I disagree; that's not the point of mass demos. They're for the people in the movement, not the general population. "Regular" people who do not already support the movement will see the demo and complain about the "fucking hippies" and "surrender monkeys".
And even if the demos somehow did change "regular" people's minds--so what? A significant majority of the population is already opposed to the war, and as far as I can see, the war machine rolls on. Again, changing individual attitudes is not an effective strategy for political action.
> If I remember correctly, just two weeks ago, you were arguing
> forcefully that, instead of struggling for political power at the
> national level (say, to change laws and policies, or at least to
> influence them in some manner), we were to devote ourselves to working
> on open source software and child care coops. Now you argue that
> people only change their minds after changes in legislation are in
> place. If you're right on both counts, then we're stuck. Our social
> consciousness has no way to advance. Because working on open source
> software and child coops, unlike -- say -- electoral politics, is not
> likely to lead to changes in the law and government policies of the
> country.
>
> I would be curious to know how you reconcile your views.
Check the archive. We were discussing the presidential election, not political action to change laws and policies. In fact, my concerns about Obama center on how he might, like Clinton, sign bills that screw the poor if the legislation is politically expedient. So I have no problem with political activism to change or uphold laws. Also, I'm not arguing that "people only change their minds after changes in legislation". I'm speaking more broadly about how attitudes tend to follow changes in social conditions (e.g., transformations in the economy, religion, education, mass media, family structure).
Miles