I'm not a fan of the big protests. I've always been a huge critic of them, even among all my hardcore leftist friends organizing protests. My number one complaint with the progressive community has always been their ability to spend hours and weeks and months of planning and labor and exertion working devotedly on something counter-productive. Because most protests are counter-productive. And I say this as someone who has worked both sides of the fence. Organizations I've worked for have been protested against, and I've protested organizations before. So I'm familiar both with the sense of satisfaction at seeing the solidarity of all these folk who agree with you, and the sense of pity you feel looking out your window at a group who has wasted all this time and resources on a silly protest that does nothing but make your lunch break slightly more interesting.
But I'm getting off my ass and going to DC anyway, and you should too, because if I recognize an event as "worth putting up with something arranged by ANSWER", then it is worth your attention.
Read on....
Full Disclosure: I live in Arlington, so it's not like I have to sacrifice too much to make it to DC. Just my pride and my Saturday.
The biggest gripe I have with the protests that invade my city every six months or so, or sometimes more often if there's an impending invasion or conference of world leaders, is that the best-run and most well-publicized ones are inevitably going to be organized by A.N.S.W.E.R, which, frankly, undermines any chance the protest might have had at political legitimacy. A Democrat who agrees with you who has the right connections and the ability to make a difference is not going to be seen coordinating with communists. Period. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. I don't care if ANSWER is good at organizing this shit and has a large network. They're communists. Moreover, their "network" is unfocused on any particular issue and over-eager on every issue. Meaning, it doesn't really count if your large and grand base is the same one showing up to protest every cause. Protest junkies who will protest anything if you give them a bus and a puppet affect no one's opinion because they'll protest anything if it's takin' it to the Man. They (the 200,000 large protest base) also are commonly perceived to be both anarchists and/or communists. This would be unfair, as some only voted for Nader in 2000 and feel really really bad about it and others are just plain old progressives, except that they constantly align themselves with ANSWER, which is, you guessed it, a bunch of communists and anarchists. I wonder how this leaves a bad impression.....
But back to the protest anything concept. This might be fall-out from the WTO protests, except that it's more than that. Take one of the pre-war protests in 2003 that I went to. It wasn't just the ridiculously chanting of "No-Blood-for-Oil" (an oversimplification of the issue that completely undermines the legitimate reasons against war in Iraq), it was that people couldn't help also chanting "Pro-Choice!" "No Globalization!" "Free Palestine!" (The Free Palestine one is particularly problematic, in my view). Now, I'm not saying that I stand against any of those issues, but that's not what you were there to protest, dipshits. I find it objectionable both to hijack a protest with your own pet cause despite the fact that I bet a bunch of people at said protest don't actually agree with you, and because you can't blame the media for rolling their eyes. After all, if you can't even present a clear message as to why you're there, or explain your opposition to the war in terms that don't say "babies are being killed" or "No Blood for Oil" (see below) then you're hurting more than helping. So when the report comes out that the people there were also anti-Israeli and anti-government conspiracy theorists, that's why.
Why you shouldn't say "Babies are Being Killed": This is a pretty simple thing to figure out. If it would sound crazy wing-nut from the mouth of a pro-lifer, it will sound crazy wing-nut coming from you. I don't care if it's true. I don't care if you're a pacifist. There are ways to justify your actions that don't sound extremist and, frankly, unavailable for discussion. If rather, you presented the argument in terms of civilian life in relation to benefit to the nation, then there's a discussion to be had there. Subtle difference. All in the language.
No Blood for Oil: Oh goddammit, I'm going to have to listen to this one again and again... No Blood for Oil is, in my opinion, the quickest way to turn a politician/ reporter from "listening" to "oh, one of those people". Yet a reporter will print it, because it will probably fit into their pre-conceived notion of why protests are dumb. You know why? Because it invalidates all the strategic blundering, poor planning, and false intelligence, puts on a tinfoil hat, and ignores the fact that we are dependent on oil. Okay, just pretend for a second that the justification for the war, even if it involved oil, was not solely based on it. For a second, consider that the administration thought it was really fucked up that we were dependent on a region with a fucked up government. (A view the Clintons shared, by the way.) And that the fact that they felt this does not change the fact that they were completely incompetant and rushed into an ill-thought out war, and lied about pre-war intelligence and ignored warnings that they didn't have the means to finish the job. Pretty please? For me? Because that second bit is a much more effective thing to say than No-Blood-for-Oil, which despite sounding good in chant form, turns people who might otherwise help you off.
So these are why I can't fucking stand protests. That and the fact that if people spent as much time getting progressives elected as they spent dumpster-diving in order to make puppets and organizing buses to DC, we might actually have a living wage in a lot of local communities and look better in the state governments. Goddammit. I hate those puppets with every fiber of my being. You really expect people to take you seriously when you walk around waving a giant puppet that "symbolizes the selling out of America to the giant corporate machine?" Christ.
But I'm going on Saturday anyway. Because I know a show when I see a show, and this is a can't miss event, much like the March for Women's Lives, although it will lack the same heavy-hitter speakers list (see above on ANSWER). Dissatisfaction with Iraq has been an undercurrent of the entire summer, and I highly suspect that if my roomie's Dad, an oil executive, by the by, is psyched about going, then it is going to be something special. It is going to be something that is not just all the former hippies and college students who protest whatever there is to protest, but a wide swath of Americans. And given the media's current frustration with Bush and Republicans in Congress, and the events surrounding Katrina, I wouldn't be surprised if it received both prominent and favorable coverage.
So I'm going, despite the fact that attending protests is as self-congratulatory and "preaching to the choir" as reading an Al Franken or Michael Moore book. It is an exercise in political pornography, feeding your base instincts. Sure, it's gratifying to know that there are people who agree with you from all walks of life, but remember that those who disagree with you aren't showing up. It is preaching to the choir. I'm just looking forward to seeing how large said choir has grown.
I'm going on Saturday because there hasn't been one of these since 2003, and a hella lot has changed since 2003. I'm going because the timing is ripe, it's long-overdue, and because Cindy Sheehan maybe just did start something special.
I'm going because Katrina has given us a chance to refocus on Domestic priorities, and as such we should renew our call to stop focusing on misguided international priorities.
I'm going because I think the war in Iraq is a much worse idea than a protest.
So I'll see you on Saturday, despite my own scorn.