The Role of Protests in Politics

The Freakonomics web site has asked a number of academics to ponder the effectiveness of protest. They all solemnly affirm that they are effective. The only really honest response was by Howard Zinn who says:

Do protests work? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes very soon, sometimes there is a long-term effect. Sometimes you can see a direct connection between the protest and the result, and sometimes it’s difficult to trace.

What this means is that you must not desist from protesting because you don’t see an immediate result. What immediately looks like a failure may turn out to be a success. Testing is always a gamble, but one worth taking, because if you don’t take the risk, you will be stuck with the status quo and I suppose we all agree: the status quo is extremely undesirable.

Some examples:

There was protest when the founding fathers concluded their work in drafting the Constitution in Philadelphia because there was no Bill of Rights. With the protests threatening the successful ratification (the vote was close in major states: New York, Massachusetts, Virginia) the Founders agreed they would add it, and they did in 1791.

The anti-slavery movement had to keep protesting for decades, from the 1830’s to the early 1860’s, until it had an effect on Lincoln and the Congress, first with the Emancipation Proclamation, then with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

The nation-wide strikes in the 1880’s resulted in winning the eight-hour work day in many places. The demands of the Populist movement resulted in regulatory legislation in various states and resulted in national reforms years later in the New Deal measures to help farmers.

The sit-down strikes of 1936 to 1937 led to recognition of the C.I.O. unions and contracts and better wages and conditions.

The wave of protests in the early 1930’s — by the Unemployed Councils blocking evictions; by the Tenants of organizations winning rent control in the Bronx, for instance, but also other places — led to the New Deal measures that helped the poor.

The various protests against racial segregation, taking various forms, are well known — the Montgomery bus boycott, the sit-ins, the various demonstrations in the South — and all led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and various Supreme Court decisions that effectively ended legal racial segregation in the South.

The protests against the Vietnam War certainly helped Lyndon Johnson come to his conclusion in early 1968 that he would not run for president again, that he would begin negotiating with the North Vietnamese, and that he would not send more troops to Vietnam as General Westmoreland had requested.

The protests of G.I.’s during the Vietnam War — desertions, fragging, public disclosure of massacres — helped build public opinion against the war; and if you study the Pentagon Papers you will see how often the officials in Washington worried about public opinion, and why Nixon promised an end to the war, though it took years.

After the Vietnam-Watergate era, the protests of disabled people certainly led to the Disabled Persons Rights Act.

The feminist movement of the 1960’s and 1970s undoubtedly led to affirmative action for women, moving more women into better positions in the economy.

There is much more historical evidence, but I am running out of space and time.

Go look at the whole posting to get the other views. There is some interesting stuff there. But I find it ironic that Freakonomics gives voice to Bernadine Dohrn, a radical Weatherman underground terrorist. I would draw a line: a terrorist is not a "protester". So I don't understand including her "voice" in the posting. You might as well ask Hitler how he viewed the effectiveness of "protesting" in achieving the goals of National Socialism. Nutty!

The reality is that the "little people" are by-and-large bulldozed by the elite in society. Think of those ancient burial tombs where some big shot is "accompanied" to the Great Beyond by a mass killing of little people who are supposed to look after his needs in the after life. The story of human civilization has always been that the little guy gets the short end of the stick. But that doesn't mean the little guy should lie down and take it. Protest has the hope of a better tomorrow. As Zinn points out, they sometimes work!

But the reality is that a lot of little people pay an immense price in order to nudge the powerful even a little distance away from the levers of power. From society's viewpoint this may be a price worth paying, but from the individual's viewpoint, it is rarely worthwhile. This is a tragic fact. So be grateful to those known and nameless who gave up their lives, or were savagely beaten and imprisoned, or who simply lost their livelihood in the struggle for a better world. We owe them a lot. But it isn't a debt that can be repaid. And a very, very large number of them suffered for no obvious gain. Tragic!

I remember a Vietnam War protest in which a number of men came forward to hand in their draft cards to protest the war. Each gave a little speech and was roundly applauded. When it came my turn, I handed in my draft card but stated something to the effect that this protest was something I felt I had to do but I realized would have no effect on the war effort or the government. I was loudly booed. The crowd didn't want to hear the truth. They wanted martyrs who proudly marched off to a doomed life. They didn't want to hear about futility and suffering and the real difficulties of changing a government's policy. So much for the "role" of protest.