Brad Mayer wrote:
>
> This exchange and a bit of research convinced me to plan on attending
> the MWM, despite being "pessimistic on America" and despite its not well
> thought out name. It will be interesting to see who is willing to swim
> against a powerful reactionary current at full tide, as it always is at
> Election time, thanks to the decades of work put in by the N.N.s of the
> world. Speaking of which, anything N.N. disses has got to be good.
> [CLIP]
> [CLIP] The impact
> >of having a large, multiracial, class-centered march in DC could be
> >enormous. [CLIP]
> >Doug
I didn't focus on this impact statement the first time around.
Impact on _whom_? On _What_? To what _end_?
The thrust of the march is to measure commitment to non-electoral politics (i.e., real politics). Hence the important impact the march can have is (a) on the marchers themselves and (b) on those they talk to when they return home.
I know of only one march in the last 50 years that had an immediate impact on public policy, the Moratorium of November '69, which according to Justin may have saved the world.
Otherwise, mass mobilizations have only a cumulative effect over time, never exactly measurable, and that cumulative effect is grounded mostly in the effect the demo has on the demonstrators on their return to their localities. According to one of the Nixon-aide memoirs, the demo that finally broke Nixon's nerve on Vietnam was a fairly small one in Colombus, Ohio, gotten together hastily because Nixon's coming was kept hidden until the last moment. But a demo like that (as well as the November Moratorium) reflects a number of years of plodding work.
The March on Washington at which King spoke was important mostly because of what it kicked off back home throughout the southern states.
If the MWM gets enough marchers so the marchers themselves are not dispirited, it will be a success. If the marchers go home enthused, it will be a howling success, regardless of what number-crazed kibbitzers might think.
Carrol