I‘ve got this thing about demonstrators: They turn me off, big-time. Pro, anti, protester or counter-protester, street theater just leaves me cold.
It doesn’t matter whether I agree with them (pro-lifers waving bloody pictures) or disagree (Code Pink waving their bloody hands), they generally appall me. Interrupting people is interrupting people. Shock is shock. There’s nothing redeeming about it.
Peaceful, dignified marchers, showing respectful solidarity in a cause, are one thing. But screamers indulging the urge to Act Out are another altogether.
Perhaps the moment that tore it for me and protesters forever occurred in 1982, when my newspaper was sponsoring a U.S. Senate campaign debate. I drew the duty of explaining to the pro-life demonstrators — led by a woman who was a friend of mine and was in the folk choir with me at church — why they could only come in if they promised not to disrupt. The woman, my friend, was screaming in my face, transported by her mission. And you know what? I don’t remember abortion being much of an issue in that race. Certainly, nothing she was doing helped further discussion on the topic.
Angry appeals to emotion militate against rational political decisions. They get in the way; they erect new barriers to communication where there were already too many to begin with.
Over-the-top misbehavers like, say, Code Pink only create sympathy for the objects of their wrath. I always wonder, what is the point for them, besides satisfying some primal urge to attract attention? Whatever they think they’re doing, I’ll tell you what they’re accomplishing: Zero. Zip. Nada.
At least one of my children disagrees with me about this, by the way: She says that because I have the outlets I do, I can’t possibly understand the frustrations of those who can’t, for instance, bring the people they disagree with in for a sit-down chat. I get the point. But I’m pretty sure that even if I weren’t the editorial page editor of the state’s largest newspaper, people who prefer shouting to reasoning would still turn me off. And I strongly suspect that they turn off more people than they inspire.
Related Posts
Peaceful demonstrations to get your point across without offending and using bad manners, has it’s place; however, it never really works for the benefit of the demonstrator. They get their picture taken and get news attention just like mass murderers want the publicity. It is all about see me.
Peacefully carrying a sign without opening your mouth will accomplish the same thing in a dignified manner but really it gets you nowhere in the long run. If you want change, you have to work through the system.
Yeah, if only those guys back in 1773 had sat down for tea with the British instead of throwing it into the harbor…
Just kidding. I get your point and agree with you. Make your case with facts, not by making a spectacle of yourself. For example, there’s a special place in Hell for the cretins from Westboro Baptist Church who show up at military funerals to say a soldier died because of God’s desire to punish America for homosexuality.
But it also starts at the top of both tickets. Either Obama or McCain could make a decision to stop showing any ads that mention their opponent. But they won’t. These are our leaders. We are expected not to vote FOR someone but instead to vote AGAINST the other guy.
McCain could have called out Karl Rove in 2000 but he didn’t. Now his campaign is doing all the same stuff.
And let’s not forget that you CANNOT in any way display any type of dissent when President Bush is making an appearance. You can’t hold a sign, wear a t-shirt with an anti-Bush slogan… nothing.
The number of cases where the Secret Service has removed peaceful protesters is numerous.
There’s always some trumped up charge that gets conveniently dropped later on. They create “free speech” zones miles away from Bush so he doesn’t have to face anyone but supporters.
Here’s one that happened at the Columbia Airport:
“…Brett Bursey, of South Carolina, attended a speech given by the president [George W. Bush] at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport. He was standing among thousands of other citizens. Bursey held up a sign stating: ‘No more war for oil.’ …Bursey did not pose a threat to the president, nor was he located in an area restricted to official personnel. Bursey wasn’t blocking a corridor the Secret Service needed to keep clear for security reasons. He was standing among citizens who were enthusiastically greeting Bush. Bursey, however, was the only one holding an anti-Bush sign….He was ordered to put down his sign or move to a designated protest site more than half a mile away, outside the sight and hearing of the president. Bursey refused. He was then arrested and charged with trespassing by the South Carolina police….However, those charges were dropped. Understandably, courts across the nation have upheld the right to protest on public property….Instead, Bursey was indicted by the federal government for violation of a federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the president. Bursey faces up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine.”
I will be SO glad when the Bush era is over…
Hu Jintao could not have expressed it any better.
“could not have expressed it better” than I did, or the Code Pink people? Isn’t there anything in the Little Red Book about agitprop?
Glad we agree, Doug. And as it happens, 1773 fits with my view. I’ve always held Samuel Adams and the Sons in low esteem. I prefer his cousin John — a man who would stake his life on revolution when it came to that, but believed in civilized discourse. Samuel’s clowns provoked those redcoats into shooting that day in Boston; John risked his reputation on defending the soldiers in court (and won), because he believed in the rule of law, and deliberative processes.
I agree with Doug.
Protesters at military funerals should GTH!
Regarding Brett Bursey, though I wasn’t there, but I am sure that there were others also holding up signs, most likely “Yea Bush!” or some other complementary message. However, wherever Bush visits, there are two zones; the zone within the view of the President is reserved for those that agree with him, the protest zone is out of sight of the President and the crowd that agrees with him.
That is absolutely, totally wrong!
Yelling, taunting, harassing is wrong! Not applauding or standing with everybody else is correct; that happens all the time at State of the Union speeches. Republicans and Democrats do that and the TV crews pan to the crowd and the reporters point that out.
Is that a pink SLIP in the second photo? Good Grief that’s an ugly slip.
Marcus Aurelius
I’m an extremely liberal, pro-choice, feminist… and I completely agree with you here. These women make us all look crazy. I wish they would have some damned respect both for the Republicans and for the rest of us who share their views but have some sense.
Brad, I’m with your kid on this one.
Both political parties are guilty of trying to control image to the point that free speech has suffered, if not, as Doug pointed out, been utterly squelched in this modern era of American neo-fascism.
The disruption at the GOP convention (and all such events) could be considered blowback, yes?
Agree it’s an ugly slip.
Also think the crone in the slip is pretty hideous.
I think for the most part that these code pink hags are Cruella DeVille types ~ Old. Time has passed them by and they have a burning need to be “relevant” before they take the final dirt nap. They’re either that or they’re liberal idiots who have found a “cause,” no matter that it is shameless and disruptive.
I can imagine the old ones sitting around swilling vodka martinis and dragging on long tipped filterless cigarettes, and the young ones tirelessly “organizing” and plotting with glee.
Idiots.
Faust
Mr. Warthen: Since you are constantly repeating “rule of law”, howsabout tell us your take on John McSame and Little Miss Sarah stonewalling a rule of law investigation in Alaska.
I’ll wait up.
My wife and I recently attended the National Memorial Day concert in Washington. Three ladies from Code Pink were seated behind us on the Capitol lawn, holding a sign that denounced Colin Powell (who always appears at the concert) as a war criminal. When they played “The Wild Blue Yonder” and all the Air Force veterans stand up, I stood up, hoping I would block their view of the stage, but (alas) they had already moved on.
Brad, I have to strongly disagree with you on this issue. It was the protestors who finally brought enough attention to bear on the Vietnam war that finally brought that fiasco to an end. And what about Martin Luther King and his fellow civil rights protestors? They drew attention to some of America’s greatest injustices. Then there was the Women’s sufferage movement. There were, of course, those protests that were wrong such as the prohibitionists, but overall mass protests have been a good thing for a free country.
Protesting is a very important part of American culture and I’m all for it, even when I don’t agree with the protestors. Everybody can’t be the editoral board czar.
bud, you forget that Mr. Warthen is a tory. He would have supported the Crown during our Revolution. I’m certain he found MLK disruptive and undignified.
Ditto for Ducky Cakora. They can mouth over-the-fray platitudes all day but they are partisan tories at heart. Any challenge to the powers that be upset them.
Most of the Vietnam War protesters only became such after LBJ ended deferments for graduate school.
The movement was financed and controlled by the KGB.
Weren’t the suffragettes and the prohibitionists as often as not the same marchers?
Guero mistakes US conservatives as adherents to one strain of European conservatism. Many British and other European conservatives are monarchists. A stellar example, the recently departed Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, longed for the return of the czar, czarina, and all the czardines, believing that to be at the core of Mother Russia.
Conservatives here in Vespucciland are pretty durned pleased with and proud of our constitutional republic and simply wish that the original text of the Constitution be followed and that our cultural strengths be honored. We hold that ours is a great nation with a great tradition: welcome to America, make of it what you can, we’re rooting for ya as long as you obey our laws.
It’s clear that the lad conceals his identity for the quite good reason of protecting the source of such ignorance.
Ah, an Originalist Tory.
“…the original text of the Constituion…” includes passages institutionalizing slavery. “Cultural strenths” is Republican code for you better be like us white people or we’ll come down on you.
I’m not mistaken, you and Mr. Warthen and the pillars of your Republican Party would have been Tories during our Revolution.
I also note your studious avoidance of MLK. You’re the type of Republican to quote an isolated passage from one of his speeches but your record is one of ALWAYS opposing MLK while alive, and opposing any memorialization of him after being murdered until it became politically necessary to mouth lip service to what a great man he was and the movement he represented.
Quack, quack.
Guero – your powers of projection are amazing! How you got MLK in there was quite a trick.
Au contraire (note the spelling, you seem to have trouble with it), today’s conservatives are freedom-loving folks like our founders. Progressives / liberals are big fans of a central authority and would have so enjoyed the George who was on the throne in those days.
Anyone notice Duckie Cakora refuses to answer any post about MLK? The legal presumption would be adverse to Duckie.
Duckie backs off the cultural strengths verbiage too. He realized it revealed too much and sounded too much like Pat Buchanan. It sounds better in the original language of the Confederacy.
If it talks like a duck, poops like a duck, it is a Republican pretender who talks down to black people.
Quack, quack.
Leftist nuts!
Guero –
I’m not responding to your irrelevant and rather taunts until you tell us all if you’ve stopped beating your boyfriend.
With that, alas, our dialog is at end.
Run, Forrest, Run…
Thanks Duckie for revealing the hollow core of your beliefs. At least you do seem to have the decency of not lying about them to a great degree, choosing to remain silent.
We do have a better understanding of your bias and your self-evaluation of your place in the food chain.
You’re an angry while male at the core who is upset at minorities becoming a majority in America and I know what really hacks you off is they’ve done it legally. “Cultural heritage” indeed.
You have always voted Republican and will continue to do so. You have always donated solely to Republicans and will continue to do so. You also seem to be ashamed of the title as you deny your core essence.
I know it must be difficult psychologically to believe in a philosophy that was OH for the Twentieth Century, a complete ZERO.
Your precious conservatism began the last century by opposing child labor laws, food packaging laws, and any other restrictions on your darling plutocrats running the country.
You soon afterwards opposed women’s suffrage and then opposed worker’s compensation, unemployment compensation, and overtime laws. If the truth be known, you continue to oppose these laws.
Hitting your stride, conservatives opposed equal rights for black people. Conservatives also became upset at women daring to assert themselves.
Internationally, conservatives backed and financed (Prescott Bush anyone?) the rise of German nationalism. Conservatives also undermined the war effort (Chicago Tribune revealing war secrets; Mellon and Rockefeller too) in an attempt to strike back at Roosevelt.
Conservatives then really began to assert themselves by opposing black people’s right to enter public accomodations and the right to vote AND backing the Boers efforts to deny Nelson Mandela’s freedom and cause. Anti-colonialism was for commies who were hiding under every bed. BOO! Spaceman…
Conservatives closed out the century by demanding corporations not be forced to obey anti-polluction laws. They opposed any efforts to hold corporate rogues and criminal responsible for their actions in the civil courts.
John McSame and I’ll wager you too Duckie Cakora opposed the MLK holiday and actively opposed every position he took until the raw racism of it became to obvious.
All in all, Duckie, it was a pretty sorry century for conservatives. And, Duckie, it defines you.