Are Marches Pep-Rallies? (was Antiwar Protest Largest Since '60s)

[Gordon Fitch]

Nathan Newman:
> ... 
> Tip O'Neill, who was one of the first major Democratic leaders to turn
> against the war by early 1968.  He said the local peace protesters were not
> what turned him against the war, but letters and meetings with working class
> families who denounced a war killing their children.
> 
> Look, I'm not anti-demonstrations per se, but narrow fringe rallies do
> little good.  And marches in general are very overrated.  They are mostly
> pep rallies -- which are useful if they lead to follow up organizing.
> 
> So let me backtrack-- I think the early antiwar movement did some very good
> work in public education, in town meetings, in organizing people to write
> their Congresspeople denouncing the war.  But after 1968, much of the
> antiwar movement became obsessed with big rallies and public actions, rather
> than the grubby door-to-door organizing.  And that is the failure that we
> should not emulate today.

The Tet offensive changed the anti-war situation profoundly.
Before Tet, overt opposition to the war was marginal, the
province of radicals, religious fanatics, hippies, and other
elements not taken very seriously by the ruling class or the
public.  After Tet, major politicos began to slither over to
the anti-war side.  Also, different people came to be more
prominent as anti-war leaders.  In 1965, opposition to the
war was coming from groups like Women Strikle For Peace, the
Society of Friends (Quakers), and small campus-based groups,
who emphasized discussion and education.  After Tet, new
organizations appeared, led by people like David Horowitz and
Jerry Rubin, who had much different methods, one of which
was to put a lot of people in the streets and thus affect
the mainstream debate on the war which had now begun.  I
think many of the new leaders may also have had delusions
of being part of a new, revolutionary leadership which was
going to take power somehow.  One becomes like one's enemy.
However, what else were they going to do?  The pre-Tet
organizing was geared to people who think and question the
order of things; most people just go along with what's
happening.  If the primary goal was to stop the War in
Vietnam as soon as possible, the methods of the post-Tet
organizers would seem to make the most sense.  Maybe they
weren't very effective, but what would have been?  In the
short run, handing out leaflets and running teach-ins
explaining why the war was bad didn't affect policy at
all -- one doubts that outside of the FBI, the government
was even aware of it.

-- Gordon