In Chapter 9, entitled “The Policy Connection,” Meyer describes the reciprocal relationship of policy and protest. He showed how activists respond to government policy in many situations, and inversely how policy addresses the disruption that mobilization causes in others.The two examples he used to demonstrate both sides of the democratic connection between policy and protest were the Bonus Bill movement and the antiwar movement against Vietnam.
The Bonus March movement involved a series of marches and demonstrations from veterans who had been displaced from World War I. They were desperate for work and the government had only promised a measly $1,000 service bonus to each of them. The Veterans were fighting to pass a bill called the Bonus Bill which would offer them much more money and support. When the veterans’ encampment and marches failed to convince government to pass the bill, the marchers extended their cause to a wider audience to include many more people who were in need. When relief for more people became the focus, and the movement grew larger and unavoidable, Roosevelt eventually passed the bill in response to their grievances. This is a fine example of policy responding to protest. In the other example, the antiwar movement in the 1960s, the movement was a direct response to policy that was passed. There had already been growing hatred for Nixon’s use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam, but after he passed a policy which extended the draft to eighteen-year-olds, a new movement erupted. This example shows the other side of the relationship in which a group was given a reason to join other groups who already opposed the war; it was protest in response to policy.
In this chapter, Meyer asserted that changes in policy are usually incremental by way of marginal adjustments. So, although he has given instances in which policy has changed due to protest, the outcome is certainly not always in the favor of the activists. Not only is policy change too slow to be satisfactory to the urgent concerns of activists, but it often does not change enough to accomplish the end goals of the movement. He had an interesting quote saying, “There is a mismatch between political rhetoric that emphasizes absolutes and a political process that prizes compromise and incrementalism” (Meyer 177). Our governmental system will never meet all the expectations and address all the grievances of a movement, so people will always experience some sort of disappointment. This reminded me of Barbara Ransby at her lecture about MLK Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement. She said that if Ella Baker and MLK Jr. were here today, they would be pleased with progress, but they would not feel like their goals had been reached. There is always more work to be done.
“At what point can movements claim victory? Is there ever at point at which they can say that they have won, even when there is always more work to be done? Even if policy does not change in response to a movement, can the visibility of new issues be enough to satisfy the constituents?”
I truly believe that an activist’s job is never done. They may reach a standard goal, but there will always be another goal they can work towards. For example, even if gay marriage were nationally legalized (which I hope it will be sooner than later) there would still be the issue of working towards the acceptance of homosexuals in the community.
I found it interesting how Meyer talks about how movements can change policy. In Theories and Models of Leadership which I am taking right now we learned about a term “latitude of acceptance”. Basically it means that if another person’s ideals are similar to yours, you will alter your ideal to match theirs. If a person’s ideals are different from yours, you will further skew your ideals away from theirs. The example Meyer used about nuclear weapons and lowering the drafting age would be an example of two groups being within one another’s latitude of acceptance. This can result in powerful and successful movements as history has already shown. For example women’s rights and African American’s rights joining together to fight against a common evil, racism.
I think the question of whether or not activists ever win and finish the job is a really important one. I would say that cases such as the Bonus Marchers are rare- it is not common for protesters to be fully satisfied with social or governmental changes because so much compromise (within the group and between allies in institutions) has to take place in order for progress to be made. When I read this I thought of all the work my family has done for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation since I was diagnosed at 12. Best case scenario if scientists find a cure for diabetes in my lifetime there will still be plenty of work to be done in making sure that everyone with diabetes has access to the cure!
Great post. Did a great job of summarizing the chapter because chapter nine was difficult to read.
When can a movement claim victory?
In my opinion, a social movement will be able to claim that they are victorious, or at least that they are taking steps towards a victory, but that does not mean the movement will stop. My opinion is similar to Molly’s and other students in class because we discussed this on Wednesday. When i think of a social movement i think of a war. There are two sides going up against each other and one side might win one battle towards one issue, but the other side could win a different battle on another issue. Even if one side ends up winning the war that side can claim victory, but does that does not mean the movement will stop because another similar issue will arise that people will want to fight for or against. I feel like there is always more progress and work that can be done, even when a movement becomes satisfied.
Good post, Joell. I like the contrast between the Bonus Marchers and the movement against the draft that you pictured for us. I hadn’t really thought about that in the book. It kinda made me wonder, are there other movements that actually hurt their ultimate goal by trying to attain it? Or had to sacrifice some part of what they wanted for something more advantageous to their goal? And really, to some extent I feel every group must sacrifice something. The tree-sitters sacrificed (whether unintendedly or not) the life of the guy who was in the tree when they cut it down. And everyone in a movement sacrifices their time to go protest (unless they simply click the “like” button for the movement on Facebook). I almost wonder if there is a correlation between sacrifice and success. Or is it all just a fancy way of saying “compromise”?
Josiah,
Your post is really thought-provoking. I think the question asking if movements actually hurt their goals by trying to attain it is a good one, but it’s a bit tricky because this makes the assumption that compromise is a bad thing. I think Meyers believes that there will always be some kind of sacrifice for something more advantageous when he states that “protest can affect policy, and sometimes it does-even if protesters rarely get all they want when they ask for it” (164). Meyers would probably agree that simply clicking the “like” button is not enough, but you actually have to physically take part in the protest for there to be some kind of effective change, which is precisely the sacrifice of time, which can be the greatest challenge for social movements to gain members who are willing to do so.
This makes me think again of the question of “What must the social movement offer for its activist to sacrifice the things that are important to their daily survival?” For example, some people are sacrificing their careers, time with family, etc to be part of the movement. What benefits can we identify here? Are there any? Or are people merely doing it out of good will?
-Brittney Quinones