Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THOUGHTS ON POLITICAL THEATER.
On my way into work this morning, I ran across groups of protesters preparing to participate in anti-Iraq war demonstrations in front of the White House, on the five-year anniversary of the American occupation. A few were on stilts and dressed in over-sized Grim Reaper costumes. A bunch were earnest looking college students; one young woman held a sign saying, "My 'economic stimulus' got sent to Iraq." And of course, the "Out of Palestine!" crowd was out in force as well. It was a motley crew, and not one I was completely comfortable joining for a variety of reasons. But all in all, I was glad these citizens were out there, doing their duty to democracy despite the intractable political circumstances that make ending the war almost an impossible feat until a Democrat is elected president.
That brings me to Paul Waldman's anti-protest column from yesterday, titled "Political Theatre of the Absurd." Paul makes a convincing case that the Code Pink and Berkeley city councils of the world sometimes make antiwar protest seem amateurish and silly. Indeed, I've long been annoyed with Code Pink in particular for the way it targets female politicians for special abuse because of a belief in the traditional -- and I think false -- notion that women are inherently more peace-loving than men. But I've also seen Code Pink be effective, by heckling Hillary Clinton until she was forced, in the middle of an otherwise unremarkable speech, to defend her refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote.
Sure, the Berkeley city council's decision to protest a Marine recruitment center plays into conservative myths about antiwar activists being anti-military. But it is powerful that hundreds of city councils nationwide have passed resolutions against the Iraq war. If nothing else, those local statements provide a counter-narrative to the pro-war-at-all-costs stance taken by the administration, and let people around the world see the diversity of American opinion.
So in short, I believe there's a place for protest, even if we've learned over the last 8 years that it makes precious little difference in how our nation wages its foreign policy.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (6)
I'll leave it to others to deal with the ground fruit in the first para and the first sentence of the third para.
I'll just point out that those who want to be "doing their duty to democracy" should consider doing this:
1. Go to campaign events and ask real questions* during scheduled Q&A sessions.
2. Videotape the questions and their answers.
3. Upload it to video sharing sites and promote the videos.
The reason why almost no other blogger or similar is encouraging people to do that is because almost all of those are partisan hacks. In a form of MAD, they don't want to encourage the other side being held accountable lest it's used against their side.
Perhaps TAPPED could rise above that, although since I've left that suggestion here several times going back months, I don't expect them to be able to do it.
*Not to be confused with rants, meandering 10 minute dissertations, etc.
Posted by: TLB | March 19, 2008 2:55 PM
you just played into waldmans argument. that these protests have been ineffective in shaping our foreign policy. maybe if millions more were protesting they would not be so ineffective. furthermore, anti-military is bad wording, and should be framed as anti-military industrial complex, which has the greatest influence on our foreign policy, which i see as no problem in being opposed to.
its great when people talk about how the israel lobby has such a large impact on our foreign policy there. while these arguments are clearly important to understand, why not consider the vast amount of impact the military industrial complex has on this policy and more.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 3:29 PM
But it is powerful that hundreds of city councils nationwide have passed resolutions against the Iraq war.
So if you laud the cities taking up federal issues, I guess you would also like to see cities taking up the illegal alien problem as well.\
Good to know
Posted by: El Viajero | March 19, 2008 4:46 PM
So if you laud the cities taking up federal issues, I guess you would also like to see cities taking up the illegal alien problem as well.
I can't speak for Dana Goldstein, but not only would I like to see that, I'm pleased that so many are trying to do so. Whether New York and Washington, Chicago and Minneapolis, Dallas and Houston, Phoenix and Salt Lake City, or Los Angeles and San Francisco, America's cities have taken the lead when it comes to finding sensible approaches to dealing with the impact of illegal immigration.
Posted by: cminus | March 19, 2008 5:09 PM
I guess "sensible" is another one of those words. In this case, it's shorthand for corrupt racial demagogues trying to consolidate power (youtube.com/watch?v=3jwqQ8DtlPQ). In fact, right after he was elected, he gave an interview to a Mexican newspaper in which he basically said he was going to do whatever he had to do to ignore our laws.
Let me also recommend this quote from a member of the 9/11 commission:
"It is ridiculous that five cities in the United States do not allow local police to cooperate with the federal immigration service... The terrorists know [which cities have such policies"
"Liberals" and "progressives" should just stop pretending they want "sensible" policies and just come right out and admit that they're corrupt and their only interest is in obtaining power. At least be honest for once.
Posted by: TLB | March 19, 2008 6:48 PM
"Sensible" in this context means "focused on harm mitigation." If an American-born hoodlum is robbing people at gunpoint, I don't want him getting away with it because the victim who can give police the clue that will put him behind bars is too afraid of the INS. A Mexican dishwasher without papers just isn't as scary as an armed robber, and it's legitimate for cities to come up with policies that prioritize solving the more serious problems first.
"Liberals" and "progressives" should just stop pretending they want "sensible" policies and just come right out and admit that they're corrupt and their only interest is in obtaining power.
Yes, because defending poor people who can't vote is exactly the way to get economic and political power in a capitalist democracy. As opposed to "conservatives," who selflessly take the side of the wealthy and powerful, even though these people can't possibly do anything to help them. Tell me, have you ever heard of a defense mechanism called "projection"?
Posted by: cminus | March 20, 2008 7:52 AM