Firstly I would like to provide a summary of the key points of this chapter for review. Meyer begins this chapter acknowledging the power of incorporating politics into social movements. Protesting at social movements, for example the Democratic national convention in Chicago in 1968, is a great way to gain the attention of the federal and state governments but also to gain political allies. Originally Meyer states that political protest was greater in the past than now, and contrastingly fewer issues were protested about in the past than are now. This increase of issues protested about alludes to JP’s question as to whether civil disobedience has become overused. Meyer admits in this chapter that the increase of social movements has created a “cluster of issues” (146) and each issue receives less attention as a result.
From there, Meyer then moves on to discuss the double-sidedness of political protests. Meyer uses the examples of abortion and civil rights to present the case that each political movement has a countermovement. He briefly states that although these movements may be the direct opposite of one another, they still often use the same tactics as mentioned in Chapter 5. Political protests have so many components to them due to the fact that each one has a countermovement. Meyers writes “Activists on more than one side of an issue must deal not only with each other, but also the outsiders drawn into the conflict” (150). Activists not only have to worry about organizing and promoting their side of the issue, but also have to stay on top of the counter movement’s plans and rebut their statements.
Not only is there countermovement to every movement, but also there is bipartisanship within both the state and federal government. So therefore you have the two sides of one issue fighting against each other, Republicans and Democrats fighting against each other, and the state and federal governments fighting against each other as well. It’s no wonder political protests never make any real progress. Political protests often have more resources than non-political protests because they engage politicians with power into the equation. These politicians can act as representatives for each side of the issue and make sure their opinions are debated in government meetings. However, because the state and federal governments often have different rulings and do not come to similar conclusions on rulings, there is a lot of gray area within these hot button issues. For example with abortion, Roe v. Wade ruled that a women can terminate her pregnancy during the first trimester, the state holds power in the third trimester, but during the second trimester, there needs to be a “balancing of rights” (152). This balancing of rights leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Take gay marriage, the federal government does not recognize gay marriage, yet they give states the right to make their own individual decisions. Well not all states have the same policies, so there again is a gray area of indecision.
In conclusion, Meyer states that the reason why political protests take so long to resolve, or might never be resolved is because of the split in government and the continued existence of movements and countermovement. Also, because political protest has become more commonly accepted in the present, people risk less by joining a movement. Therefore, there are more issues being debated and lots and lots of clutter.
Okay now for the fun part…some questions for you to think about:
1.) Going back to JP’s question has the increase of political issues being debated taken away from their overall meaning? Would it be more conducive to focus on only a few hot button topics (gay marriage, abortion) at a time?
2.) In what ways does a bipartisan government create standstills for social movements? Are these standstills necessary to keep the peace? Could these standstills ever realistically be removed somehow?
3.) Is there a countermovement to Occupy Wall Street? If so, does that mean OWS is a political protest? If not, does that mean OWS does not qualify to be a political protest?
– Lucie Dufour
Lucie,
Those are some great questions to think about, if I may say so myself. I would like to take a stab at the first one considering my chapter obviously dealt with it also and I never gave my opinion. I believe personally that protest, including civil disobedience, has been overused throughout the past years, at least within the West. When many causes are protesting, it becomes monotonous and negatively affects all movements involved. I find myself hard pressed to remember or contrive a single act of protest that helped lead to significant changes and actual results within the past several years within the West. OWS, the pro-choice and pro-life movements have achieved little results and have no one single act of protest that stands in the collective minds of America. Whereas, every student learns of the civil rights marches, the freedom rides, and Rosa parks. We have images of black college students getting ravished by white police officers and not fighting back. We see the Little Rock Nine getting spat on and we remember that as a country. With the advent of the internet and the mass us of communication and television I believe that we are over stimulated and unsurprised to learn of new movements and counter movements constantly. New causes, demonstrations, and protests happen weekly and our senses tune many of them out because it becomes monotonous. The civil rights movement stopped many years ago because it achieved success. Back then, it was one of only a few protests or movements receiving media attention. Its tactics seemed novel and the retaliation severe. Nowadays many movements strive for attention, the retaliation is minor, and the resulting mass of causes and protests only confuse onlookers, not inspire them to join.
Just as a side note, I included “at least in the west” because of Mohamed Bouazizi. His single act of protest, his self-immolation, was the main event that set off the Arab Spring. Why was his courageous act so effective??? Because it happened in a society with severe injustice and very very little protest. When most voices are quiet it is easier for one voice to be heard. When all speak at once it has the same effect of total silence, no single voices are heard
-JP
JP,
I think you introduce a really important problem when you discuss that certain “movements have achieved little results and have no one single act of protest that stands in the collective minds of America” but yet everybody hears about Civil Rights. It begs the question to ask how effectively is history being taught when it really skips some crucial events of the past? Should history classes, beginning in Elementary school, perhaps focus more on social movements as a lens to see how our country has become what it is today?
Countermovements drive social movements by creating a scene that can attract the media’s attention. By attracting media attention, both parties are provided with platforms for idea sharing. Placing limitations on social movements would be counterproductive to the rights of citizens to protest and to the defining features of democracy—participation of all. There will never be a time when all of society is in agreement on issues, however it is necessary for citizens to know both sides of an argument and to consciously align themselves with the concepts they are most in agreement with. Bipartisanship does not create a standstill for government, but rather ensures that both sides of an argument are adequately considered and attempts to reconcile the two. By limiting the topics that can be protested or enacting laws that align with only one side of an argument, democracy is strained and participation by all citizens is conditional.
This topic of bipartisanship is one of the things I think we need to change most about our government. Although I agree with Sarah that it allows for both political parties to be heard, however there are too many diverse ideas in America today to only have two very extreme (usually) parties! Now, I am not saying we should go ahead and rid of the republican and democratic party, nor am I saying we should create a thousand new parties to appease every citizens beliefs, however, I do believe that we need to stop over-generalizing about parties and their leaders. The debates of the issues in today’s world shouldn’t be taken so black or white, or democrat or republican. Each case is different and should be treated that way. Obviously, we don’t have time to visit every issue, but the government should try and address the issues that affect the greatest sphere of people and creates the greatest amount of change for good. Preconceptions, or this notion that I am in this party thus I have to vote this way, is wrong and detrimental to our government. Politicians are now more interested on winning a bill or vote for their party rather than fighting for whats right for the public interest of the nation. Citizens and politicians alike need to deliberate each issue at its core to rid of this competitiveness of party. We need more moderate views in our government, because honestly, most of Americans feel suffocated that they have to vote one way or the other. This is a problem, because soon they just bow out and quit voting altogether. So, to answer your question Lucie, yes, I do believe our bipartisan government creates standstills for social movements and needs to be changed.
I think everybody on this thread makes some really strong and valid points, but of coarse, just like social movements, we probably can’t all agree on one answer to these questions. hehe
Anyhow, to address the first question, I don’t think that it’s fair to say that the increase in issues debated takes away their overall meaning. I ask the question, if there is not a movement with a particular issue then how do we expect to see the issue being changed or resolved? These issues have to be debated to make some kind of a difference-meaning that sometimes just getting an issue on the agenda can be a really big step in a positive direction. As we discussed in class today, I actually think it’s quite dangerous to only focus on a few hot button topics at a time because by focusing on one issue, those whose issues will be tabled will feel ignored and perhaps retaliate. Maybe retaliation in the form of more dramatic and visible strategies and tactics of protest, like those of the Arab Spring will become more popular here when people feel ignored and silenced by the government’s inability to respond to their issues. Wouldn’t this be even more dangerous?
This is precisely where Eliza’s point that “the government should try and address the issues that affect the greatest sphere of people and creates the greatest amount of change for good” becomes a problem. I don’t think that this country will ever collectively agree on what’s best for everyone because our political system is obsessed with the best interest of whichever political party. At one point in the reading Meyers stated that this system is exactly what Madison aimed for, but why would a government ever want to have a system which takes so0o long to effectively address issues if it’s clearly going to piss off the public?? To me, it seems like there is little hope-in order for change to happen, there would need to be a total reconstruction of the system as a whole. I’m sure there would be people that would disagree with that (reconstructing government processes) as well. I guess the next most important question to ask is what would really make activist happy?
To answer your first question Lucie I think that there will never be a time where we as a nation choose certain “hot button” topics to debate and resolve before moving on to the next issue. This is because every debate has two sides and just because one side’s opinion is not reflected in the law does not mean that they are going to give up the fight. Therefore although compromises can be made and social movements can gain progress, countermovements will always advocate for their side of the cause. Although it seems as if having so many issues on the table in our country makes for really sticky politics, realistically this is not going to change any time soon. Because we are able to debate a wide array of social and political topics all at once it becomes imperative that the most important issues are identified and handled first!
I’m interested in your question of bipartisan government creating problems for protests and social movements. As I mentioned in class on Friday, I spend fall of my junior year abroad in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Every day I would see protesters blocking off streets, banging on drums, disrupting the daily flow of life and yet, citizens were used to it and welcomed this freedom that they were given. There were many different groups representing many different organizations and political perspectives that would raise awareness and meet with political leaders to work on creating change. There are many political parties all supporting different social movements and although they have protest just like the U.S., they also do not get standstills because there are enough groups to not have one group dominating in Congress or the Argentine equivalent. After talking about it in class, I truly believe the bipartisan system is the first thing that needs to change in the U.S. political realm in order for any social change to come about.