The Effect of Raising One’s Voice
Re: my post on Bill McKibben speaking about the U.S. presidential election, frequent gainsayer MarcoPolo writes: Advocates like Mckibben may get cheers from the “converted” but many Democrats will stay away from the polls because they don’t like his rhetoric. His continual bitter rants against Donald Trump only increase Trump’s popularity with his followers, increase his stature, and focus media attention on Trump.
Two points:
• To his credit, McKibben doesn’t go out of his way to attack Trump. He apparently believes, and I think he’s right, that Trump is in the process of doing lethal damage to his candidacy with his own mouth. Without any vitriol, McKibben reports that Trump is a climate change denier and a supporter of coal. Both are completely true, but there is no need for anger; the positions generate their own anger among anyone with any intelligence and decency.
• In your comment above and in many other places you suggest that protest, generally, is destructive to its own cause. Here, you’re simply incorrect. You’re a student of history; just look at every point of our civilization’s progress in the last 800 years starting with the Magna Carta, the formation of the US (and thus the US Constitution), abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights, the diminution of child labor and inhumane working conditions, and, today, the upholding of the rights of young black men not to be executed by the police. Every single one came about because large groups of people (which began as small groups or individuals) said, “Enough.”
I’m reminded of what Henry Kissinger said not too long ago: “If it weren’t for the protest of the common American to the war in Vietnam, we’d still be there.” Powerful stuff, IMO.
It is interesting that we use the analogy of “raising” your hand, your head, your voice to signify outstanding communication.
Such a “raising” also carries with it the implication that we then become a target when we separate ourselves from the “herd.” So while it is true that a great deal of change has been brought about due to people bravely deciding to listen to what moves them, there are also likely many more instances where the herd mentality brought people back within the fold and no change takes place. “No change” is not usually the news we write in our histories.
The one who puts their head above the foxhole then is on a path to be a hero or just another casualty. It is a sense for self preservation and the herd mentality that keeps most of us in check. And so it is not at all surprising that someone would advocate “keeping your head low.”
Probably one of the interesting aspects of the internet is that it gives the ability to raise your voice but keep a low profile. Some become speakers who would otherwise not brave the effort.
It’s not objecting to Trump that is the problem. Rather, it is how it’s done. We may very well see Trump as an egotistical and dangerous blowhard, but it would not be a good idea to say so. Rather, it would be better to quote him, express disagreement, then state one’s own opinion and the reason for the disagreement. Otherwise Trump supporters may see Trump as a martyr who is being unfairly attacked.
If Mrs. Clinton and her supporters keep calm and objective and state facts while Trump viscously attacks, the contrast should be obvious and work to the disadvantage of Trump.
I remember when the former “super mayor” of St. Paul, MN, had a TV program on which he’d interview various people. He had a reputation for attacking his guests and making them look very bad. Then, a local gay activist, Steve, got on the program. However, before getting on the program, Steve prepared himself by having friends grill him in the manner of the former mayor. On the program, regardless of how he was attacked and what he was accused of, Steve remained calm, courteous, and respectful as he responded. The newspapers wrote about the result. The mayor was silenced by Steve because he was unable to get Steve upset and Steve had a ready answer for everything. The mayor looked like an ogre while Steve came across as an angel.
There are many ways to deal with attackers. When dealing with someone who is obviously an unstable egoist, it is best not to attack back but instead, let the egoist make himself look bad.
Hi Frank,
Very well said !
I totally agree, but it’s hard to blame those who find themselves unable to resist the temptation in this case. 🙂
Craig,
You are not correct when you accuse me of believing all protest is destructive to it’s own cause.
I completely support the right to dissent and peacefully protest as an essential part of any democratic process.
On the other hand to claim all protests are therefore productive and always result in fortuitous outcomes, is absurd !
While I have often stated I admired the protest movement led by Dr Martin Luther King, it must be remembered that the ugly mobs confronting his freedom riders, were also protestors !
As for your historical examples, I think you could have chosen more wisely. Magna Carta had nothing to do with commoners protesting, nor was it revolutionary. It was simply a group of elite enforcing the existing common law upon the holder of an office of State.
The Peers who assembled at Runnymede ( one of whom was an ancestor of mine) were simply codifying and enforcing existed exiting law. They were maintaining and reinforcing recognition of the ancient laws and structures recognized by King John’s father, Henry the Second as being the status quo.
The abolition of slavery (outside the US) was achieved by the persistence of William Wilberforce through parliamentary process.
It could be argued that the creation of the US had far more dubious moral motives than sanitized, and romanticized versions portray. The contrast between Canadian social history and the US tends to dispel the idea that the US revolution was a highly moral or enlightened enterprise.
The French revolution produced the reign of terror and Napoleon.
The Luddites were protestors.
The first to nations to extend the franchise to woman were New Zealand and Australia. Both managed to do so without violent protest, and the leaders of both movements opined the violence and extremism of radicals in other nations, only retarded the introduction of female franchise.
The history of the Vietnam War is too complex to discuss in a few lines. I prefer to believe your motivation in including such a highly emotive photo is to emphasis the brutality of war, not simply imply American and allied involvement was the sole reason for such scenes.
I’m not sure that widespread protests and riots involving the murder of police officers is beneficial.
Nor is the contention that white police shoot black men deliberately, accurate. More whites are shot by police than blacks. Black police are 13 times more likely to shoot suspects than white officers.
An argument exists that these demonstrations are only alienating racial groups by suggesting that black men should be exempt from apprehension by police for fear of being called racist.
Protest can be productive and counter-productive.The difference between legitimate protest and a riotous mob is one of interpretation. (and which side you’re on).
In the words of Buffalo Springfield ;
“There’s battle lines being drawn
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong,..
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side “
Well, obviously, not all protest is successful; I’m certainly not saying that. You have something of a point here, but a) I’m aware that the people who forced the Magna Carta to be signed were wealthy (does that matter?), and b) the abolition of slavery came when millions of Northerners began to realize how incredible brutal slavery was. In fact, I cite Harriet Beecher Stowe and her “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” as the defining moment in the 1850s, i.e., the prelude to the Civil War.
Craig,
I think it goes beyond ” not all protests being successful”. A large percentage of protests are undesirable, and even counter-productive.
I guess it all depends on the cause.
1) It’s not the wealth of the “people who forced the Magna Carta to be signed that matters, but the nature of the people who signed Magna Carta, is fundamental to understanding the evolution of British politics and the unique British style of democracy.
Magna Carta was not a revolutionary document and really only confirmed and restored the Anglo-Saxon style of relationship between the Sovereign and his Barons.
The Conquest by William of Normandy eroded many ancient rights. Although Henry the Second worked hard to codify and restore the old laws, his youngest son didn’t endorse or uphold Britain’s unique customs.
It’s not that the Peers were wealthy, it’s because they were considered to be the legitimate representatives and legislators of the British people.
The British were unique in the belief that the Monarch was primarily an office holder. The legitimacy of a sovereign required not just being born, (or chosen by God) but required being acclamation from the Peers “at Parliament”.
Any British Sovereign who insited “L’State et Moi ” by devine right as did The French Monarch, or the Romanov’s description of being “Owner of the Russian lands”, had better start looking for somewhere else to hang his hat!
Uniquely for that era, British Peers, although an arrogant, brutal, quarrelsome lot, did feel a sense of duty to the nation and common people. While the relationship between King and peers was a vague concept regarding limitations of power, the Peers also believed a contract limiting the powers and rights of Peers with the common people also existed.
Nothing was clearly defined, and the principles were flexible in execution to say the least, but like Magna Carta itself, it became a powerful inspiration to forge the system of Representative government existing today.
Thus the British system arose from vague concepts and compromise, requiring a continually evolving common belief system with participation by individuals, rather than an idealized formal constitution requiring obedience.
2) The British Slavery Abolition Act 1833, effectively abolished slavery, and more importantly the slave trade. The 1843 amendments removed exceptions and slave trading, transporting slaves, or being equipped for slaves, by anyone (British or not) became a capital offense.
Between 1808 and 1890 the Royal Navy and Marines seized or sank over 4800 slave ships and slave “factories” freeing as many as 430,000 slaves.
Emancipation of Slaves was not the principle cause of the US Civil War, although it was an important catalyst and eventually became the dominant justification. Lincoln made that very clear in his speeches prior to the war.
On a personal note, I’m proud to say that although my great-great grandfather made a lot of money from textiles and the financing the triangle trade of slaves and cotton, my great-grand father was an early and close supporter of William Wilberforce and the Anti-Slavery Society.
My great-uncle took part in a series of naval encounters to suppress slavery. As a Marine Officer, he took part in seizing and destroying land based slaving facilities.(My brother has his journals).
Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book was undoubtedly influential,but did you know that as early as 1789 a former Black slave Gustavus Vassa (Olaudah Equiano)published his autobiography, ‘The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano’, in London ?
By 1831 Mary Prince another former black slave, having escaped to London, published her piteous her autobiography, ‘The History of Mary Prince, A West Indian Slave’.
The book was hugely successful and was even sold in the US. (We have a first edition given to me by my grandmother).
Perhaps the difference in history between the US and Britain social evolution, could explain our different attitudes when placing more faith in parliamentary agitation, as opposed to mass protests ?
Could be. That “parliamentary agitation” is funny for me to watch. The British normally have such good manners; it’s freakish to hear then interrupting and heckling one another.
Craig,
Yes indeed, but it was always thus ! Parliamentary debates can get quite heated. What always amazes me is some members can still manage to sleep through the rowdiest debates !
I’m always amazed to see impassioned US Senators, delivering stentorian speeches to a completely empty chamber !
Yes the issue of good protests that have substance and target a defined wrong or needed social change and lets say mostly emotional based that lack internal integrity are quite different and the outcomes thru History tend to bear this out.
that French revolution was very Bloody and some of the original protesters became victims of what they started etc.
Both China and Russian revolutions were quite Bloody with many victims all around. perhaps fear of those unintended consequences is the social brake on protest evolving into full blown revolution , perhaps ?
In a healthy democracy protesting can lead to good change faster and with out violence. In a dictatorial setting it usually takes equally violent protest to overcome the restrictions of the oppressors.
Unfortunately in all upheavals like this collateral damage claims many victims but if the cause is good and the drive is there the protesters tend to eventually over come the authority and get change. I say change generally as often the protest movement can be co-pted after the smoke clears and many times the leaders get replaced by some who are more political adept and the goals of the protest are compromised to a degree as change is incremental many times.
Marco’s analogy of the US and its revolution for freedom rings true to me as I mentioned in my exposure of some of the Inconvenient Truths about the US Constitution and its flaws and inconsistencies or irony’s due to the social construct of the time period and the positions of power of the constructors of the document.
These are covered up by the other good things that are in the Constitution
Many people I know say that it probably is going to take some serious street protests and upheavals to correct many of the social / racial / economic injustices that are rising to the surface in the US . The observation is that the political system is not seriously addressing or resolving the issues and the politicians compromise everything away and paper over it until the next boiling point surfaces. The cycle is running thin, we now have Former soldiers turning their guns on the police forces or the public in random outbreaks of Rage against what they have internalized as wrong with the status quo. Where this is leading is unclear? These are not organized protests but more individual acts.
The many groups in the country want their issues resolved and they will allow the system only so much time before they take to the streets in numbers and with force ( remember the outrageously high number of firearms among st the population) and will begin to act more forcibly for changes. How the police and political system handles the protest will determine how far or how un-peaceful the protests will be.
Ideally good change comes from voting etc. but it seems that process has lost much of its Impact and the Tyranny of the Minority seems to cling to excess power .
That may be the Justification future leaders of Protest will use to get people motivated to cross the line or get out of their foxhole! we shall see.
More is coming as many social -economic- racial divides have formed under the cover of a complacent consumer population. Long slow Boil underway while the Bread and Circuses play on !
Kissinger admitted that the protests ended the war people will recall that and it will motivate them, hopefully in a good manner and not a destructive one. ??? Viva La Protest! It can shake the High hanging Fruit loose to those below sometimes.
@ Marco
In response to Craig and Billy McKibben.
All things considered I think it may be fitting to State that perhaps Mate you Doth Protest too Much!
McKibben has quite a Movement going and he is not running off to Davos getting enriched.
Furthermore if a popular election tally was taken I would bet the Farm on him having a Rout of a Victory.
to each his own perhaps!
@ Marco
Indeed the Parliamentary debates are interesting to watch and listen to in many cases. They actually say something and there is a public view result.
The Point being that at least the Brits have a real debate and discussion on things.
This is in direct contrast to the point you accurately make – our Senate often has a speaker speaking to them-self or just a few others.
The quality of policy debate is lacking now and the public poorly served.
The real policy points or trade offs are done behind closed door committee ( vested interest influenced) Smoke filled rooms displaced by cash cocktails!
Perhaps One can only accept this as American Exceptionalism in Play! LOL COL LOL
Carry On !