On 4/7/2011 11:22 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Nice piece by Scott McLemee on on a paper about the demobilization of the antiwar movement, thanks to Obama. Interesting comment from one of the paper's authors on how the increased polarization of the parties aids this process - in contrast with the 60s. This contradicts the usual line about the shrinking distance between the parties.
>
> http://www.insidehighered.com/views/mclemee/mclemee_antiwar_no_more
The paper was interesting. But it implicitly assumed that the antiwar movement's decline was caused by problems internal to the antiwar constituency (e.g., the relationship with the Dems).
In fact, the data presented in the article would also support the hypothesis that the decline in demonstration turnout was caused not by Obama's election but by the collapsing saliency of the war issue, as both violence in Iraq and media coverage plummeted after 2006. Looking at data from Pew, it appears Iraq went from 14% to less than 2% of news coverage between 2007 and 2009 - that's an 85% drop. Wouldn't you *expect* a collapse in demonstration turnout under those circumstances - regardless of who was in the WH? And wouldn't you also expect that turnout composition to change - a shift toward more hardcore, less Dem elements?
SA