The efficacy of the modern liberal protest
Today I saw what had to be one of the most pathetic protests in years on the corner of 11th Street South and Nicollet Avenue. Really wish I'd snapped a photo of this crew. There were about twelve people there toting signs saying, "President Bush, meet with Cindy!" Naturally there were a couple printed "Bring the troops home" placards as well. Not a real lively crew, but instead a typical Minnesota Nice protest.
OK, here's my problem with these folks. You want to protest the war? Then protest the damn war. I have no problem with that. But for the love of God, could you do it in a way that doesn't discredit you and your entire cause? Three suggestions:
1. Protest something worthwhile. These people couldn't give two shits about Cindy. Honestly, what's the purpose behind her meeting with Bush? To bring more attention to the greater cause of ending the war. BAM. There's your issue. Don't hold protests over miniscule side issues, especially when the majority of the public isn't even familiar with that issue. I guarantee you that 70% of the people that drove by that protest had no idea who the hell Cindy is. That aside, if you do make the error of picking something like this to get your panties in a bunch about, then at least brush up on the subject before hand. Cindy's a fraud, folks. She met with Bush a year ago and came away from the meeting glowing. A few quotes from after the meeting:
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis...I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together."
Bush had sent her an invitation to meet with him because she went and told the press that she thought that the form letter she got from the President after her son's death was impersonal. Now, a year later, she claims that he acted improperly, didn't know who he was there to honor, wouldn't look at pictures of her son, etc. Convenient.
It's so frustrating watching the antiwar movement in this country attach themselves to causes and individuals who lack credibility: the Dan Rather story, Cindy Sheehan, the list goes on. They might as well stand spread eagle in front of the Right with a target over their collective crotch just waiting to get kicked in the nuts.
2. Get your damn ducks in a row. If only 12 people are going to show up for your little peace pow wow, then cancel it. It just shows how meager your support really is. And please ditch the rainbow-colored flag with "PEACE" spelled incorrectly, wouldja? Because I know you're just going to head home after the protest to share some punch and joke about how stupid the President is for waving at Stevie Wonder. While I enjoy a good chuckle, that's just more irony than I can take.
3. Choose your tactics wisely. I know you're under a lot of pressure from that guy in your group who wants to run around campus naked, run down Hennepin Avenue naked, make a giant peace sign naked...hell, do something naked. Try and resist. To my knowledge, nudity has never stopped a war and the chances for this one aren't looking good. Nonetheless, you always find your cache of hardcore liberals willing to strip off their drawers in the dead of winter on a mountainside in Montana to register their disapproval with the powers that be. Here's the thing: the powers that be don't care. But they are amused by your hapless idiocy...I know I am. Try not to catch pneumonia or freeze your wang off, K pal?
And while we're at it, dressing up in a rat costume and screaming into a megaphone in front of CBS headquarters because some contestants on "Survivor" were eating rat meat isn't likely to encourage me to give vegetarianism a whirl.
For crying out loud, is it any wonder the Left can't gain any traction in this country? If you want to drop a few candidates into office then try doing what the Republicans do: organize. I know it sounds strange and probably contradicts all of your various critiques of hierarchy and authority, but dammit, it works. One truism of American politics is that mavericks don't herd well. It's a given that the Dems will always have to deal with. But if this is the new path of the progressives in this country, then I'm afraid the next few decades will be a long, hard slog.
OK, here's my problem with these folks. You want to protest the war? Then protest the damn war. I have no problem with that. But for the love of God, could you do it in a way that doesn't discredit you and your entire cause? Three suggestions:
1. Protest something worthwhile. These people couldn't give two shits about Cindy. Honestly, what's the purpose behind her meeting with Bush? To bring more attention to the greater cause of ending the war. BAM. There's your issue. Don't hold protests over miniscule side issues, especially when the majority of the public isn't even familiar with that issue. I guarantee you that 70% of the people that drove by that protest had no idea who the hell Cindy is. That aside, if you do make the error of picking something like this to get your panties in a bunch about, then at least brush up on the subject before hand. Cindy's a fraud, folks. She met with Bush a year ago and came away from the meeting glowing. A few quotes from after the meeting:
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis...I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together."
Bush had sent her an invitation to meet with him because she went and told the press that she thought that the form letter she got from the President after her son's death was impersonal. Now, a year later, she claims that he acted improperly, didn't know who he was there to honor, wouldn't look at pictures of her son, etc. Convenient.
It's so frustrating watching the antiwar movement in this country attach themselves to causes and individuals who lack credibility: the Dan Rather story, Cindy Sheehan, the list goes on. They might as well stand spread eagle in front of the Right with a target over their collective crotch just waiting to get kicked in the nuts.
2. Get your damn ducks in a row. If only 12 people are going to show up for your little peace pow wow, then cancel it. It just shows how meager your support really is. And please ditch the rainbow-colored flag with "PEACE" spelled incorrectly, wouldja? Because I know you're just going to head home after the protest to share some punch and joke about how stupid the President is for waving at Stevie Wonder. While I enjoy a good chuckle, that's just more irony than I can take.
3. Choose your tactics wisely. I know you're under a lot of pressure from that guy in your group who wants to run around campus naked, run down Hennepin Avenue naked, make a giant peace sign naked...hell, do something naked. Try and resist. To my knowledge, nudity has never stopped a war and the chances for this one aren't looking good. Nonetheless, you always find your cache of hardcore liberals willing to strip off their drawers in the dead of winter on a mountainside in Montana to register their disapproval with the powers that be. Here's the thing: the powers that be don't care. But they are amused by your hapless idiocy...I know I am. Try not to catch pneumonia or freeze your wang off, K pal?
And while we're at it, dressing up in a rat costume and screaming into a megaphone in front of CBS headquarters because some contestants on "Survivor" were eating rat meat isn't likely to encourage me to give vegetarianism a whirl.
For crying out loud, is it any wonder the Left can't gain any traction in this country? If you want to drop a few candidates into office then try doing what the Republicans do: organize. I know it sounds strange and probably contradicts all of your various critiques of hierarchy and authority, but dammit, it works. One truism of American politics is that mavericks don't herd well. It's a given that the Dems will always have to deal with. But if this is the new path of the progressives in this country, then I'm afraid the next few decades will be a long, hard slog.
posted by Your Friendly Neighborhood Clark Bar at 8/12/2005 08:31:00 AM
Subscribe to Tommy Lawyer
5 Comments:
weirdly enough, all the way from italy, I know whom cindy is. maybe because anti war protest is BIG news around here. the fact that I agree with the anti war movement is irrelevant but should be pointed out.
I agree with point one but mostly because it is the classical all-american thing: personalize. they might know there is a million dying somewhere but that means nothing to them. cannot picture it, the figure remains a figure, they have heard lots.
but bring on one little soppy story, give them the family portraits and the little girl crying and the beloved puppy awaiting the master never to come back..and they are all in tears and on their feet protesting. bah
point two: fair enough. how pathetic to show up in "four cats", as they say in italy. it also gives the wrong impression, might seem that the issue is not felt as deeply as it is by the population.
nah real reason it should not be done: it lools so pathetic
it is all rather naive, the way issues are dealt with, over there, at times. it is as though the "powers that be" look down on the poor protestor with a semi-benevolent eye, thinking: well let's at least make them believe this will go anywhere, this puny protesting thing..
they are so darn busy organizing their next stunt to get the press attention or simply show off their butt, that they lose sight of the issue altogether (point three sorted)
that said I believe something should be done.
my technique simply does not involve walking around with a banner pointing out bush's less-than-remarkable intelligence or whatever.
enjoy reading you, as always
I read drudge too, but then I saw Media Matters and the Vacaville, CA newspaper that originally reported the story.
Drudge is good at a lot of things but context ain't one of em.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009
Actually, the post has a link to the original article. Her quotes were an about face regardless of perspective. The Reporter article from 2004 does note that she considered voicing some of her frustrations when she met with Bush but didn't. Then she comes out of the meeting with nothing but compliments.
So why, then, the sudden vitriol? I don't deny that Matt Drudge has a political agenda; he always does. But there's no denying that there is a stark difference between Cindy Sheehan 2004 and Cindy Sheehan 2005.
Mathilda--Not a bad point on personalizing the war. I'm not entirely sure why that is. Probably Jane Fonda's fault.
Naw, seriously, I think that Americans do have trouble with stories about Iraqis falling victim to this war. The difference between America and Europe, though, is that Americans until very recently largely believed that it was necessary for the ultimate wellbeing of both the U.S. and Iraq. That faith has been slipping gradually ever since the election. Seeing pictures of young American kids is more like an exclamation point. It does bring the war a bit closer to home...even forces Americans to empathize with the loss that Iraqi families have felt.
It's not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
She openly said that she didn't agree with Bush's handling of the war, that it was the trip and seeing the other families NOT the 10 minute visit with Bush that helped her adjust, and that she didn't say anything cause she decided that wasn't what her son would have wanted.
And also if you look at most of the quotes that talk positively about Bush they are from Sheehan's husband not her. She said that she knew he felt some of their pain and was trying to help the Iraqis, but that the letter she received upon the death of her son was an impersonal gesture. She also said that while they discussed faith with the President, it was "tangent benefit" of the trip the more important thing was meeting the other families. Besides saying that the president had given them the gift of meeting with other families who knew what they were going through, I don't see one place in the article where Cindy herself speaks glowingly of the President or his behavior thoug her husband does.
I also don't think it's fair to say that the Cindy Sheehan of today is different from the one a year ago based on one 603 word article whose focus was the trip and the death of their son not her opinion of the Pres or the war. And is it a crime for a grieving mother to want answers? Is it a crime for someone to change their opinion if in fact she has? 603 words isn't enough to tell what her true feelings were. That's why it's important to read some of the commentary that the newspapers editors and reporters who met with Sheehan a year ago have said, they don't think her opinion has changed much at all since they met her a year ago.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying this article produces more questions than answers. And while her method of protest irks me, it's sickening that most american conservatives have dropped on the disparage Cindy bandwagon.
The difference between then and now couldn't be any clearer, Abra. I agree that she didn't favor the war then and probably was frustrated wit the way things were handled. But first of all, the original reporter article quotes Patrick Sheehan twice--and neither of those were used by Drudge. The rest is her. And regardless of whether you characterize it as "glowing" or not, her comments about Bush were all positive. After the meeting, she described him as being "sincere," that he's "sorry and feels pain for our loss," etc. If she was really that broken up about Bush supposedly refusing to look at pictures of her son, being jovial, etc., then why didn't she express anything to that effect in 2004?? Why did she say the exact opposite? Granted, you can't compile all of her feelings into a 603 word article but the fact that her comments then are the exact opposite of what they are now is enough to make anyone suspicious of her true intentions. There's an enormous disconnect here between Cindy then and Cindy now.
Sure, a mother can grieve for her son. I wish she would. This side show crap is harming her cause more than it is helping it.
And I have one other note here. I don't do it often, but I sympathize with Bush here. Imagine being in his position meeting not just with the Sheehans, but with a group of families with sons who died in Iraq. I give him credit for doing it in the first place, because it would be tough as hell. I always have enough trouble as it is trying to think of something to say to a grieving mother at a funeral. What do you say to someone who, right or wrong, holds you responsible? Yet she's upset with him for calling her son "noble" and refering to him as "your loved one"? Most families out there who lost sons and daughters can't even get upset about something like that, not having had the opportunity to meet with the commander in chief once.
Post a Comment
<< Home