I think, as Carrol has repeatedly argued, the point isn't that protests will change policy. Rather, the shorter term goal is twofol:
1. To keep up active protests so people have organizations to which they turn (and join) when they, too, decide they've had enough.
2. To build a social movement and, more importantly, build a party around anti-war organizing.
I'd add that it's imperative to do so because our audience is also the world. The radical left also has to keep in mind that many on the more mainstream left want to see an end to the war.
My objection to Chuck was that he expected people like Dean, Obama, and Michael Moore to call for protests _because of_ the election. Dean and Obama.... hardly. Moore would be more likely to do so, but he strikes me as someone with an interest in promoting different ways of protesting and influencing government policy when he comes to _the election_.
kelley
At 05:31 PM 1/15/2005, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>So, you and Doug, perhaps alone among all leftists of any stripe in the
>world, sat out all protests against the doings of the George W. Bush
>administration for Bush's first term, because Bush won't listen anyhow,
>and waited for a Democrat's victory, and now that the wretched Kerry lost,
>you two will again sit out all protests against the Bush Team's policy in
>his second term, because protesting won't change the policy, and wait
>until 2008 when you can vote for a Democrat whom you want to protest?
>
>That still doesn't make sense.
>--
>Yoshie
>
>* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
>* "Proud of Britain": <http://www.proudofbritain.net/ > and
><http://www.proud-of-britain.org.uk/>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
"We live under the Confederacy. We're a podunk bunch of swaggering pious hicks."
--Bruce Sterling