Everything wrong with the "Uncommitted" movement

[sringwal]

He said “All they can do is wreck things. They will either vote for Kamala, in which case what was the point?”

That implies he thinks the protests are pointless if the protestors eventually vote for Harris.

He clearly can fathom them voting for Kamala. It is literally in the text you quoted.

 

[Paine]

He clearly can fathom them voting for Kamala. It is literally in the text you quoted.

Let me rephrase: I didn’t mean he literally can’t fathom it. Rather, in his estimation, if a protestor votes for Kamala, then all of their protests were for naught.

In reality, many protestors will vote for Kamala and still have made a difference by protesting.

If we want to talk about political science, then we need to acknowledge the political science behind political protests.

It’s just also incredibly disrespectful and infuriating to equate protestors of an ongoing genocide to Ralph freaking Nader thinking he can be president. Those two aren’t the same thing.

These radical protestors who have the audacity to say “Free Palestine” and “we wont vote for genocide.”

 

[Paine]

All of this reeks of the same type of person who thinks Black Lives Matter had leaders. The Left in America has largely learned to not have highly visible leaders anymore, for obvious reasons.

There are hundreds of organizations involved in anti-genocide and pro-ceasefire protests. Some are looking for policy changes. Some are looking for rhetoric changes. No one controls all of these groups.

It’s also a mistake, and a bit racist, to think this issue is limited to Arabic voters in Michigan. The reality is, this is an important issue to a ton of under 30 voters.

 

[heelinhell]

Will the disruptions continue until November?

The disruptions will continue until the media stop making the story about them...

 

[sringwal]

Let me rephrase: I didn’t mean he literally can’t fathom it. Rather, in his estimation, if a protestor votes for Kamala, then all of their protests were for naught.

In reality, many protestors will vote for Kamala and still have made a difference by protesting.

If we want to talk about political science, then we need to acknowledge the political science behind political protests.

It’s just also incredibly disrespectful and infuriating to equate protestors of an ongoing genocide to Ralph freaking Nader thinking he can be president. Those two aren’t the same thing.

These radical protestors who have the audacity to say “Free Palestine” and “we wont vote for genocide.”

And I think he is arguing that doing it makes it more difficult for her to win because of the democrats in disarray narrative. But I do agree that this is an issue that impacts a lot of states, and also impacts how safe Muslims in small towns feel, particularly in the wake of what is going on in the UK. Taking a clear and vocal stance on that political violence would, I think, do a lot of good as a start.

 

[Paine]

And I think he is arguing that doing it makes it more difficult for her to win because of the democrats in disarray narrative. But I do agree that this is an issue that impacts a lot of states, and also impacts how safe Muslims in small towns feel, particularly in the wake of what is going on in the UK. Taking a clear and vocal stance on that political violence would, I think, do a lot of good as a start.

I think it makes it more difficult for her to win if that’s the narrative too, but that’s the media’s doing.

 

[sringwal]

Ok, fair. I can see you on that.

 

[sringwal]

But, the media that were actively barred from there have done an incredible job. The rest, not as much.

 

[hedge]

The disruptions will continue until the media stop making the story about them...

This reminded me of "the beatings will continue until morale improves"...

 

[stankeylegjones]

Please tell me how disrupting a Kamala rally is helpful to their cause.

You should have led with "I don't understand protests, but, please tell me how...."

 

[stankeylegjones]

They don't have leverage, period. In political science, I believe the term is "pariah group." It's like socialists. Politicians can't be seen endorsing socialism to gain socialist votes, because they will lose far more votes in the middle (the problem with the Bernie Sanders campaigns and generally the problem with embracing that label if you want to be president).

All they can do is wreck things. They will either vote for Kamala, in which case what was the point? Or they won't vote for Kamala, which means nobody will ever care about them again (if Kamala wins despite their lack of support, they will have demonstrated their impotence; if she loses, they will be rightly despised by Dems everywhere). Or they can make a lot of noise, make swing voters identify Kamala with radical protests that people generally hate, and then what?

What they won't get is Kamala changing her position at all -- not publicly at least. Especially now. It will look like she is kowtowing to the radical left. Giving them anything would be validating Trump's incoherent and ridiculous rants about "RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS."

It is so frustrating because we've seen this play out before. How much leverage did the Green Party and Ralph Nader get after 2000? None. None more leverage. In fact, the Naderites just faded away and Nader's '04 campaign was ignored and inconsequential. How much leverage did the Green Party get after 2016? None. How much leverage did the antiwar protesters get after 1968? Well, I suppose you could say, "some" given McGovern's nomination in 72. So instead of wrecking one election they wrecked several.

You also should have led with "I don't understand protests...."

 

[superrific]

You also should have led with "I don't understand protests...."

Really? I organized many protests back in my college days. I worked on politics at all levels -- local, state and national. I think I understand the idea.

 

[superrific]

All due respect, your politics are rooted in a different age than the one we’re currently in, and I don’t think your examples are apt comparisons.

Your post tells me you simply misunderstand the protestors’ goals. Many of them will vote for Kamala, which apparently you can’t fathom. How could they protest her and vote for her?

If the anti-genocide movement is silent, there is NO ONE in this country who will speak out for the Palestinians. I know that you know that Democrats would love to avoid the topic altogether.

1. My politics is rooted in the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s. I do not think so much has changed. I certainly haven't seen anything in today's politics that is unfamiliar to me. Trump and social media have changed things to some extent, but it's lazy to say, "you're old, you don't get it."

2. I was commenting on the specific interview I posted, and in particular the last paragraph of that interview when the organizer of the uncommitted movement expressly stated her motivations. And she said very clearly that she won't encourage people to vote for Kamala unless there's a change of position.

3. There are plenty of people who will speak out for the Palestinians. In fact, many have. On the ZZLP, there were arguments raging. Dozens of posters were made plenty aware of what was happening.

There were protests all through the streets of many cities last year. Peaceful protests, tinged with some anti-Jewish harassment, but overall enough to raise everyone's awareness.

4. These protesters are the ones who don't get it. Israel handed them the public relations victory on a platter. The entire world was sympathetic to the victims in Gaza. And then these lunatic radicals started burning American flags, shouting Hamas slogans, whatever. Maybe Iran is paying them, who knows.

The goal of any protest movement is, first and foremost, to connect with people. You have to make it seem like your cause is their cause. Look at how the civil rights movement did it. They knew it wouldn't be easy to recruit white people to protest on behalf of black people. So instead, they framed the movement as an integral part of the American dream. They were asking white people to protest on behalf of America, on behalf of our ideals of freedom and equality.

There weren't nearly as many gay rights protests, especially in the 1980s -- in part because they didn't need protests per se. They just started coming out of the closet, and encouraging other gay people to come out, and then everyone could see that gay people were their friends, family and neighbors. So the movement for gay rights sold its underlying proposition as don't hate your neighbors just because who they love and also a bit of the protest on behalf of America.

Protest movements need to get the public to identify with their cause.

The Palestinian protest movement has done exactly the opposite. It has repelled people. It has made people think, "gee, I guess my options are support Israel or support Hamas" and anyone with a brain knows how Americans are going to come out on that. And to make it worse, the protesters are acting like terrorists. "Uncommitted" is the political equivalent of suicide bombing.

 

[Paine]

1. My politics is rooted in the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s. I do not think so much has changed. I certainly haven't seen anything in today's politics that is unfamiliar to me. Trump and social media have changed things to some extent, but it's lazy to say, "you're old, you don't get it."

2. I was commenting on the specific interview I posted, and in particular the last paragraph of that interview when the organizer of the uncommitted movement expressly stated her motivations. And she said very clearly that she won't encourage people to vote for Kamala unless there's a change of position.

3. There are plenty of people who will speak out for the Palestinians. In fact, many have. On the ZZLP, there were arguments raging. Dozens of posters were made plenty aware of what was happening.

There were protests all through the streets of many cities last year. Peaceful protests, tinged with some anti-Jewish harassment, but overall enough to raise everyone's awareness.

4. These protesters are the ones who don't get it. Israel handed them the public relations victory on a platter. The entire world was sympathetic to the victims in Gaza. And then these lunatic radicals started burning American flags, shouting Hamas slogans, whatever. Maybe Iran is paying them, who knows.

The goal of any protest movement is, first and foremost, to connect with people. You have to make it seem like your cause is their cause. Look at how the civil rights movement did it. They knew it wouldn't be easy to recruit white people to protest on behalf of black people. So instead, they framed the movement as an integral part of the American dream. They were asking white people to protest on behalf of America, on behalf of our ideals of freedom and equality.

There weren't nearly as many gay rights protests, especially in the 1980s -- in part because they didn't need protests per se. They just started coming out of the closet, and encouraging other gay people to come out, and then everyone could see that gay people were their friends, family and neighbors. So the movement for gay rights sold its underlying proposition as don't hate your neighbors just because who they love and also a bit of the protest on behalf of America.

Protest movements need to get the public to identify with their cause.

The Palestinian protest movement has done exactly the opposite. It has repelled people. It has made people think, "gee, I guess my options are support Israel or support Hamas" and anyone with a brain knows how Americans are going to come out on that. And to make it worse, the protesters are acting like terrorists. "Uncommitted" is the political equivalent of suicide bombing.

The things you’re saying about the “Palestinian protest movement” repelling people is the same argument that people made against the movements you cite.

There were plenty of white people who didn’t support civil rights because they thought some protestors were radical.

You also seem to be unaware of the full history of the movements you cite, considering you only talk about certain groups within those movements. Again, they aren’t monoliths.

What is your recommended method for anti-genocide protestors to get the public on their side?

 

[superrific]

The things you’re saying about the “Palestinian protest movement” repelling people is the same argument that people made against the movements you cite.

There were plenty of white people who didn’t support civil rights because they thought some protestors were radical.

You also seem to be unaware of the full history of the movements you cite, considering you only talk about certain groups within those movements. Again, they aren’t monoliths.

What is your recommended method for anti-genocide protestors to get the public on their side?

I'm aware of the white people who thought the movement was too radical. That was always going to be the case. It would have failed had it not managed to appeal to a lot more white people than the ones who were being addressed in Letter from Birmingham.

Protesting against Israel should be a lot easier. It's not asking anyone to give up advantages they enjoyed. It's not asking anyone to purge the hatreds or prejudices on which they were raised. It supports a cause that should be the easiest thing in the world -- stop killing innocent people and making them starve. And the protest movement has completely failed at that. The momentum is back in the Israelis court and the Palestinian cause is quickly becoming radicalized and less popular.

I'm not an expert on national protest movements, but the approach I would take would be something like, "we're better than this. Israel is better than this. Never in our history have we willingly backed a country willing to starve innocent civilians and we shouldn't start now." That last bit isn't exactly true, because Cold War policy backed a lot of bad dudes. But who cares? What are the Israelis going to do? Draw a comparison between them and support for the government that invaded East Timor?

That would be my approach. Militancy is stupid in this position.

 

[sringwal]

1. My politics is rooted in the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s. I do not think so much has changed. I certainly haven't seen anything in today's politics that is unfamiliar to me. Trump and social media have changed things to some extent, but it's lazy to say, "you're old, you don't get it."

2. I was commenting on the specific interview I posted, and in particular the last paragraph of that interview when the organizer of the uncommitted movement expressly stated her motivations. And she said very clearly that she won't encourage people to vote for Kamala unless there's a change of position.

3. There are plenty of people who will speak out for the Palestinians. In fact, many have. On the ZZLP, there were arguments raging. Dozens of posters were made plenty aware of what was happening.

There were protests all through the streets of many cities last year. Peaceful protests, tinged with some anti-Jewish harassment, but overall enough to raise everyone's awareness.

4. These protesters are the ones who don't get it. Israel handed them the public relations victory on a platter. The entire world was sympathetic to the victims in Gaza. And then these lunatic radicals started burning American flags, shouting Hamas slogans, whatever. Maybe Iran is paying them, who knows.

The goal of any protest movement is, first and foremost, to connect with people. You have to make it seem like your cause is their cause. Look at how the civil rights movement did it. They knew it wouldn't be easy to recruit white people to protest on behalf of black people. So instead, they framed the movement as an integral part of the American dream. They were asking white people to protest on behalf of America, on behalf of our ideals of freedom and equality.

There weren't nearly as many gay rights protests, especially in the 1980s -- in part because they didn't need protests per se. They just started coming out of the closet, and encouraging other gay people to come out, and then everyone could see that gay people were their friends, family and neighbors. So the movement for gay rights sold its underlying proposition as don't hate your neighbors just because who they love and also a bit of the protest on behalf of America.

Protest movements need to get the public to identify with their cause.

The Palestinian protest movement has done exactly the opposite. It has repelled people. It has made people think, "gee, I guess my options are support Israel or support Hamas" and anyone with a brain knows how Americans are going to come out on that. And to make it worse, the protesters are acting like terrorists. "Uncommitted" is the political equivalent of suicide bombing.

As much as you framed that as “this isn’t about me being old and resistant to change,” it definitely is coming off that way.

 

[sringwal]

The Civil Rights Movement needed both Malcolm AND Martin in order to succeed. At the same time, one of the primary issues with contemporary protests is that they lack an iconic figurehead.

 

[Paine]

I'm aware of the white people who thought the movement was too radical. That was always going to be the case. It would have failed had it not managed to appeal to a lot more white people than the ones who were being addressed in Letter from Birmingham.

Protesting against Israel should be a lot easier. It's not asking anyone to give up advantages they enjoyed. It's not asking anyone to purge the hatreds or prejudices on which they were raised. It supports a cause that should be the easiest thing in the world -- stop killing innocent people and making them starve. And the protest movement has completely failed at that. The momentum is back in the Israelis court and the Palestinian cause is quickly becoming radicalized and less popular.

I'm not an expert on national protest movements, but the approach I would take would be something like, "we're better than this. Israel is better than this. Never in our history have we willingly backed a country willing to starve innocent civilians and we shouldn't start now." That last bit isn't exactly true, because Cold War policy backed a lot of bad dudes. But who cares? What are the Israelis going to do? Draw a comparison between them and support for the government that invaded East Timor?

That would be my approach. Militancy is stupid in this position.

I think it’s impossible to make a historical determination about the Civil Rights Movement, the Abolition Movement, etc. would have played out without their moderate and radical elements all combined.

Not to mention the fact that the movement for racial justice is far from over, and the more recent protests have taken on forms that you would probably denounce.

History is a weird thing. John Brown’s radicalism did lead to the freeing of the slaves in America. There’s a lot of factors that go into these things.

Are there elements of the pro-Palestine protests that have been radical? Sure, I guess. There are also elements that aren’t and are calling for exactly what you say. Yet you lump them all together. That plays into the right wing framing that Republicans and Netanyahu want.

Though, your example of a radical here seems to be someone who wants their government to stop sending weapons to a genocidal right-wing government. She should rightfully feel conflicted about telling someone to vote for that. That’s not radical. It’s definitely not “militant.”

How is this individual going to stop a rando from burning an American flag? And why should she be forced to condemn someone who does as if she’s somehow responsible for that?

Your proposal would ring incredibly hollow considering the fact that we currently support governments other than Israel who starve children.

 

[Paine]

The Civil Rights Movement needed both Malcolm AND Martin in order to succeed. At the same time, one of the primary issues with contemporary protests is that they lack an iconic figurehead.

Like I said earlier, the left has deliberately moved away from these iconic figureheads. The two you mentioned were famously assassinated.

 

[stankeylegjones]

Really? I organized many protests back in my college days. I worked on politics at all levels -- local, state and national. I think I understand the idea.

You’re not coming across as someone who understands the ideas behind protests, and the tactics used and why.