Kos advocates an ill-conceived brand of “direct action“:
From the subscription-only CQ:
About a half dozen protesters provoked a brief but noisy struggle with convention security officials just before noon today after interrupting a speech by White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.
Despite heavy security inside and around Madison Square Garden, the protesters managed to slip onto the convention floor and sat in the Wisconsin section, just steps from the stage where Card was speaking.
There should be more of this. I know of several groups of people who have “infiltrated” the hall.
And memo to the Secret Service — I don’t have any names, so don’t bother trying to contact me.
I’m not a Democrat, but let me offer some friendly advice to Kos: Your suggestion is crap. Let us count the reasons: (1) It tramples on the Republican’s moral right to free speech and assembly; (2) It will give the Republicans priceless photo-ops of Democratic loons (and loons they are); (3) It will create media attention that plays into the Republican’s theme of being the adults in the room; (4) It demonstrates that the Republicans may very well be the adults in the room; (5) It will be instantly associated with legitimate Democrats and the Kerry campaign, potentially requiring Kerry demean himself and denounce these childish tactics; (6) It will knock Kerry (further) off message; (7) It will (rightfully) enflame the right-wing blogosphere — as well as the odd moderate (i.e., me) — who will keep the story alive, not missing an opportunity to hoist lefties (again) on their own (communally-owned, no doubt) petard; (8) It will allow screaming moonbats (such as this fellow)* — folks with the moral sense and intellect of a blind cavefish — to pretend to the “high road”; (9) It will be completely ineffective in convincing anyone worth convincing (i.e., a “persuadable” voter) to vote for Kerry; (10) It will cause me to write ill-tempered posts such as this one.
Whew. Would some thoughtful lefty please shut Kos up — preferrably before I blow a gasket? Hilzoy? Ed? Katherine?
von
*I recognize that my dislike of the particular mindset represented by this fellow is out of all proportion to his reach or influence.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Kos seems to be doing good work as a grassroots fundraiser and Democratic Party cheerleader. Unfortunately, this kind of stuff proves he still has some growing up to do.
If those protestors actually had a coherent message (and no, I don’t count “Bush lied, people died!” as a coherent message) or were planning on undermining the proceedings by asking subversive-yet-reasonable questions, I might agree to their actions. As it is…
…no, JKC’s right. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Third the motion.
Been there, commented. It’s worth noting that while there are a few “go team go” posts on kos in response to this, the majority seems to be against it on the grounds that it is stupid and just makes us look bad, and besides, it’s wrong. Various recommendations of silent protests by any infiltrators who may exist: e.g., turning their back on Cheney when he speaks, putting on black armbands once in the hall, etc. But the majority on kos are against it, and kos is a site that draws, along with some fine people, some of the, how to say, less seasoned and thoughtful people on the left. (To my mind, that’s one of the good things about it: the totally angry teenagers can get into tactical discussions with thoughtful and articulate eighty year old Quakers they might never otherwise meet, and hopefully skip some part of the learning curve.)
Dumb, indeed.
This is precisely the sort of thing that gives demostrators a bad name, and precisely the sort of thing that the Republicans are looking to use as ammunition against Kerry.
This sort of thing is at best irresponsible, and clearly immature. I just hope none of them were carrying any Kerry paraphernalia.
crutan
added my request to Kos that he rethink and revise
“the totally angry teenagers can get into tactical discussions with thoughtful and articulate eighty year old Quakers they might never otherwise meet, and hopefully skip some part of the learning curve.”
They might even point them at Plekhanov’s (the Russian Menshevik) almost-100 year old essay against Anarchist tactics, which says much the same as von does here.
Disagree completely with you Von and totally support Kos. Am having a drink with him tomorrow and will gladly pass on your views as well as my own support of him.
Not surprisingly you leave out the most important thing. This is the Administration that runs on “Security” and how safe we are with them in power and they can’t even secure their own Convention Floor from Non-Violent exercises of free speech! All you have to do to infiltrate this cabal is to be white and appear well-heeled.
If I had seen a big post from Von about how he is offended by BC04 requiring loyalty oaths to attend their “public” campaign events, I might be a little more sympathetic to your point of view.
barry and wilfred,
you note different objections to von’s post, but I want to ask you both: don’t you feel that given how hard United for Peace and Justice worked to secure their permit and “advertise” the protest and organize the event and emphasize the need to disperse when there was no legal rally point acceptable that illegal protests like this (when legal ones were permitted…important note) disrespect those efforts by UPJ and those who marched?
If all efforts (legal and illegal) are going to be lumped together under the umbrella of dissent with no distinction, why did UPJ bother?
I know they (and I) were disappointed that grass was more important to NYC than our rights, but I thought they rose admirably to the occassion and demonstrated that dissent does not equal lawlessness.
Or am I missing something here?
I knew it was a mistake to get sucked into another discussion on this site. This place is like our current state of political discussion. There is the (occasionally slightly leftish) center, and there is the right.
Ed, you are playing their game of what is illegal vs. legal speech. I will agree that infiltrating a convention is outside of the regular bounds of permitted speech, but I will not accept that people wanting to walk along a sidewalk (with or without a sign) is illegal, but that is how it is being treated this week. There is nothing in our Constution about permits being required for any free speech event.
The police allowed people to expect to be able to march from Ground Zero to MSG, and then arrested them anyway.
The organizers of UFPNJ are well acquainted with marches that do not have permits. I have been at many such events with Bill Dobbs where no arrests were made. In this case they went the permit route so that people would feel safe to attend, and (I assume) because they knew an event of this size would need cooperation from the city.
I will be damned if I will allow that to be a condition for someone wanting to hold up a sign without blocking traffic, sidewalk or otherwise.
The NYPD are behaving abominably, with talk of “pre-emptive” arrests. Look at the stories I linked here:
http://bloggy.com/mt/archives/004318.html
A woman was arrested for appearing by herself with a sign an costume at a Hummer dealer yesterday. People were arrested for holding a banner between them at the Public Library. People were tackled by police as they were leaving a subway station at the same protest.
von, the title of your post couldn’t fit the content better. and i had no problem with Kos but your response to him gave me a conniption, so thanks, hope your misery loves company.
edward, i thought my post was to the real point actually but here is a point by point response to von’s numbered post:
#1, it trampled no one’s right of free speech, it was a blip on their radar at most and gave the crowd one more supposed thing in an endless need for superiority
#2, these wingers will bend any truth to suit their needs so no one should change their behavior to suit this group as it’s an automatic losing proposition
#3 The corporate owned media already gives Republican talking points exposure 24/7 so you don’t have to worry about giving the media ammunition
#4 Of course Republicans think they are the adults in the room, and nothing Dems can do will ever make them think otherwise. That still doesn’t make them correct.
#5 This story has no legs so Dems and Kerry will spend little or no time apologizing or disavowing this unless it’s a slow news week for the media
#6 Kerry is entering the home stretch with the debates and is not about to be knocked off message. Instead Von, this is when Kerry starts hammering harder than ever and this non-story will not stop that from happening.
#7 The right-wing blogosphere doesn’t log the traffic of the Daily Kos and said blogosphere is more inflamed by nature than a truckdrivers sphincter.
#8 moral dingbats always think they have the high road, so don’t change your behavior. As i tell lefties who advise me not to protest (or to wear a suit and tie to a protest), if there is one drag queen at a gay pride parade, she’s on the front page, not the other 250,000 people so just go and be counted and express yourself.
#9 Did you think it’s not being done to change anyone’s mind? It’s done to say ‘this is wrong’ and that in and of itself is worthwhile.
#10 Something will always tee you off to write ill-tempered protests so if it’s not this it will be something else.
Cripes, Barry and Wilfred. The Republicans are your opponents, not your enemy, and they have as much right to gather as the Democrats do. They can also exclude uninvited guests — again, just like the Democrats. The right to assemble is part of what we call “America.” (Heck, they can even choose to mandate that their supporters sign silly loyalty oaths — and other folks can fairly criticize them for doing so.)
Enjoy your drink with Kos (I suggest the Ace Bar in ABC City, a decent dive).
barry,
I’ve been following these events, and don’t mind pointing out that <http://www.bloggy.com“>your blog is an excellent source of updated information on the police action and idiocy of its own. (That’s why your site is in my Blog List).
I’m asking about this one specific action however. The woman arrested by herself, for example, is horrendous, I agree, but it’s different.
Kos is advocating illegally entering the convention hall.
If the President or some other high-profile person had been there and the Secret Service had heard only the words “kill” and “Bush” they might have over-reacted much more seriously than the police had in this case.
It’s dangerous for these protesters as well, and Kos’s endorsement is irresponsible.
Barry — I totally agree with you about some of the examples you cite. My problem with the demonstrators kos describes are that they are (a) trying to prevent others from speaking, and (b) being tactically stupid. Believing the first as I do, I think it’s unconscionable to prevent individual people from holding signs or doing whatever non-violent, otherwise lawful thing they want to do, especially if they are exercising their right to free speech in a public place. And I would hope that we could all be against “preventive arrests”, which I think are odious.
By the way, I’m not really sure what counts as the left anymore, but while I’m centrist by temperament, I don’t think I qualify as part of the only slightly leftish center 🙂
#10 Something will always tee you off to write ill-tempered protests so if it’s not this it will be something else.
Well, at least we agree on this, Wilfred.
If I had seen a big post from Von about how he is offended by BC04 requiring loyalty oaths to attend their “public” campaign events . . .
See, von, I warned you! First Thorley, now this — you have to blog everything, or you can’t blog anything!
As someone typically more sympathetic than not, historically, to the Democratic party, I find it . . . unseemly for a major Democratic fundraiser, who apparently has the ear of party strategists, to advocate crashing the other party’s convention. It’s going to backfire, big time.
“This is the Administration that runs on “Security” and how safe we are with them in power and they can’t even secure their own Convention Floor from Non-Violent exercises of free speech!”
This is a hilariously wrongheaded analysis. The key distinction between most Democrats who believe in the War on Terrorism and most Republicans is about the proper balance between offense and defense in the war. Or perhaps the difference is between hawks and doves. In any case the infiltration only suggests that Republicans or hawks are correct–you can’t expect defense to work all the time. You have to go out to where the terrorists are now, and stop them well before they can strike against us here.
OT: “The key distinction between most Democrats who believe in the War on Terrorism and most Republicans is about the proper balance between offense and defense in the war.”
No, it’s about tactics, including the correct identification of the enemy.
I agree, though, that the ActUp’s successful infiltration of the convention shows nothing one way or the other.
In any case the infiltration only suggests that Republicans or hawks are correct–you can’t expect defense to work all the time. You have to go out to where the terrorists are now, and stop them well before they can strike against us here.
Extending this analogy, do you think sending police out to preemptively arrest “suspicious” protestors would reduce the intensity/frequency of the protests — presumably the desired effect of one’s policy — or enflame their passions to the point of violence?
And if the answer is the latter, what does this say about the policy choices of the hawks?
Hilzoy,
Just out of curiousity how do we correctly identify the enemy?
Blue — I don’t really want to derail von’s thread, but: I think our current enemy is Osama bin Laden, and secondarily those who provide him with what he needs to mount an attack on us, e.g. the Taliban.
I think you’re reading it wrong. By “should” he meant that he’d heard information that it would be happening again, not that he was encouraging it.
Crutan wrote:
Protests in general have little to nothing to do with enacting any sort of positive social/political change they are usually about emotional self-aggrandizement and trying to get attention for the participants. If they really wanted to advance their cause there are dozens of ways that are probably dozens of more effective ways of doing so.
But I do agree that this will probably hurt Kerry which is a good thing.
Solfal, I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I think you may be right.
I agree I don’t want to derail his thread.
But it is interesting to me because that difference in perspective is really what drives ones choice of tactics… or the president for that matter.
(Yes, I believe all other issues will get sidelined during this election cycle.)
To quote myself from the Easy One post by Edward a couple of days ago:
“I’m certain the radical protest in NYC is a plot by Karl Rove. ; -)”
I pretty much agree with Thorley, especially in this case. What’s the point of protesting the RNC — are they saying that there’s something fundamentally wrong about the Republican party choosing its leaders and presenting its case? Or from a purely tactical point of view, does anyone think a mob of angry people waving placards is going to convince the fence-sitters to vote for Kerry?
Point by point:
(1) No, it doesn’t trample on any free speech issue. The GOP owns a big megaphone, nobody’s turning it off. It’s called ‘Civil Disobedience’–a time-honored tactic.
(2) The GOP is going to paint Dems as loons regardless. My goodness, the GOP IL Senate candidate just labeled all gays (including Cheney’s daughter) “selfish hedonists.”
The GOP OK Senate candidate has portrayed his campaign as a contest between “good and evil.”
Dems have been called ‘unpatriotic’ and ‘unsupportive’ of our troops. Heck, in light of these pejoratives, ‘loon’ sounds pretty attractive.
(3)You mean the adults wearing band-aids with purple hearts on them?
(4) Or the adult who happens to be the Speaker of the US House of Representatives who keeps telling people George Soros is funded by drug cartels?
(5)See (2).
(6)But of course. Everyone knows John Kerry has the power to control all Dems all the time. These same superpowers enabled him to survive combat in Vietnam and completely game the system without detection for 35 years.
(7)Point well-taken. We mustn’t upset the Anti-American Bichon Frise or the LGF crowd who this close to coming over to the Kerry side.
(8)Another point well-taken. After all, acts of civil disobedience (examples include lunch counter sit-ins in Selma) are indefensible when compared to the principled call for the “extermination” of a race.
(9) And your belief this act was to get people to vote for Kerry is?
(10) The horror.
I’ve worked on several campaigns helping to coordinate volunteers for door-knocking, lit drops, phone banks, fair booths, parades, etc. and one of the first rules we’ve tried to impress upon anyone that might be seen as representing either our party or candidate is do no harm. The most effective thing you can do is (a) get your supporters/base to turn out and vote for your guy and (b) nudge the undecided into doing the same. Getting into a shouting match on the street only takes time and energy away from more productive endeavors.
Frankly I’m gratified that those of us on the Right don’t as a general rule* engage in protests and demonstrations. I’d rather win than try to make the evening news.
* Abortion *might* be seen as an exception but herein the objective is to deter an individual from taking an immediate action rather than try to persuade a mass of people to adopt your POV or change governmental policy. Whether such tactics are effective is another matter.
JadeGold, very generally speaking, when people engage in acts of civil disobedience, they do so in order to highlight a right that they believe they are being denied (e.g. the lunch counter sit-ins) or to disrupt an activity they believe is illegal or immoral (chaining oneself to a tree, getting arrested at a solid waste incinerator). How does sneaking into/disrupting the opposing party’s nominating convention fall along either of those lines?
I believe the Right has a reputation for heckling Democratic speakers. That doesn’t seem any better to me than protestors, morally or tactically.
“By the way, I’m not really sure what counts as the left anymore, but while I’m centrist by temperament, I don’t think I qualify as part of the only slightly leftish center :)”
What, didn’t anybody tell you? Becoming a coblogger here automatically enrolls you in the VRWC. We’re subjecting you to hidden mind control rays right this second. Soon, soon you too will be part of the Collective…
(Scary ghost noises and waving fingers)
Moe
Ah, but unbeknownst to you I have a secret back-at-you shield, by which your death rays are transmuted into secret yearnings to swerve slowly and inexorably to the left. I try not to use them when you all might be driving, though.
At least, I think I have such a shield — it’s the only reason I can think of why not a single one of the right-wingers on this site has even tried to argue either that my Constitution post was wrong, or that it doesn’t matter. (Vanity prevents me from considering another alternative, namely that they all found it beneath contempt and are trying to spare my feelings.)
Obviously not death rays — I was channelling the wrong Marvel comic.
Hilzoy, Did I miss a Constitution post? 😉
Anarch, “Extending this analogy, do you think sending police out to preemptively arrest “suspicious” protestors would reduce the intensity/frequency of the protests — presumably the desired effect of one’s policy — or enflame their passions to the point of violence?”
Nope the analogy between security and infiltration wasn’t mine I was merely pointing out that the Republican view of ‘security’ wasn’t being undermined by the ‘infiltration’. Furthermore, unlike how the protestors apparently see me, I don’t see them as an actual enemy, and don’t see the need to ‘preemptively arrest’ anyone. They are the opposition, not the enemy. Different tactics are appropriate in those different cases. (I’ll be the first to admit that some Republicans have lost sight of that distinction from time to time. Nevertheless it is an extremely important distinction to keep in mind when politics gets heated.)
Protests in general have little to nothing to do with enacting any sort of positive social/political change they are usually about emotional self-aggrandizement and trying to get attention for the participants.
How many protests have you attended Thorley? What “attention” did you get, personally, at any of them? What are you basing this on?
Good luck in convincing Kos–or anyone else of either party–that their tactics are wrongheaded. I’ve been trying on several fronts for a few days now.
Edward wrote:
About three dozen or so.
I was shown on the news twice, got into a shouting match with the late Senator Wellstone, a fist-fight with a Gore supporter who punched a pregnant woman, and was interviewed in the school newspaper when I stopped some of the rent-a-mob crowd from trying to break into a speech by the former Speaker of the House.
My own experience and simple reasoning. As I stated above and have said on this and other forum many times – if you live in a country that permits protest, then more than likely you have far more effective avenues to try and persuade your fellow citizens to support your policies or candidates. Generally the only reason (besides those who get paid to protest) to opt for protest and demonstrations is because some people just get off on the attention and it’s a chance to emotionally vent.
“I’ve been trying on several fronts for a few days now.”
I understand that under these circumstances the motivations of a ‘Sorry to hear that’ coming from a Republican may be legitimately seen as having at least a potential ulterior motive; still, I’m sorry to hear that. I know I hate it when people don’t listen. 🙁
von, thanks for the bar recommendation, is it a cocktail bar or more of a beer bar? always glad we can agree on something 🙂
I think it’s time the sane majority of Americans take to the streets and violently protest the protests.
This is very rude stupid, and juvenile, and reflects a hostility to other’s speech–but it is not a real threat to anyone’s First Amendment rights; it doesn’t even compare to the “free speech zones” at both conventions, let alone some of the other violations of Constitutional rights we’ve seen from this administration. Hecklers happen, they are dealt with, the event continues. It’s happened at campaign rallies I’ve been to, at Democratic debates, etc.
The actions of a few protestors and bloggers who may or may not stupidly , even prominent bloggers and fundraisers, do not determine who the adults in the room are. That’s a job for the candidates, the leaders of the party, the speakers at the convention.
Zell Miller gave the RNC keynote a few hours ago. Barack Obama gave the DNC keynote; you may remember it. A woman who has compared gay marriage to the holocaust gave the invocation at the GOP convention. The Speaker of the House recently insinuated that a leading democratic fundraiser and philanthropist gets his money from drug cartels.
I have heard a lot of cheap cracks about John Kerry’s Frenchness and sensitivity and almost no concrete plans about what to do over the next four years. Kerry hasn’t given enough specifics either, but Bush and Cheney won’t even acknowledge the problems–and they’re in office NOW; Kerry, if elected, will face a very different situation than the one he faces today and risks undercutting Bush with too many specifics about how he’d deal with problematic states.
Please, please, please: You can’t balance Dennis Hastert with Kos, or the Bush/Cheney campaign committee with a few anonymous MoveOn members, or Tom Delay with a guy holding a paper mache puppet.
I was shown on the news twice, got into a shouting match with the late Senator Wellstone.
Good GOD, not zombie Democrats?
Phil: The very nature of civil disobedience almost always involves some minor lawbreaking. Civil rights activists were breaking the law, at the time, when they staged lunch counter sit-ins.
My understanding of the act of civil disobedience being discussed is that it involved HIV/AIDS activists and not folks just interested in seeing their guy elected. I’m thinking these activists consider their issue a matter of life and death.
Thorley Winston: if you live in a country that permits protest, then more than likely you have far more effective avenues to try and persuade your fellow citizens to support your policies or candidates.
Do you feel that the civil rights protests of the 1950s and 1960s were similarly pointless, or is this a more recent phenomenon?
[Plus, it kind of depends on how one defines “permission”…]
Quick note to clarify point #1 (mentioned in response to JadeGold‘s critique): I wrote “it tramples on the Republican’s moral right to free speech and assembly.” (Emphasis added.) I’m not suggesting that the Republicans necessarily have a Constitutional right to speak without interruption — though they surely have a legal right to do so (the law of trespass, among other things). (I’m also not suggesting that JadeGold didn’t get my point; only that I realized that I may have been unclear.)
Good GOD, not zombie Democrats?
Haven’t you been watching the crowd shots of the RNC? We’re just fighting fire with fire… ;p
Slart quipped:
Well once you get past the smell of brimstone they’re not quite so bad 😉
I do have to admit that based on the news coverage, it appears we have at least our share of the…err…unconventionally beautiful. Hey, what can I say? We’re the party of inclusion!
;p
Anarch asks:
Both to an extent (although I would not necessarily say “pointless” in that instance).
On the one hand there is a pretty good argument to be made that in a case in which the local/States governments had unconstitutionally disenfranchised its citizens solely on the basis of skin color, they really did not have access to the “more effective avenues” (of which voting and political campaigns are certainly two) I intimated in my qualifier. This is clearly not the case today since the idiots from Edward’s “focus group” are perfectly free to vote, send letters to the editor, work for a different candidate, write to the legislative officials, etc.
On the other hand, I would also make a distinction between actions such as sit-ins and marches versus something more substantive such as a voter registration drive and the legislative/judicial processes which is what made the real difference in the civil rights movement in my opinion. People might remember the speeches and the images in the history books but I tend to think that the more important work usually occurs behind the scenes even though the former was certainly part of it.
ABC has a not very mac-friendly link to a video of one of the young GOPers kicking an ACT UP demonstrator while she’s on the ground. No word on whether the NYPD have bothered to find him.
http://ww2.7online.com/global/video/WorldNowASX.asp?playerType=native&ClipID1=247870&h1=Headline&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=111867&activePane=info&playerVersion=6