andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> >
> > The local protests can be earth-shaking, but not
> > unless a national
> > framework has been created for them by mass
> > mobilizations in D.C.
> > Chicago, S.F. etc.
> >
> > Carrol
> > > Liza
> >
>
> Actually this generalization has exceptions. A local
> demo organized by (among others) Yoshie and me in
> Columbus in 1998 againsy Albright apparently derailed
> Climnton's plans for a strike against Iraq. There had
> been no big national demos at the time. It was the
> shock of a big protest at Ohio State (a traditionally
> conservative venue) that did it. Demos in Ann Arbor or
> Madison or Berkeley are not as effective. jks
Yes, and there probably are other exceptions. If I remember correctly it was a demo at OSU that greeted Nixon when he went there to speak that finally broke his (war-)spirit. (It's recounted in Haldeman's memoirs.) But on the whole there's a necessary interaction between local and and centralized demos that can't be broken. One thing that always bothered me about the Seattle (and following) demos was that there was so little evidence that they were backed by much local organizing.
I don't think the in-fighting at the top (or hecklers from the sidelines such as Corn) make too much difference. More unity would allow one thing that would help locally: a nationally circulated petition or statement. That would, among other things, create the occasion for the "doorbell ringing" Nathan keeps demanding. I've done a good deal of doorbell ringing, and it's a lot easier and a lot more effective if one has something to carry in one's hand and an _action_ to propose right on the spot: and signing a petition is an action, and sometimes a big one for people who have never been politically active.
Carrol