It's horrible politics; playing nice in politics has never been my repertoire; I am all about winning elections; pissing off potential allies and persuadable voters is not a winning strategy imo ;impeding traffic is bad form
It's horrible politics; playing nice in politics has never been my repertoire; I am all about winning elections; pissing off potential allies and persuadable voters is not a winning strategy imo ;impeding traffic is bad form
Vietnam War protests were effective because they were persistent and particularly targeted Washington, DC areas for many months and years.
If these protests were all about stopping traffic, I doubt Vietnam war activism would have gotten that far.
Likewise with labor union protests - They don’t stop traffic and target the companies directly on site. And usually there are resolutions in these cases.
Don't you think Vietnam War protests were ultimately effective only because the public grew weary as the war became an undeniable quagmire? I think it's highly debatable that the protests themselves moved the needle. Recall that a majority of people polled approved of both the Daley crackdown at the Chicago Democratic convention and the Kent State massacre....and both of those happened after the public began turning against the war in pretty large numbers.
Valid question. I'd say while the Vietnam War protests didn't move the needle when they first happened, they did contribute to the awareness of the war during a time when the U.S. by contrast to today was more conservative. Even while the protests did get more disruptive and disbanded at times, protesting against the governments had to involve crowds of people in front of where the federal government is.
Same thing with the South Africa anti-apartheid movements around the world. When the original protests happened, they didn't immediately move the needle and it took many years before the US government under Ronald Reagan's leadership (thanks to Senator Dick Lugar & others) finally acted. This after persistent push
Protests themselves aren't necessarily assured to immediately change minds. However, they need to be focused even if at times they can get out of control a bit.
My issue with protest movements like the Free Palestine movement (for the record, I'm for human rights for both Israelis and Palestinians) is that there's no real focused strategy. It's like the protestors go up to random Jewish synagogues, company buildings (i.e. Google employees protesting in front of the company), and private gatherings of anyone who is a noted Jewish professor as a means of trying to get Jews to be on their side (like the UC Berkeley law professor who had a private gathering with students and then a free palestinine supporter disrupted the meeting with a protest). Not exactly a way to really push Congress and the White House to act.
You're making sense to me. People can have their consciousnesses raised. But we do have to acknowledge that McGovern lost and there were a hell of a lot of people who supported U.S. intervention in Indochina to the end and remained angry about the withdrawal from Saigon for a long time.
After reading through all the comments on this thread, I see a lot of disagreement with you and yet none of it actually talks about what you’re talking about. Thanks for understanding that pissing off swing voters and negatively interrupting their personal lives isn’t a winning strategy.
It's horrible politics; playing nice in politics has never been my repertoire; I am all about winning elections; pissing off potential allies and persuadable voters is not a winning strategy imo ;impeding traffic is bad form
Vietnam War protests were effective because they were persistent and particularly targeted Washington, DC areas for many months and years.
If these protests were all about stopping traffic, I doubt Vietnam war activism would have gotten that far.
Likewise with labor union protests - They don’t stop traffic and target the companies directly on site. And usually there are resolutions in these cases.
Don't you think Vietnam War protests were ultimately effective only because the public grew weary as the war became an undeniable quagmire? I think it's highly debatable that the protests themselves moved the needle. Recall that a majority of people polled approved of both the Daley crackdown at the Chicago Democratic convention and the Kent State massacre....and both of those happened after the public began turning against the war in pretty large numbers.
Valid question. I'd say while the Vietnam War protests didn't move the needle when they first happened, they did contribute to the awareness of the war during a time when the U.S. by contrast to today was more conservative. Even while the protests did get more disruptive and disbanded at times, protesting against the governments had to involve crowds of people in front of where the federal government is.
Same thing with the South Africa anti-apartheid movements around the world. When the original protests happened, they didn't immediately move the needle and it took many years before the US government under Ronald Reagan's leadership (thanks to Senator Dick Lugar & others) finally acted. This after persistent push
Protests themselves aren't necessarily assured to immediately change minds. However, they need to be focused even if at times they can get out of control a bit.
My issue with protest movements like the Free Palestine movement (for the record, I'm for human rights for both Israelis and Palestinians) is that there's no real focused strategy. It's like the protestors go up to random Jewish synagogues, company buildings (i.e. Google employees protesting in front of the company), and private gatherings of anyone who is a noted Jewish professor as a means of trying to get Jews to be on their side (like the UC Berkeley law professor who had a private gathering with students and then a free palestinine supporter disrupted the meeting with a protest). Not exactly a way to really push Congress and the White House to act.
You're making sense to me. People can have their consciousnesses raised. But we do have to acknowledge that McGovern lost and there were a hell of a lot of people who supported U.S. intervention in Indochina to the end and remained angry about the withdrawal from Saigon for a long time.
After reading through all the comments on this thread, I see a lot of disagreement with you and yet none of it actually talks about what you’re talking about. Thanks for understanding that pissing off swing voters and negatively interrupting their personal lives isn’t a winning strategy.
thanks