My wife and her girlfriends went to the Minnesota version of the march. Told her I didn't necessarily believe Trump & Co. are truly the evil empire they are being made out to be, but that I supported her beliefs and offered to walk with her.
Thankfully she declined my offer. Said she wanted to hang with her friends and knew I would be miserable with the crowds and the "chanting".
She just texted me, said organizers had planned on about 20k people but estimates are now about double that! They are not so much marching as kind of shuffling!
Love you Honey Bunny, wherever you are!!!
View attachment 17794
I know several people participating in the women’s marches. As I see the protests though I’m wondering about their efficacy.
I’ve always thought the reasons to protest (in a political sense – not a personal sense) are:
1. Demonstrate to political leadership or other power structures the popular strength of your positions – in order to influence their votes or actions.
2. Win public support by raising awareness of your issue(s).
3. Increase political organization by making contacts and connections in person.
4. Provoke a repressive response from the civil authorities – thus winning increased sympathy/awareness of your issues.
5. Raise international awareness/concern/political action for your issues.
All those seem like they worked very well during the civil rights era, and some social issues in America. But, I must wonder about how applicable any of that stuff really is in the current environment.
In the US number 4 and 5 are pretty much out. You’re not going to provoke a response from the federal government – and generally not from local authorities without a fair amount of rioting. Even in protests in the 1960s a big chunk of the US electorate wanted more crackdowns on protestors, not less – Nixon won the white house in 1968 and 1972 by huge margins and a significant shift of folks who voted the other party in 1964. Understand the political landscape was much more complicated – just saying reasons 4 and 5 are very tough to pull off in the US and I can’t think of a modern example that has worked (I include Ferguson in that) in terms of changing public opinion or action by the government.
When we’re talking about the Presidential election it doesn’t seem to me you can really raise any more awareness, demonstrate political strength, or forge political organization in a way that outshines the most significant measurement of all those things – the Presidential election that just went to the party/candidate you oppose.
What you’re left with is the hope that someone demonstrating your numbers/strength will influence or motivate existing power structures. But if your 65 million votes didn’t do it why would you believe even 2-5 million people in the streets across the world would have any influence?
I think very likely the most effective protests are those in the vein of the Tea Party. They weren’t out to win over the President – they were demonstrating political power and voter anger towards their own party. I think the same think should be taken on by the left if they really want to influence policy – target Democrats because Republicans and the President could give a shit.
Not saying anyone doesn’t have the right, or shouldn’t protest. Just saying other than number 3 – and that’s one that won’t have much of an impact for at least 2 years – it seems very ineffectual.