Interesting statement about protesters.

[nothumb]

A Republican strategist or delegate, I forget which, said something to this effect in an article published by one of the reputable online news sites (I was reading at work so I forget - MSNBC or CNN or somebody). This is paraphrased but essentially correct:

"If the protesters get out of line, it benefits the Republicans. If they don't get out of line, the media ignores them. It's like the question, 'If a tree falls in the forest, does anyone hear?'"

And yes, he did butcher the philosophical question, not me.

Discuss. Has nonviolent protest been marginalized? Conservative estimates number protesters around the quarter million mark for the entire convention.

NT

[vulturesrow]

NT,

Interesting question. My first thought is that yes it has been. I think their are several reasons why this is so. One is the medias' penchant for sensationalism. If the protestors dont do anything "interesting", then showing a 3-4 minutes news piece on it doenst do much for your news program. SEcondly, and related, is that protesting in and of itself really isnt that newsworthy any more because on the whole, it is much more common in today's society.

Interesting question, and I never for a moment thought you had butchered that philosophical question /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Chris

[El Barto]

I have always wondered why should a tiny fraction of a percentage of the people in this country be granted such importance.

There are 300 million people in the USA. The fringe does not define us. About 100 million people will vote this year, that will define the consensus of this country, as it should.

[IrishHand]

I agree with you that nonviolent protest has been marginalized and for the reasons you noted. It's sad, really. Much of our nation's progress can be traced nonviolent protest in all its forms (rallies, strikes, etc).

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
Much of our nation's progress can be traced nonviolent protest in all its forms (rallies, strikes, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it was the violent strikes that eventually won real progress, and the later non-violent strikes that always had the unstated "threat of violence" if the corporations didn't yield.

Are you aware of how many strikers were killed by Pinkertons and militia between the Civil War and WWII?

[IrishHand]

So you define a violent protest as one in which strikers are killed? How short-sighted. In that Civil War-WWII period you cite, the government's solution to most effective strikes was to resort to force to break the strike. The list of government-sponsored atrocities in this regard is long and shameful. However, I would hardly refer to the vast majority of those as "violent" protests. The Rodney King riots were a violent protest. Tianamen Square was a nonviolent protest. Both resulted in large-scale damage to persons and property. See the difference?

[nothumb]

Hi Bart,

I think you are misunderestimating the importance of protest or its meaning.

Many protesters are traveling from far away and are supported by networks or groups back home - unions send members who get off work, churches send communicants who are able to travel, activist networks send those they can afford to - and it's safe to assume that those people who traveled from far off represent more than just themselves.

Furthermore, I don't see how these people can fairly be labeled a 'fringe.' There are certainly a fair number of anarchists, far-left activists and the like in NYC this weekend - but there are also a lot of mainstream-left churches, labor unions, and service groups that sent people out. They may not be people you would brush shoulders with or agree with, but there were plenty of very average Americans protesting the GOP this week.

As others have pointed out, a lot of signigicant progress has been made via protest in the past. Do you think the Supreme Court and Congress should have ignored the 'fringe' that demonstrated against segregation and in favor of treating black people like human beings? When you get a quarter of a million people or more to get together in one city to say anything, it's a big deal, period. You don't have to agree with them, but that's a pretty large gathering for any purpose.

NT

[El Barto]

There is no question that protesting shows that you have a more than passing interest in the issue at hand. But should we value one person's opinion more highly because he will go to a protest, over another who disagrees with the protester but stays home?


btw, it is important to protest about the right things:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v62/brianguy/Twinkies.jpg

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are misunderestimating the importance of protest or its meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me that was intentional.