Extra Ordinary Ideas

Polite Peaceniks

It seems that last Saturday's anti-war protests here in DC went pretty well, by which I mean that very few people were hurt or arrested. I don’t recall hearing of serious disturbances in other cities that day either; a notable contrast to recent protests against globalization. Now I don’t doubt for a second that the antiglobo crowd was out to protest the war as well, but the shady, lawless elements that dominate that coalition apparently can’t dominate this one.

Many anti-globalization protestors are a separate breed from traditional petitioners. Too often they define success in terms of 1) significantly disrupting the actions of peaceful city residents and commuters in a manner contrary to just and reasonable law, and ideally 2) upsetting the rule of law itself by overwhelming the police. By their own rhetoric, non-disruptive communication is too often not the goal for most.

When I close my eyes and think of free speech, a large, peaceful demonstration in an open area comes to mind. If public access is likely to be blocked, appropriate authorities are informed in advance, and an appropriate sized patch of (preferably) grass within eyeshot of the offending institution is duly reserved for the protestors’ message. If a big crowd is expected, by all means the city should close off a section of a nearby street to ensure sufficient space for all who would petition for redress of grievance. This is pretty much what we saw last week.

But these more radical protestors often instead speak freely of “direct actions” designed to “shut down the city.” Many of these folks are nice, thoughtful people, but they’ve no confidence their message will develop currency without coercion. Most commuters are cattle, they assume: mindless, thoughtless adherents to the status quo who need to be awaked rudely from their slumber by being forced to sit in an all-day traffic jam trying to get to or from work. Their politics aren't radical enough. Accordingly, they should not be permitted equal access to public thoroughfares. They do not deserve this access. Of course, the protestors themselves demand this access – it is their right as thoughtful and concerned citizens to access the public byways, if only to make them forcibly unavailable to others.

And then, of course, there is the testing of the state itself. Testing, not as a by-product of expression, but as an end in itself. A demonstration, not a declaration, by the antiglobo crowd that they can topple the state. That they can - however temporarily - limit the power of the state to enforce the law. They succeeded in Seattle. I was downtown there all week, and the laws that went unenforced are those that typically protect the free movement of persons and property around the city on peaceful, productive errands.

Now, “a little revolution now and then” can indeed be a good thing, and I have to admit that there’s something reassuring about occasionally seeing the limits of the power of the state. But if someone comes to my city with the stated goal of preventing me from getting to my office, grocery store, or date, that person is coming to my city on an evil errand.

So…I suppose I should count my blessings. The antiwar crowd was pretty chill and for that I am grateful! With luck, the radicalized wing of the antiglobalization movement won't be able to highjack the war issue.

Posted by Marie Gryphon on January 25, 2003