Here is an article concisely describing the weaknesses of protesting for the sake of protesting. (I discussed earlier the consequences of the lack of ideology, in particular, the dismal results of the huge "Tent city" protests in Tel Aviv.)
The numerous past protests in the American history, while making a lot of noise, were rarely supported by the "silent majority" of the population:
"Over the years, Democrats have suffered from many stereotypes — big-city bosses, prairie populists, New Deal eggheads, Great Society planners. But the most destructive Democratic image has been the theatrical, radical protester of the late 1960s. Many journalists remember the Yippies, the Battle of Michigan Avenue, the Students for a Democratic Society and the Chicago Seven with nostalgia.
Most Americans, however, viewed this social movement with alarm. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan became two of the most successful politicians of their time by siding with authority and propriety against disorder and radicalism. It was one of the main reasons blue-collar Democrats became susceptible to Republican appeals. When a student protester confronted Reagan’s car and shouted, “We are the future,” the then-governor of California wrote out in response: “I’ll sell my bonds.” The silent majority cheered."
The article also makes a nice point that, however "cool" the protests may seem to the young people, actively participating in improving life in the country involves mostly things other than protesting:
"The reaction to Occupy Wall Street reveals a gap of perceptions in America. Many liberal politicians, along with many in the media, see tent cities and clashes with the police as evidence of idealism. Many others, however, define idealism as something different from squatting in a park — as voting, walking precincts, volunteering in the community, supporting good causes and persuading their neighbors. These citizens may even share the discontents of Occupy Wall Street while rejecting its methods and culture."
No comments:
Post a Comment