a) No. b) No. c) No.
Just because the state suspends the Constitution, it doesn't mean that we should respond in kind. You seem to be arguing an ethical case. I think the issue is simpler: if the cops violate everybody's rights, and we violate no-one's except by non-violent means, we come out looking good, and they come out looking bad. And in this case, it really is better to look good than to feel good. Your point that no amount of pacificity will forestall a negative press impression has *some* validity, but I don't think it's an either/or situation. As things stand, press accounts have not been all that bad, once you get past the 'violence breaks out' headlines. Less window breaking would have been better, though as I said yesterday, some was inevitable. To me non-violence is a tactic, not a religion. In other circumstances the tactics could be different. In this case, the right tactic was to immobilize the district, prevent the conference from taking place, and force the authorities to suspend civil liberties -- with the least apparent justification possible. I don't mean to seem like I'm crying in my beer. Overall I think the action has been very successful -- but less because of the anarchists than in spite of them.
>>
and in any event, those who counsel good behaviour would not now be in a
position of having the presidential welcome mat out for them if it were not
for the spectre (and indeed presence) of a more implacable movement. i
>>>>>>>>
MBS: I totally disagree. The rowdies have had zero positive effect on the situation. You have to realize that this Democratic Administration is *compelled* to placate labor. There's an election next year, and the Dems are absolute dead meat without the enthusiastic support of the AFL-CIO. No question about it. The wonder is in how little the latter have insisted upon in return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
can understand the temptation to denounce sections of the movement in order
to get an invitation to the table, to say 'we're not like those hooligans,
>>>>>>>>>>>
mbs: I've made clear, but evidently not clear enough, that presently in my view this table is not worth sitting at. Denouncing "sections of the movement" is not at issue. There is no such section worth denunciation. A question is whether unhelpful actions could have been limited by the movement.
>>>>>>>>>>
talk to us', but such a tactic is still beholden to the militancy of
others. just for once, isn't it possible to leave the rhetoric of making
distinctions between 'good' and 'bad' protestors to clinton et al?
the agent provocateurs were in uniform firing rubber bullets and tear gas,
and sometimes in camouflage beating up on people they'd designated as
targets. is this violence? is graffiti and burning rubbish in dumpsters
violence? let's not lose any sense of proportion and perspective, folks.
Angela
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
mbs:
I went to a talk this evening by Mike Kazin and Maurice
Isserman. They have a new book on the 1960's. MI made
the point that the Weathermen announced they were going
to Chicago to fight cops in the streets. And they
did; it was called the 'Days of Rage.' All of this
had a major negative effect on politics, IMO, but it
compares favorably with the Seattle shenanigans.
By contrast, those goofs in Seattle by their actions
put others in the line of fire. People who hadn't volunteered
or been warned. Mommies with Poopsie in strollers.
I think that's pretty low. If somebody wants to rumble
with the police for the Rev, let them choose a time and
place that is removed from unwitting bystanders. That
would be impressive, if politically dubious. Those
Seattle anarchists (the scuttlebutt is they're from
Portland) are chicken-shits. Throwing a rock and
running away doesn't require much. Holding your
ground in the face of an imminent baton charge by
armored police is another matter.
mbs