Protest Islands

The protest community has always had a talent for Balkanizing itself. These days, according to The Village Voice, the police have been lending it a hand:

[T]he effort to bring together a diverse array of people and issues was once again hampered by the NYPD's cumbersome protest pens, which balkanized the different groups into competing islands of dissent. Police sealed off the area directly in front of the Sheraton between 52nd and 53rd streets, forcing demonstrators to gather in pens to the north and south. At 50th Street, several dozen backers of the hard-left group International ANSWER chanted in support of Venezuela's besieged president Hugo Chavez and railed against the Bush Administration's imperialist adventures in Iraq. Meanwhile, at 54th Street a coalition of immigration-rights groups decried Bush's "terror campaign" against immigrants next to a small group of pro-Israel supporters angered by the Bush Administration's "roadmap" for peace in Palestine.

Many protesters complained they were unable to enter the pens or forced to detour to Broadway to join their protest groups. At one point several protesters topped a metal barrier at 51st Street in an effort to merge with the other demonstrators. Police waded aggressively into the crowd to make arrests, prompting chants of "Shame!" and "Arrest Bush!" Seven people were arrested for disorderly conduct.

Bush presumably was not among them.

Comments

[fyodor]

My, but this is a smug crew on this issue!

Protests can have an effect either by changing the opinion of the majority or by being such a nuisance that those in power are more swayed by the noisy minority than the silent majority. Public protests may very well have had a role in ending our participation in the Viet Nam war, civil rights, women's suffrage, closing the Rocky Flats nuclear bomb facility (a government memo even cited protestors as one of the reasons for doing so), and hey, let's not forget the Boston Tea Party! The most important things about public protest is that it draws attention and reflects passion, and sometimes passionate minorities carry the day over passive majorities (PLC's one-sided example notwithstanding). (I _do_ agree that modern polling has lessened its value to some degree, but still not entirely; no one likes a messy public scene!)

That said, I too have my problems with the "shame" contingent, and one of them is that by protesting so much over such stupid issues, they water down the value of public protest for when we might really need it. And I've always avoided pubic protests myself, just don't like immersing myself in all that groupthink, whatever the cause.

Still, I think it's an injustice to screw with protestors' rights, and I think it's kinda sad that no one here seems the least bit upset about that, Bill O's magnaminous (sarcasm) recognition of their rights also notwithstanding. We're lucky that we have so little that genuinely requires public protest in this country, but that might not always be the case!

[bill o'reilly's dog]

what crap. nobody is taking away their rights! what about the rights of pedistrians and motorists who want to use the streets? what about the rights of business owners to not have their business disrupted? rights require rules, otherwise we devolve into violent anarchy (think seattle, quebec).

and it wasn't sarcastic. you have a right to be a totalitarian minded fool and march around with your banners and chants, in tie die, brownshirts, whatever.

but don't expect me to agree with you.

[fyodor]

bill o's dog,

The sarcasm was mine. I don't expect to change your mind, but I'd say equating protesting with totalitarianism is ridiculous. If you want to say something intelligent, address the issues I raised.

[bill o'reilly's dog]

i didn't say totalitarianism is the same as protesting, i said that mass demonstrations are common among those with totalitarian mindsets. such demonstrations were common in the french revolution, among the fascist movements in europe and south america, the middle-east today etc.

the whole psychology of mass demonsrations is based on power and the removal of individual opinion, two key beliefs of fascism.

not a single liberal idea was ever decided in the streets!

[BFC]

If guys standing inside these protest pens have to take a leak, I can imagine them simply whipping it out and letting it flow. But what about the gals? Do they just squat among the filthy crowds in there?

And what if they need to do a #1 as well as a #2. Do they ALL simply squat down in there to take a dump?

[PLC]

BFC - it would probably improve their odor.

[Anonymous]

Hey! PLC made a smelly-hippie joke! What a card!

[fyodor]

bill o's dog,

Oh, you're not equating protesting with totalitarianism, but the psychology of demonstrating is based on key beliefs of fascism. Okay, I see now, gee how could I have ever misrepresented you like that! (sarcasm, again)

Re: "not a single liberal idea was ever decided in the streets!" How about no taxation without representation?

I would say public protests could be done for either good or bad. Pretty radical, eh?

[Anonymous]

women's suffrage?

[T.Rolland]

The left seems to love the word "shame." They chant it, they write it, they sing it. Wonder what that's all about?

[Anonymous]

The hope by chanting it eventually they'll get some sense of it re: the causes the fascists they support.

[Anonymous]

orson scott card has an essay on moral stupidity on the left. it is disgusting how these idiots consider castro, chavez and terrorists their peeps

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-06-16-1.html

"I used to call myself a "Moynihan Democrat." But now that he's dead, I'm reduced to calling myself a "Tony Blair Democrat."

[dhex]

i'm sorry...nobody should ever have to call themselves a tony blair anything...

the whole shame thing is because the left, like the right and probably 99% of anyone in between, are moralists first and foremost. even the most obscure intellectual arguments have a certain standard of moral righteousness to live up to according to certain quarters, and in some ways more rigid than most conservatives. there's a huge fixation on having the correct opinion and then broadcasting the correct opinion because people must set an example for others.

i don't quite understand it myself.

or another way to put it - both sides want to wrap you in bubble wrap, but the left wants to sew your mouth shut so you can't hurt anyone's feelings and the right wants to cut of your genitals so no one gets too deviant. neither is too fond of divergent expression as a whole.

[PLC]

Ya know - the vast majority of people are happy to have the police pen up the protestors... it's not like anyone cares what they have to say anyway. Why do they even bother to protest - it's the same group of people, with the same tired chants, proclaiming their entirely predictable opinions. We all know what they're going to say, so why bother?

I guess protesting is just some weird form of hippie entertainment. Unfortunately, it inconviences the rest of us, and costs us all in police overtime.

[T.Rolland]

Well, to answer my own question:

I think the frequency of the word unwittingly displays the left's ingrained sense of moral superiority. If you cross a picket line, you should feel "shame." If you support oil drilling in Alaska, you should feel "shame." If you favored war on Iraq, you should feel "shame."

These are real examples, and the pattern they create defines the stance: There's no room for reasonable debate here. That single word, that indignant tone of scolding, is a window into the left's self-righteous mindset.

(Yes, I recognize I risk looking self-righteous with this very post.)

[david f]

hey dhex,

the left and right meet at that wonderful selfrighteous middle. seeing some of these contrasting types protest in DC once, it was kinda fun. you have the NESCAC-liberal arts college hippie wanna-be types (decrying, of course, "conformity". want a bic there, sister?) who seem to buy this from the old wardrobe department from Hair. then you got the Branson types in really bad suits on the other side.

the fun part is trying to get one to say anything intelligent about their issue at all. all sides seem merely to spout whatever their head pooh-bah says.

hey PLC: i lived near a "family planning clinic". that's exactly my opinion of the righties who protested there, too.

it's the protest culture where they go and have a "decorating contest" and decorate the area with their own shit. (that tastes foreign to them when you serve it back to them).

cheers, all! and happy hump day. or at least, may it be happy 😉 ...
drf

[T.Rolland]

dhex, I didn't see your post before writing the above. We trod some of the same territory.

However, the use of the word "shame" -- and whatever that use represents -- is not found so much on the right. It is very much a word of the left.

I agree that folks on both sides of the ideological divide get caught in the moral-superiority trap. FreeRepublic and DemocraticUnderground are equally good for laughs, if you're entertained by knee-jerk moralizers.

But there's a difference in the public approach of each side, and I'm not quite sure I'm nailing it, or that I even know what it is.

[Madog]

You know, if the city just privatized it's roads and sidewalks, they wouldn't have this problem.

[Anonymous]

also privatize the police. they are so WASTEful.

[PLC]

Surely these idiots can't be so deluded as to actually be motivated by a sense of "power"? They must know that nobody in the mainsteam (ie, people with jobs) cares, right? I always thought they were protesting to earn some sort of hippie brownie points; sort of a justification of their sense of moral superiority.

Demonstrations are only useful and impactful when a large majority of the population is passionately opposed to the policies of the government.

[Anonymous]

It's not just the left -- "a small group of pro-Israel supporters angered by the Bush Administration's "roadmap" for peace in Palestine."

[bill o'reilly's dog]

plc: i think they really belive they have an impact.

as for your second point, that is spotty. mass demostrations are also very common with would be totalitarians.

[Anonymous]

leftists can be pro-isreal

[bardp]

Anyone in here seen my strawman? I was told this was the place to look...

[lawyerball]

bardp makes a great point. why discuss anything, as everthing you say is a strawman argument

[PLC]

b.o.'s dog - I don't see how mass demonstrations by would be totalitarians contradicts my point. If you get a large enough group of people opposed to current government policy, you can affect change via protest. I did not intend to imply that the change enacted would be necessarily positive.

If 66% of the population of the US decided they wanted to elect Sponge Bob Square Pants dictator for life, and maybe 33% of the population felt passion enough about this to protest in the streets, we'd have a new dictator, regardless of what the government thinks about the idea...

[bill o'reilly's dog]

plc: i was confused on how you described it as "useful"

[Jim]

In our society, where all the politicians pay such strict attention to poll data, a mass protest would be completely unnecessary to exert the will of the majority. I think that politics in this country does eventually tend to reflect public opinion, it's just that the public is in general uneducated about the true impact of policies and generally uninterested in any particular political ideology. This cuts both ways since it insulates us from the idiocies of radicals on the left and the right but also means that few people are informed or care about the free market or libertarian approach to policy issues.

I agree that protestors tend to think what they do really matters. Especially at colleges - basically it's the folly of youth that leads otherwise rational people to think they can change the world by marching through the streets of Ann Arbor or running for student government. They change no opinions this way and just irritate everyone trying to do something productive in the areas they occupy.

As for political buzzwords, the right might not use 'shame' much but they sure are fond of accusing people of being 'polically correct' or 'moral relativists', among other things. The words each uses shows a lot about their basic philosophy. Since so much social criticism from the right reflects the notion that society (esp. liberal society) is morally bankrupt, perhaps the desire to emphasize 'shame' is a way the liberals show they really do have a moral conviction just like the right. Who knows, just my opinion....

[Hall Carolyn]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://preteen-models.biz
DATE: 01/21/2004 07:46:02
Anyone can learn from pain.