<Protest is a form of public discourse. Public discourse can only benefit democracy, because it informs the elected authorities that other opinions are out there.

When the elected authorities ignore portions of the alternate opinions, they run the risk of not being re-elected should those opinions become those of the majority of voters.



Yes, in a democratic republic the people have the final say in choosing who they wish to represent them. Public protests do not boot out representatives - elections do. That is why so few of the silent majority attend demonstrations - they vote "religiously" (pardon that term ;-) on election day, knowing this is the true effective and final protest.


Protest takes various forms. Only one of those is demonstration.

True. I find public protests the closest remnant of mob mentality - swaying others not through reason or debate but by gathering in masses to intimidate others with the lurking threat of violence, often with the intent of getting arrested to get exposure. I find this use of violence to publicize a cause somewhat immoral and in my views diminishes their positions.


If there is no public discourse, there is no democracy. Period. Unless you are willing to posit that everyone agrees about everything all the time, which reminds me more of "The Stepford Wives" than of any civic experience I have ever had.

Naturally. But discourse is not what demonstrations are all about. It is in your face activism that results in fisticuffs and scuffles or worse. We have forums for discourse - such as this one - in which far more views and opinions and concepts can be shared than in some street fracas. No one here need be intimidated by a mob of screaming youths or a bunch of agitated police officers.

With so many viable and valid forms of communication today to share views - street protests appeal mainly to those who are generally NOT as literate, who WANT to make a statement and who get a thrill or rush out of mob-type gatherings and confrontation. I have yet to see a public protest sway passersby with their demeanor - no matter what the cause. I include activists on the right in this as well. Anti-abortion protesters which gather publicly make the same mistake. It is for this same reason I will not attend a "pro-war" or "support our troops" rally.

I support them without the need to scream or wave a flag on a street corner. I don't want to be a part of any counter-mob offering a mirror-image of the protesters so as to put the protesters in their place. Such would be to succumb to that level of debate which is IMHO, vastly inferior.


"Right" and "wrong", in the context in which you use them here, take on a theological tint, a dangerous thing to mix with politics. Politics is negotiation. There is no negotiation without dialog. Silence is not helpful in this regard.

Again, I do not advocate silence - but rather useful, valid communication such as we do here and others do elsewhere.

I do not wish to make public protests illegal. They certainly served in the past, when people could not communicate by internet or newspaper, telephone, etc. However, now public protests tend to be organized by folks who wish intimidation and who have as their goal - revolution and an overthrow of our present government.

These groups do not want valid discourse - their views are unpopular. They want a mob to manipulate to serve their ends. A.N.S.W.E.R. is the perfect tool for manipulating liberals who detest violence and racism and use them as foot soldiers for the purpose of revolution. Yet their view of racism and war is really "imperialism" and the US government is the target - not public policy.


Your observations on emotion in public displays of personal belief need to be applied to all demonstrations in order to have rational consistency. The civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s, the student demonstrations in Tienanmen Square, the Promise Keepers marches and rallies, the gatherings at Ground Zero, Congressional representatives gathering to sing "God Bless America": all those must certainly be irrational, as they are all emotional group expression of personal belief, or of grief or anger. Unless, of course, only their emotional expression is unhealthy and invalid, whereas our emotional expression is pure, unsullied and noble.

Yes, I think the congressmen singing God Bless America looked somewhat ridiculous.
I think it looks staged and farcical. Much of the public staged gatherings reek of artificiality - and I think everyone knows what is real sentiment and what is created for public consumption, whether left or right.


Invariably we see this antiwar movement was spawned almost singlehandedly by anticapitalist extremists.


You wish. Or maybe you don't. To be able to pretend it's that way gives you the benefit of accusing a still amorphous and disorganized opposition of having the organizational power of the Jesuits, without having to deal with a group that commands anything like that in reality.

The internet and e-mails provide a huge resource in gathering disparate agendas to gether under one banner. It's obvious that there is all sorts of extremism under the antiwar bigtop and that many diverse agendas are using the mob to try and make their points.


The prowar group is very organized, as they have the government's bureaucracy to back them up. I suppose it's only natural to believe that those who oppose the war are equally well-organized. If, in fact, they were, they would be more effective. It is easier to vilify the antiwar groups by characterizing them in this way, though.

No, no, no....it is power. The government has the power to make policy. Protests cannot change policy in our government, one must change it via the views of the elected representatives. This is what the protesters fail to realize - that million person marches cannot change policy and that mass protests are ineffective tools for change in a democratic republic! "Effective" protest is done by convincing representatives to change their views. A really well written letter has a chance of doing this - a mob outside his/her residence may also have an effect - but likely not the one which will get him to change his views, unless out of fear.

A mob of 1000 could determine policy in olden times. The rest cowering in their houses either agreed with the mob or watched as their homes were burned and they and their families were killed.

Now we have a police force to protect the public from a mob. Yet still, the mob often tries to kill or maim the body which protects the public and views them as the enemy. They are blind to the fact that by gathering as a mob - they are more often acting as the enemy of democracy and individual liberty.

The Bolsheviks felt much like the protesters of today. They were rebelling against an unfair government that didn't heed their views. They didn't like the elected Duma either and felt they were a pawn of the Tsar. Yet, what came of their mob mentality...of their "protest?"

Thousands wer murdered, men, women and children - all in the name of the "people." The resulting government of the "people" and the "workers" was one of the most evil governments of modern history and caused the most suffering for its citizens. Millions died - because a handful of protesters were successful in creating riots and creating a wave of terror that swept through Russia.

This is what I think of when I see the protesters throwing rocks and screaming at the police who are there to maintain peace. This is not my idea of "intelligent discourse."


You do have something there about discounting any valid message packaged in an offensive container. Keep that in mind.



Regards--
Mary Anne



Yes, a mob will never be loved by the man in the street - feared maybe, but not taken to heart.

;-)

SDAI-Tech1