Some critics may complain that large marches and ritualized civil disobedience are stagnant tactics. In some respects they are. Yet mass demonstrations serve an important function, rallying the movement's base and serving as bellwethers of wider activity.

Those who contend that the energy of large-scale protests could be better directed elsewhere assume that national action and local action are somehow mutually exclusive. They fail to take into account how momentum builds on itself. For leading anti-war organizations, national mobilizations generate an influx of donors and activists. Groups like those that make up UFPJ’s coalition will leave Washington in a better position to organize teach-ins and counter-recruitment, prod action from public officials, and support anti-war veterans.

...) No doubt, conservatives will try to conjure pictures of flag-burning hippies to make the anti-war movement look like a marginal fringe instead of a legitimate political force. But those who direct their energy to worrying about such backlash rather than organizing to build a better mobilization make two mistakes:

First, they miss the lesson of John Kerry, who showed that the right-wing machine will do its best to demonize all opposition, and that no amount of tepid moderation will deter them.

And, second, they give too little credit to organizers in groups like UFPJ, Military Families Speak Out and Iraq Veterans Against the War, who rarely match the stereotypes

...) The more support the movement gets, the greater the chances are that the marches and other actions will ignite wider swaths of anti-war public opinion. In turn, more members of Congress will feel heat not just from the national Mall, but also from voters in their home districts. For a peace movement just re-emerging from the shadows, this would be a worthy contribution. [read it all]

posted by Cyndy | link | | |