Iraq war is far more unpopular than the Vietnam War ever was. Most polls never found opposition to the Vietnam conflict any higher than 40 to 45 percent, which we eclipsed long ago with regard to Iraq.
So, in thinking about this woman's crusade in Bangor, I'm torn. On one hand, I read her claim that she has a "moral responsibility" to occupy the [Olympia Snowe's] office in protest because "each of us Mainers are complicit to what is going on in Iraq" with an admiring eye. She's correct that, if she believes that the Iraq policy is a state act and it is being carried out in each of our names, she has a responsibility to do what she can to stop it. Yet her actions may inspire hostility to her cause rather than sympathy with it.
I remember the Iraq war protests in New York back in 2003: I was repeatedly urged by friends and acquaintances to join them, but I didn't get involved. I figured I'd get billy-clubbed, arrested, or worst of all, the whole thing would be a waste of time. Besides, I considered myself too much of a sensible moderate to engage in such acts, so I just quietly told people why I thought it was a bad idea to invade Iraq and left it at that.
Well, one thing is clear to me: both parties, the mass media, the punditry, and most "sensible moderates" like myself turned out to be wrong about this war. Our voices should have been louder. The protesters that were peaceful but forceful were right. And I haven't read too many people saying that in "sensible" circles.
At the very least, one would think that the far left civil disobedience-types would have a bit more credibility with reporters and most national opinion leaders than they had before 2003. But I would be very surprised if that's the case. Protesters will continue to be people like Nancy Hill, doing what they do, maybe helping their cause, but probably hurting it.
It's easy to forget what a huge impact anti-Vietnam protests had in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s, at least according to what I read and what people who lived through that period tell me. Lots of people realized that their viewpoints were not being represented in the political system, and they only way they could get themselves heard was by taking their message out into the streets. They succeeded in creating an impression that the war was unpopular, and they forced mainstream culture and the mass media to confront the fact there was mobilized opposition to the war.
And yet, if you read the political literature that surveys the period, more people were concerned about the cultural impact of the protestors (drugs, nontraditional lifestyles, feminism, homosexuality, lawlessness) than were worried about the way the war was going. "Law and Order," which invoked images of both urban riots and the counter-culture, was a recurring, high-profile issue in presidential campaigns as late as 1988 or 1992. And, if you judge attitudes on both Vietnam and Iraq according to polls, the Iraq war is far more unpopular than the Vietnam War ever was. Most polls never found opposition to the Vietnam conflict any higher than 40 to 45 percent, which we eclipsed long ago with regard to Iraq.
So, in thinking about this woman's crusade in Bangor, I'm torn. On one hand, I read her claim that she has a "moral responsibility" to occupy the [Olympia Snowe's] office in protest because "each of us Mainers are complicit to what is going on in Iraq" with an admiring eye. She's correct that, if she believes that the Iraq policy is a state act and it is being carried out in each of our names, she has a responsibility to do what she can to stop it. Yet her actions may inspire hostility to her cause rather than sympathy with it.
I remember the Iraq war protests in New York back in 2003: I was repeatedly urged by friends and acquaintances to join them, but I didn't get involved. I figured I'd get billy-clubbed, arrested, or worst of all, the whole thing would be a waste of time. Besides, I considered myself too much of a sensible moderate to engage in such acts, so I just quietly told people why I thought it was a bad idea to invade Iraq and left it at that.
Well, one thing is clear to me: both parties, the mass media, the punditry, and most "sensible moderates" like myself turned out to be wrong about this war. Our voices should have been louder. The protesters that were peaceful but forceful were right. And I haven't read too many people saying that in "sensible" circles.
At the very least, one would think that the far left civil disobedience-types would have a bit more credibility with reporters and most national opinion leaders than they had before 2003. But I would be very surprised if that's the case. Protesters will continue to be people like Nancy Hill, doing what they do, maybe helping their cause, but probably hurting it.
