Protesting is a physical presence and demonstration of some ideological or political viewpoint. Its intent is to attract the awareness of the general public to that idea or to act as a grievence upon an institution to influence change in the current policy or standard.
Protesting most often involves sit-ins, fasts, chants, signs, speeches, and any number of peaceful expressions. Public protest is, in fact, one of the oldest means of American political expression and has a long tradition in the U.S. political system that pre-dates the Revolution. Part of this tradition was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution itself. In American law, the First Amendment has been long recognized as the best tool to protect the rights of Americans to protest. It reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Public protest has been present at nearly every important crossroad in this nation’s history: the Revolution, slavery, suffrage, and the Civil Rights Movement were all affected in a very significant way by protest.
But does that mean that protest should be practiced for the sake of protest? What if it just doesn’t work like it used to?
Gregory Rodriguez tackled this in an opinion piece in the LA Times nearly a year ago when speaking about immigrant protests:
Mass street demonstrations are a high-risk political strategy that quickly reaches the point of diminishing returns. Organizers should ask themselves whether they’re really trying to appeal to the goodwill of the general public — and Congress, as it debates immigration reform — or simply grandstanding.
Rodriguez is simply asking here, “What’s the point?” If the protest is not likely to draw support for policy change and is more likely to detract and harm the cause of the organizers, is it worth the trouble? He doesn’t seem convinced. He also cites the tendency of protesters to turn violent as one such major detractions. Michelle Malkin has also previously noted this trend.
Professor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit noted how outdated Iraq anti-war protests were by simply stating “It’s not 1968.” In this instance, he questioned the point of protesting a war that was supported by a majority of congress as well as the public. To prove it, President Bush was elected with even a greater margin of the vote in 2004 - well after the Iraq war was underway. More importantly, in referring to the protests of the Vietnam war in 1968, there was no draft. All of the service people were volunteers.
Dr. James Joyner at Outside the Beltway also questions the point of the recent “Tea Party” protests where protesters are demonstrating against President Obama’s economic stimulus package.
But here’s the thing: The original Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxation without representation. We now have representation. The people who passed the stimulus — the Democrats in the House and Senate and President Obama — were duly elected under the Constitution. For that matter, it’s not like something like this massive stimulus wasn’t discussed in the fall election campaign that put these people in charge. What they’re doing is not unprecedented nor unconstitutional in any current understanding.
What exactly is the point of these rallies?
Devilstower at Daily Kos thinks recent Tea Party protests are merely staged news:
If this article is correct, then CNBC has staged the news, not just a single incident, but a whole string of discussions and programs that have been at the center of CNBC’s programming since Santelli’s staged rant.
Here’s the video of CNBC’s Rick Santelli that is referenced by Daily Kos:
This is where we get into the meat and potatoes of the argument against protests. Given that nearly everyone in the United States has access to the Internet via libraries, work, home service, phone, or cafes; and given that media is available on the internet from innumerable sources in print, audio, and other visual means; and given that most American households also have access to cable television or free digital service or print media; was/is there any awareness to be gained by Iraq war protests or Tea Party protests? Was/is there some grievence that hasn’t been addressed?
No.
The Kansas Meadowlark informed us of the Tea Party protest outside Congressman Dennis Moore’s office in Overland Park, KS in late February. Despite driving within a relatively close proximity that day of this location, I became aware of it not from the 750 protesters, but from internet blogs.
So, what is the point of protesting in the age of digital media? There is none, really, except perhaps in the creation of news as stated earlier.
Another problem with public protests is that fact that they are generally annoying. Protests, rallies, and other outdoor events that are organized to accomodate large swaths of people also must accomodate their bathroom breaks. They also tend to eat up civic resources with an additional police presence, trash pickup, and the occasional cleanup of graffiti or fixing of broken windows. Then, there are traffic congestion issues and the impedence of free travel by uninterested parties. This is all besides the fact that passers by often are subject to ridicule, humiliation and intimidation.
All of this is easily avoided with the new digital media revolution. Where large mainstream media networks once held a monopoly on what people learned of and became aware to, individuals have a much easier time sharing ideas and commenting quickly and quite effectively now with the advent of blogs, tweeting, text messaging, social networking sites and email.
So no longer are protests needed and thusly, no longer do protests work. There are better ways of affecting change and creating awareness without creating public nuissance and without the threat of violence. The internet is a quick and decisive way to make a real change in real time in a big way and against all odds. Somebody should write a book about it.
[...] Brian Knapp has a good roundup of critiques of protest rallies and concludes that they have outlived their usefulness. Another problem with public protests is that fact that they are generally annoying. Protests, rallies, and other outdoor events that are organized to accomodate large swaths of people also must accomodate their bathroom breaks. They also tend to eat up civic resources with an additional police presence, trash pickup, and the occasional cleanup of graffiti or fixing of broken windows. Then, there are traffic congestion issues and the impedence of free travel by uninterested parties. This is all besides the fact that passers by often are subject to ridicule, humiliation and intimidation. [...]
News creation is important.
I’m trying to remember, there was the case of a House Rep who said something disdainful behind closed doors. What was said was leaked later, but it was old news at that point, and didn’t get reported. Bloggers picked it up, though, and the media was able to report on the blogger *reaction*. It was a story about bloggers, but it still had the effect of censuring the offending party. (Shit, it bugs me that I can’t remember his name, the event, or what was said. I’ll try to dig it up later.)
Creating news about blogger reactions isn’t a trick you can pull too often though, and the mainstream media still matters if you want any result besides a slow culture shift.
Also, the Internet doesn’t yet have good tools for social involvement. The people who have the strongest effect on human trafficking are still concerned citizens who belong to meatspace organizations and get together at conferences. The kind of people who engage in protests are part of that culture. I hope to see the Internet become more meaningful as a social action tool, and even hope to be a part of that change.
The title of this article is very funny to me for some reason…….this is great Brian.
I agree that the mainstream media still matters…but not in the way that it used to. Where it was critical in direct public opinion, it now needs to focus on fact-finding. Of course, the MSM doesn’t understand this yet but…
While you have made some interesting points, you have forgotten the impact that protesting and rallying has upon the protesting group itself. While the demonstration may have little direct impact on the subject being opposed, people feel empowered when they are in that pack setting. The ability to interact directly with those who share views on a topic energizes people in a way that a mass e-mail or news report never could.
I’d compare this attitude to attending a sports event. While it’s easier to sit at home and watch a game on TV and get the stats online, people still go to them. Why? The atmosphere of going to an event with thousands of people who have a shared passion ignites excitement. Taking that excitement and devoting it towards a common goal may be more important than the immedate impact made upon the group/idea that has been protested against.
Of course, fact-finding is expensive, and Old Media is finding less and less money to do it with. Time for government fact-finding grants?
Government fact-finding grants? I am skeptical to say the least.
A good point. Although I question the lasting effect of the practice. That is, how does it translate into policy change?
[...] via OTB, Brian Knapp notes why such protests don’t work in 2009: Where large mainstream media networks once held a monopoly [...]
[...] of course, be zero. The modern-day protest, with its mob mentality and crude political innuendo doesn’t work to change anything. Name calling and shouting people down doesn’t change anything. It only [...]
“There are better ways of affecting change and creating awareness without creating public nuissance and without the threat of violence. ”
I don’t like empty words - on the other hand, I am a big fan of concrete examples.
Care to provide some? I fail to see how the internet would be able to replace the physical presence of thousands of people.
I can see how the internet can enhance the power of people to be able to get together in great masses well organised, but I cannot see how it could ever replace protesting.
How does the mere presence of thousands of people affect public policy more than other methods, i.e. signature campaigns, ballot initiatives, other political campaigning, etc.??
Why? It’s a matter of attention and irritation. Internet presence tends to get more attention and causes less irritation. Thus, ideas have a farther reach and with greater efficacy.
Sloganeering and intimidation via protest has nothing on articulate and reasoned discourse.
Common Sense is more valuable than a picket.
Hi Brian,
My name is Sarah and I work for a radio programme called Europe Today at BBC World Service in London. I am very interested in speaking to your opinion on whether protests work or not after the incident yesterday in which a Kurdish protestor threw a shoe at the Turkish Prime Minister.
If you would like to take part in the programme please get in touch asap, either by email or phone on 0044 207 557 1417.
Thanks very much.
Best,
Sarah Holmes