Do your protests actually matter?

[originalpckelly]

Poll question: Do your protests actually matter?

Are they actually heard by the people in power and do protests change their minds?

[datasuspect]

1. eminent domain comes to mind

for some reason

[midnight]

2. I'm going to say yes. That is why protesters have been

spied on. So keep up the good work!!!1

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Not lately. But, in '68 they did.

And, now that I think about it, they did when I was working on a number of occasions.

[Lyric]

4. I wrote a paper addressing a similar topic to this last semester.

It was about the evolution of war protest sign rhetoric between the Vietnam War era and now, and how the changing tone of our protest rhetoric is related to the public feeling of political efficacy (or the lack thereof.) It won an award and got published in a textbook--hopefully others will read it and consider it too.

If anybody wants to read it, PM me and I'll send you a copy via e-mail. :hi:

[gateley]

5. Sometimes.

I think little clumps of people pleading their case do nothing (unfortunately, often invite ridicule or dismissal from the press).

Even LARGE protests -- like the anti-Iraq rally in DC did nothing. The thousands and thousands of e-mails regarding FISA - nope.

But I've heard that in France, if they're pissed, EVERYBODY takes to the streets and generally shuts down everything, and the government has to respond, and fast.

It makes me wonder if we were to protest on such a massive scale, if we could actually get our voices heard. They say France's government is afraid of the people. Our government doesn't even know we exist.

[Toucano]

6. Anyone who thinks a protest on a Saturday afternoon in the "free speech zone"

is going to make any difference is being naive.

That's a parade, not a protest.

An effective protest has to create some inconvenience (at least) on the part of the people in power, or it does nothing.

It seems contemporary Americans have very little interest in civil disobedience or direct action protests.

[noamnety]

7. Exactly - and the research supports your statement.

The last research I read on this was based on a large study of protests and outcomes.

What they discovered was:

Peaceful protests resulted in legislation/votes that favored pro-war outcomes.
More violent/disruptive protests resulted in legislation that favored pro-peace outcomes.

If the lawmakers aren't threatened in some way (and that shouldn't be interpreted as a physical threat to their lives, but rather a threat to their reelection due to unrest and upheaval during their term), they can toss some rhetoric toward the protesters and give a pretense of supporting their causes, while still voting against the interests of their communities and the population at large. They don't vote for the interests of the common person until their own political/financial interests are also threatened.