Liza Featherstone wrote:
>
> [clip] They attract people who would be
> afraid to get arrested or would find illegal protest too confrontational.
> They enable activists from around the country to network with each other.
> They show individual dissenters that they are not alone, and often encourage
> them to continue organizing and protesting locally. They mobilize people who
> are not usually activists, by showing them that there is a movement to tap
> into and convincing them of the urgency of dissent. Lots of local groups
> begin because people needed to organize busses to go to DC, or returned from
> DC wanting to do something. They start conversations and arguments about the
> war among members of the public. Doug made reference to this already, and
> I'm sure some will call this unscientific and anecdotal, but this weekend
> was my sister's wedding, and at least three of the guests, not normally
> activists, have been organizing rallies against the war in their hometowns
> and churches, and literally spending time every single DAY writing to their
> elected officials -- all 3 were galvanized by the national protests.
> Finally, large rallies also get a lot of people in one place who can
> organize civil disobedience, picket Dick Cheney's house and generally do
> stuff that goes beyond the "boring picnic in the park without food" model.
>
This is exactly what I have been saying for years: political organizing works by appealing to those who already agree but aren't prepared to take initiative. And every time I've made the point, I've been told by Doug that all I want to do is sit in a corner and speak to the political purists, or something like that.
I've also said that "the left" can't by itself _create_ the occasions for such activity, and Doug mocked that as well.
And on the subject of "scenarios," could _anyone_ five years ago (or for that matter a year ago) work out a scenario for what is happening now?
Carrol
Carrol