I’m really starting to believe street protests and “counter” protests are a waste of time for organizations advocating any issue.
But let’s me be clear on what kind of protesting I’m poo-pooing. I’m not talking about TEA parties, or the recent “bring the townhall to Matheson” health care rally. I see those events as public organizing, or demonstrating, not direct protest of a specific event. There may be elements of “countering” something to those events, but overall, they are designed to show support for something in numbers, not simply protest what another organization is doing. Those events were organized in a way that despite location or timing could stand on their own as public demonstrations to either raise awareness or show support in numbers for an issue or belief. Organizing in that way can be very effective and educational (as long as you know what you’re talking about). TEA parties and the Matheson rallies are in effect opposition, but they are events planned to bring like minds together and make a public display of support for an issue or ideology. It’s effective. I’d further argue the TEA party rallies lost steam because they stopped promoting a message and starting simply protesting what they didn’t like (in their defense, the original message was one hard to keep promoting… as it was never very clear to begin with).
Let me also be clear I’m not talking about warranted civil disobedience, which will always have a place in our country.
I’m talking about the type of protesting that happens outside another organization’s event, or even inside the event itself, meant to disrupt or simply show opposition to the event taking place and nothing more. Events that amount to little more than “we disagree” and are here to remind you of that. Well, everyone knows already. It’s not as productive as other options, and has the potential to quickly become counter productive, especially if your goal is to change minds and raise awareness of the message you want to send.
As an example, the Sutherland “Sacred Ground” forums, and consequent demonstrations organized by Common Ground supporters advocating marriage equality. The protests at the Sutherland event last night sounded tame and if Glenn Warchol’s Twitter feed is an indicator, even garnered a lot of honking from street traffic in support of marriage equality. Good. But last year, the protests — I believe — did more to undermine support for the no-defunct Common Ground Initiative. Protesters lined up outside the Sutherland event with signs, chants, and even a few face-to-face confrontations with organizers and attendees. But what did either the demonstrations then or last night accomplish for supporters of marriage equality or chances of better legislation in the upcoming state session? I’d say very little.
The reason isn’t complex. When you organize an independent event to raise awareness or show public support in numbers, you can accomplish quite a bit. Often such efforts bring supporters out of the woodwork, make passers-by think, and even provide media opportunities to get your message out. All effective means of demonstration. But when you “counter” protest another organization’s event or conduct a street protest simply to show opposition or frustration with a group or an issue, you are effectively asking the public or attendees of an event to choose a side. And you are asking them to choose a side with the information or point of view they had before they saw your protest sign, and no more. In those situations, it’s human nature to side with the group perceived to be “under attack.” In the case of these protests, Sutherland. And what that amounts to is that last year, the protesters successfully painted even LaVarr Christensen — one of the most damaging and lunatic politicos in Utah’s political arena, IMHO — and all the other speakers at the event, as victims. How did that raise support for equality? Many have argued with me, saying if they had not protested, the event would have gone unchallenged. Fair enough. But I’m arguing that at least with the specific issue of gay rights and equality initiatives you do more to flare up anti-equality sentiment and close doors to education and discussion by “counter” protesting an organization your disagree with, than by developing your own event to raise awareness and create discussion, separate from the opposition’s efforts.
Discussing this with a friend (as I type, in fact) who just used an example of animal rights advocates opposing the treatment of animals at rodeos. They protest at the rodeos because that’s where the animal abuse they oppose is happening. And my question there is what exactly does that accomplish? Aren’t you then wasting your time irritating people who go to rodeos with your protest, and possibly even generate support for rodeos by invigorating attendees to become activists against your cause? Wouldn’t it be more effective to spend your time garnering more support, fundraising, and message dissemination potential from possible advocates of your cause at separate event meant to draw in support rather than simply show your opposition?
In essence, by “counter” protesting an existing event, you may be solidifying lines of diverging opinion, not changing minds, and most definitely not fostering common ground. Pointing out opposition to an event or issue is good. There are just more productive ways to do it now than standing outside with a poster proclaiming your dislike for what is happening inside. To be effective, you have to offer more.
Last year when equality advocates chose to protest Sutherland’s first “Sacred Ground” event, they did so to show support in numbers, and to ensure that it was evident that not everyone in Utah agreed with what was going to be said inside. There’s value in that. This year, at the time of the second event, most people I’ve asked only remember Common Ground supporters disrupting last year’s Sutherland event (regardless of whether that is indeed what happened, that is what people remember). Wouldn’t it have been more effective if Equality Utah had organized their own event the following night, drawn a larger crowd, generated more online video and coverage, attracted more media attention, and gotten a more effective message out to Utahn’s than “we don’t agree,” which I argue was the only message sent by protesting the “Sacred Ground” event itself. The protesting, I’d argue, created more sympathy for the event, it’s organizers, and speakers than it did generate support for Common Ground.
Street protest in general is a dying art (It’s so 1992!), while public organizing is becoming much easier, with online tools, and less dependency on attracting the local news cameras for getting your message out. Via resources like YouTube, email databases, and facebook groups, and Twitter, just to name a few examples, it’s more possible now than every to put together your own events and raise awareness for your issue.
I’m not arguing protest has zero purpose, just less than other avenues of change available. Showing support for your cause in numbers in a public display is a much more effective means of changing minds and winning hearts than creating the perception of disruption inherent in “counter” protesting another organization’s event could ever be.
There may have been a time when garnering any attention from news media via protests was essential to promoting your cause, but those days are gone. It’s much more effective for an organization to spend time developing a message to promote, and creatively pushing it into the public sphere with public and virtual organizing than it is to be captured on the local news chanting and waving signs in protest.
.
